Questions about things that have been bugging me

[zljones]

There are a few things I have seen written or talked in publications, auction descriptions etc... regarding 19th century cards that are kinda pissing me off and also confusing me. One is about N28 and the other is about Peck & Snyder.

In regards to N28, why do I keep seeing people and places date it as on 1888 issue? Weren't those published in 1887, making them a 1887 issue? I thought N29 was the 1888 issue not N28.

Usually I see the Peck and Snyder issue when I read news articles or magazines about it. I see man saying that Peck and Snyder was the first baseball card made in 1869 of the Red stockings. My problem with this is that I thought there was an 1868 Atlantic Nine card made by Peck and Snyder, wouldn't that make that one the first baseball card. Yet I see all these publications claiming the Red Stockings was first, but if there was a 1868 Atlantic Nine card then that should be the first.

I am very anal about dates that's why these questions have been haunting me. Am I missing something here about N28 or Peck and Snyder facts?

[Leon]

On the Peck and Snyder issue there is no doubt there were earlier Peck and Snyder cards than the 1869 one that is always touted. That 1869 one had players that were ALL paid for playing, thereby making it arguably the first Professional baseball card (where "Professional" means being paid). There were earlier cards, even besides Peck and Snyder, but the player or payers weren't paid for playing at the time, as far as I am aware.

[zljones]

That was one of the reasons I was thinking as to why the 1869 card was considered first because of the professional status. And the 1868 card was made months prior to pro ball. That makes sense, I just wish the articles would say first PRO CARD instead of just a card.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by zljones

That was one of the reasons I was thinking as to why the 1869 card was considered first because of the professional status. And the 1868 card was made months prior to pro ball. That makes sense, I just wish the articles would say first PRO CARD instead of just a card.

Of the 1869 Peck and Snyder I always say "first professional baseball card".....but most aren't that technical. How many times have you seen the '52 Mantle called his rookie? (answer, too many to count and they are all wrong)

[zljones]

Originally Posted by Leon

Of the 1869 Peck and Snyder I always say "first professional baseball card".....but most aren't that technical. How many times have you seen the '52 Mantle called his rookie? (answer, too many too count and they are all wrong)

Haha yea that 52 Mantle being called a rookie card drives me nuts because I am so anal about dates and "firsts" of everything. I am just glad I am not missing something with the Peck And Snyder cards, I was worried my facts were off.

[Fred]

Not that I care about rookie cards....but that Mantle thing bugs me too....

1952 Topps Mantle is his "Topps" rookie card.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by Fred

Not that I care about rookie cards....but that Mantle thing bugs me too....

1952 Topps Mantle is his "Topps" rookie card.

Sorry, but that justification still doesn't work for me. Rookie card is Rookie card. That's it. "First Topps card" is fine. Maybe 1981 Fleer is Willie McCovey's "Fleer Rookie Card"? And 1988 Score is Reggie Jackson's "Score Rookie Card".

[zljones]

Originally Posted by novakjr

sorry, but that justification still doesn't work for me. Rookie card is rookie card. That's it. "first topps card" is fine. Maybe 1981 fleer is willie mccovey's "fleer rookie card"?

lol!

[barrysloate]

N28 was originally believed to be an 1887 issue, but since John Clarkson is pictured in a Boston uniform, it has to be an 1888 issue. Clarkson played for Chicago in 1887, and Boston in 1888.

[GaryPassamonte]

There is a distinct possibilty that all Peck and Snyder team cards were issued in the same year, 1870, although there is no way to be certain.

[barrysloate]

I've thought of that too Gary, that maybe prominent teams of the period were issued simultaneously. If you went into the store you could request any of the teams in the set. Our original thought that they were issued in separate years can not be corroborated.

[prewarsports]

I agree with Gary's assessment, I know there are advertisements from the 1871 catalog (which I used to own but dont anymore) that have all these for sale still so my guess is that they were available starting in 1870 and all teams were made at the same time and the year of the team pictured doesn't mean it was made any earlier, just pictures a slightly earlier team.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

I've thought of that too Gary, that maybe prominent teams of the period were issued simultaneously. If you went into the store you could request any of the teams in the set. Our original thought that they were issued in separate years can not be corroborated.

For me personally, I don't usually change a prevailing thought unless there is proof. Others can change whatever they want to or believe what they want to. When I see definitive proof, or something that makes me change my mind, I will change.....

