N172 question

[Archive]

Posted By: slacks

I am a small time collector of T206 cards who occasionally lurks on this board and has learned a lot from all of you - so first of all, thanks.

A couple years ago I bought an N172 card on eBay just to have one 19th century card. I seem to remember that it cost $80 or so. I also remember that it was advertised as "rebacked."

Here are my questions: is the rebacking of these cards akin to trimming, meaning is it a devious attempt to extract a higher price when sold? Should I be wary about selling it, even if I disclose it is rebacked? I don't want even a hint of a reputation of selling altered cards. Lastly, I can take care of myself on eBay when it comes to T-206 cards, but I'm clueless about the N172s. Do any of you know a trusted source where I could get a common N172 in VG with the original back?

Lastly (and I hope I'm not pushing my luck), what value guide do you use? I rely upon the “Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards” put out by SCD, but don't know if there is a better one for vintage cards. Isn't the Sports Market Report owned by the company that owns PSA?

Thanks in advance. I'm going to try to post a F/Rscan of the card now...

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

I think everyone has his/her own opinion on this one. Rebacking a card could be done to deceive but more likely than not it was done to preserve the card. Many Old Judge were pasted in scrapbooks during their period of issue. To keep the book from getting too thick the photo was removed from the cardboard backing(skinning) before it was glued onto the page. Years later when the skinned cards were removed from the albums they were very fragile. To preserve these photos from damage they were remounted on cardboard backings, either using the cardboard from much less valuable Old Judge actress cards or using other cardboard. These cards are certainly worth less than virgin cards but still comand value. A VG/EX common Old Judge card ,with a nice photo, that has been rebacked typically sells for about $100-$150. This is about half the price of a similar card with an original back.
Trimming a card is almost always done to deceive. The intent there is to raise the grade of the card similar to the trimming of any other issue. In my opinion such cards are much less desireable than the rebacked cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

In all seriousness, if the card is rebacked, I would write 'rebacked' in neat ballpoint pen on the back. I'm not saying you should or have to do this, but that's what I would do if the card was mine.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

With all types of photoraphs, I've never been offended by vitnage relevant and important information stamped or hanwritten on the back of the photographs-- so long as it isn't overly messy and doesn't effect the front. In fact, if a photo has no mention of the photographer, I have added it myself (blasphemy!).... It's a 'baseball card thing' that the backs of cabinet cards and CDVs are supposed to be as clean as a whistle or there's something wrong with them.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

I quickly add that I have written the name of the photographyer when I knew who it was, as opposed to making up a name.

[Archive]

Posted By: slacks

Thanks for the information.

I don't know that i would have the stomach to write on a 100+ year-old baseball card, even if it is rebacked. I can't predict that every of future owner of the card wants that written on it and what it would mean for the value.

Any idea of a grade from the scans?

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

I understand your choice. However, you wouldn't be writing on a 100+ year old photograph, but a five year old (or so) piece of cardboard.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

As far as grade goes, any rebacked item technically grades Poor (though often presents much better). Rebacked means that more than half of the card is missing.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

As the old hobby saying goes, it's worth to you what it sells for. While a rebacked card won't sell near the same as a normal card, your card is nice looking and I think it would be a nice item to own. I'd be happy to own such an item and, if I did, I'd writed 'rebacked' on the back.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

As a photo historian and collector, I would love it people would tastefully affix all the relevant info and history: "This original photo is from 1920. It was rematted in 1945 by my aunt. In 1980, the photo was repaired and put into a modern frame." To me, this info, even if written directly on the back of the frame is a good thing, not bad (And damn interesting!).

Personally, I think it's bordering on unethical to remount a cabinet card photograph or Civil War CDV and not clearly indicate that the mount is not original. That's just my opinion, though.