[zljones]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

I agree with Gary's assessment, I know there are advertisements from the 1871 catalog (which I used to own but dont anymore) that have all these for sale still so my guess is that they were available starting in 1870 and all teams were made at the same time and the year of the team pictured doesn't mean it was made any earlier, just pictures a slightly earlier team.

So you had a catalog Peck and Snyder from 1871 that was selling the cards, instead of giving them away? Wow, I thought they were handed out for free. How much were they charging for the cards?

[zljones]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

N28 was originally believed to be an 1887 issue, but since John Clarkson is pictured in a Boston uniform, it has to be an 1888 issue. Clarkson played for Chicago in 1887, and Boston in 1888.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[barrysloate]

I agree Leon, we don't have any proof one way or the other. I couldn't tell you if each team was issued by P & S in various years from 1868 to 1870, or if all appeared at the same time. There is virtually no documentation regarding how these were issued.

We had a thread a while ago about the Jim Creighton, which we originally assumed was issued between 1865 and 1867. Then we discovered that the address on the back dates it closer to 1870. My feeling is we don't know enough about how these were distributed.

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by zljones

So you had a catalog Peck and Snyder from 1871 that was selling the cards, instead of giving them away? Wow, I thought they were handed out for free. How much were they charging for the cards?

I read in a 1910 era baseball book that the store offered the cards for fifty cents apiece. I would think though that if you were a good customer and spent some money with them, they would toss you a few freebies.

[E93]

Questions about first baseball "cards" are complicated and depend on how one defines a "card". I think of Peck and Snyders as "trade cards". I am sure we will never have consensus on first card stuff. I think of 1886 N167 Old Judges as the first set of baseball cards in the common, unqualified, no-explanation-necessary sense of the term.
JimB

[Leon]

Jim B....good point on defining a "card." I can't define one either but I know one when I see one... and the Peck and Snyder's are certainly baseball cards.

[zljones]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

I read in a 1910 era baseball book that the store offered the cards for fifty cents apiece. I would think though that if you were a good customer and spent some money with them, they would toss you a few freebies.

Wow 50 cents was alot back then! My packs of 1991 Topps that I bought when I was kid were less!

[E93]

Originally Posted by Leon

I can't define one either but I know one when I see one.

Didn't a senator say something like that about pornography?
JimB

[Joe_G.]

Zach, N28 & N29 are both 1888 issues. As Barry already cited, there is Clarkson with Boston. Both sets also feature Detroit players (Bennett & Getzien) and in each case they are in pinstriped uniforms which debuted in 1888. Any date other than 1888 would be incorrect.

[mark evans]

Originally Posted by E93

Didn't a senator say something like that about pornography?
JimB

Justice Potter Stewart

[Fred]

When I said that the 52 Mantle card was his "Topps rookie card" I was being facetious. I really don't believe in that rookie card stuff. I like looking at a 1976 Aaron card with all those dingers being shown. All the stats, now that's a card!

I suppose you could get all caught up in the "it's his first card" crud but that just doesn't mean a whole lot to me, neither does having the FIRST Cobb card or first Wagner card. I'm happy just owning any of them and if it just happens to be their first card, then so be it.

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

I read in a 1910 era baseball book that the store offered the cards for fifty cents apiece. I would think though that if you were a good customer and spent some money with them, they would toss you a few freebies.

Barry, I believe the 1871 P & S book Rhys is referring to had them at the time for sale at 10-cents each or one could get a dozen for a buck. There were several to choos from. It has been several years since Rhys showed me the book but that is my recollection. The P&S book was their 1871 equipment catalog--really interesting book as I also believe you could buy real Cincinnati Reds jerseys, their own style ball, etc. (obviously they weren't gamers or anything but you could buy the same exact jersey's direct from P&S).

[drc]

Even if the 1869 Peck and Snyder Reds cards were being sold in 1871, they could have still have been made in in 1869. I bet Steiner is selling Derek Jeter autographs that are two years old.

[barrysloate]

That's interesting Rhett. The book I got the fifty cents price from was Base Ball and Base Ball Players by Elwood Roff, a pretty rare book published in 1912. Maybe by 1871 they were remaindered, having already used up their market interest. Possibly a hot item in 1870, but yesterday's papers by 1871.

[benjulmag]

I think likely the P&S cards appeared before 1870.

For one, the Atlantics card says "1868" on it. If the card first appeared in 1870, why issue the 1868 team as opposed to the 1869 or 1870 team? The composition of the team had changed over that period, and inasmuch as the cards were issued to promote P&S products, one would expect the merchant would want the cards to depict the current team so as to maximize customer interest in the cards.

Second, as was discussed in a previous thread, likely there were separate printings of the Red Stockings card, as reflected in (1) the ink color used (the colored inks suggesting an 1870 issuance (Red Stockings --red, Athletics -- blue, Mutuals -- green)) , (2) the ad on the verso (the ice skate ad suggesting a winter 1869-70 issuance), and (3) the contrast of the photo (the cards with the red ink have consistently worse contrast than the black-ink cards, suggesting an end-of-negative-run (i.e., 1870) printing).

[GaryPassamonte]

I keep wondering why the P & S trade cards were not advertised for sale in catalogs before 1871. Did P & S start with the 1869 Red Stockings CdVs as a giveaway? Did these CdVs gradually evolve into the trade cards? Some Red Stocking CdVs have P & S advertising and some don't. Were the blank backed or team lineup on reverse Red's CdVs giveaways, while the Red's CdVs with P & S advertising the precursors to the trade cards?
Another interesting unrelated observation is that only the Red Stockings and the Athletics from the P & S series come in CdV form. Given the popularity of the other teams pictured on P & S trade cards, it's perplexing that no CdVs exist with those images.

Corey- That is an interesting point regarding the Atlantics. Since they had recently defeated the Red Stocking in 1870, it seems an image of that famous team would be issued by P & S to capitalize on the local team's great victory. Does an image of the Atlantics exist that is later than the 1868 version? It's possible there was no later image of the Atlantics.

[barrysloate]

Corey- you certainly may be correct that the Atlantics were issued in 1868, and we have nothing to prove otherwise. But it is possible that P & S issued the five cards simultaneously, as a series of five key teams of the era. The 1870 Atlantics were not a championship team, while the 1868 of course were. Now we have no proof of this either, just trying to come up with a reason why they might have done it. It's pure speculation. But we really don't know anything about how these cards originated. Everything with regard to origin we've been forced to guess.

As to the question as why the Red Stockings were issued with two different ad backs, there is no doubt they were the most popular team and the one most requested. They easily could have run out of a first printing and been forced to reissue it. With the change of seasons, they would have come up with an ad for cold weather sports.

[novakjr]

Personally, I believe the Peck & Snyder's weren't released simultaneously. They probably came out in order of their dates. The Atlantics in 1868, Cincinnati in '69, so on and so on...However, when it comes to the 1971 catalog listing them all together, it's probable that the same ones were released for a number of years. Possibly given out at games and such for advertising, but also made available for purchase as a whole in '71 through the catalog(possibly overstock or a second printing)...Why waste money on new photo's when you've still got perfectly good old ones?

[benjulmag]

Gary,

I'm not aware of an image of the Atlantics that is post 1868 though that hardly means one was not issued and has not yet been discovered. All these 1860's baseball Cdvs are extraordinarily rare and likely there are a good many that were issued but have not yet been uncovered (e.g., Stars, Eckfords, Olympics, etc.).

One P&S we have neglected to mention is the 1868 Lowells. I have never seen an original, though I do have (somewhere) a photocopy. That card, depicting the 1868 team, lends further support for 1868 issuances.

[Baseball Rarities]

FWIW, there are cdv's that are marked "Sample Copy" on the reverse. These state that bulk quantities were available for $.75/dozen or $5.00/100.

These "Sample" copies have team's line up on the reverse along with an advertisement for Peck and Snyder. I assume that the bulk cards that were available had just Cincinnati's line up on the reverse and no advertsing.

I think that we can definitively date the cdv's with the line ups on the reverse to 1869 as the advertsiement of a third style clearly advertises the 1869 version of Chadwick's book.

I have added images of the three different backs that I mentioned above.

[GaryPassamonte]

Corey- Here is the 1868 Lowell's P & S from a 12/95 article in VCBC.
Credit- Barry Sloate as author

[benjulmag]

Thanks Gary. The photocopy I have is from an old friend who regretably is now deceased. He was a very knowledgable baseball memorabilia person who had a great collection.

[barrysloate]

There is more research needed to be done in this area.