My trip to see the Burdick Collection

[Archive]

Posted By: peter ullman

I just got back from NYC where I spent the weekend with my family for mothers day. I took in a yankees game and made my 2nd visit to the met to see how they were currently demoralizing the burdick collection. It isn't easy to find tucked away in a dark corridor in the american history section near endless glass cases filled with examples of american furniture and on the other side bordering the european impressionistic paintings...quite impressive I might add. This museum is sick...if you've never been...just packed to the hilt with endless examples of every treasure you could imagine. what better place for the burdick collection...right? Attached are as many photos I could get on photobucket before my computer pooped out. An average array of cards...in my opinion. Kids were gauking at the 59 bazookas speculating as to how many existed and one guy even knew the 51 bowman mantle to be his rookie. Compared to the gems posted on this site regularly...this display was pretty lame...imagine if someone knowledgable was the curator?

By the way the first time I visited...the t206 wagner was on display. Enjoy!

List of cards represented was: 59 bazookas, 51 bowmans, 53 topps, t202's, colgans chips, fatima team cards, 41 goudeys, obaks w/weaver, 49 bowman sheet, old mill series 7 & 8 but no jackson, tattoo orbits, batter ups, playballs, 1915 cj's and 1960 topps.

pete in mn

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Evanov

Great post Peter. Such a shame the way these treasures are hidden.

Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: Donald Johnson

Peter,

Great post and thanks for taking the time to share all your great photos with us. Too bad you didn't get to see more of the collection's "hidden gems"!

[Archive]

Posted By: Keith O'Leary

I also thank you for taking the time Peter. One of these days I will make my pilgrimage.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob NYC

Ah cool. They changed it from the last time I was there. They had T207s up for display at the time. I wonder how often they change the displays?

[Archive]

Posted By: dan bartenbaker

it's disappointing to me to see the museum not have room to display the entire collection at same time,as is the case with the hall of fame that displays only small amount of what they have tucked away in the basement,from what i have heard. they need to expand so we can view our national pastimes treasures. i would donate to this cause. welcome any feedback on this subject thanks dan.

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris

It is disappointing Dan, I agree... and I don't think anyone here would argue. But I think it comes down to the fact that to 99% of people, once you've seen some of those cards, you've "seen them all". I think I'd have a hard time getting most of my friends to spend more than an hour looking at gallery exhibits of baseball cards...

Edited to add -- thank you for posting the pictures Peter!

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Peter

Your experience visiting the Met to view this great collection sounds really
discouraging. In the late '80s I went to the Met to see this collection, and
I thought there was a repressive atmosphere then. The employee was not
too friendly, he stood over your shoulder, rushed you through the albums,
and seemed bothered because you wanted to see the entire collection.

Anyhow, I did get to see a large part of the collection in the two hour time
frame that I was alloted. And, I'll never forget when flipping thru the pages
of the Goudey albums, and seeing the valuable Nap Lajoie (#106) card just
loosely "flapping in the air" (in its attached plastic holder), in what must of
been a last minute inclusion. I thought this card certainly deserved a more
protective mounting in the album.

[Archive]

Posted By: James Gallo

Peter

Thanks very much for the pictures. Great stuff. Could you tell how the cards were mounted? I wonder if a big classly place like the Met does anything special or do the just glue them down

Maybe clear tabs?

Great Stuff.

James

Looking for 1915 Cracker Jacks and 1909-11 American Caramel E90-1.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter ullman

ted...i had no written approval to view the collection...i just went to the met like anyone else and was entitled to view what was on display. i'm not familiar with the protocol necessary to view the collection as you did. i'd love to do that! i understand you have to specifically state what cards you're interested in viewing as well!

I cant tell how the cards are/were mounted. It looks to me as if the pages are displayed as burdick created them what did "he" use to adhere the cards to the pages? as is evident from the old mill display there are cards missing from the page...were these stolen? the jackson card is not present...is it on another page...or pilfered over the years?

pete in mn

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

In all likelyhood, if there is an open spot, the cards was stolen. Many of the true rarities were stolen over the years when you could view without special permission. I am sure that more than a few unscupulous collectors that knew Burdick had left his collection to the Met visited the collection to get cards they needed for their own collections, as I am sure security in the 60s was lax, at best.

Jay

I like to sit outside, drink beer and yell at people. If I did this at home, I would be arrested. So, I go to baseball games and fit right in.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter ullman

for sure jay. it would have been feasible for people to upgrade their cards as well...swap examples or even swap one set for another in sets with similar poses...or swapping rare variations vs the common card! the permutations are limitless to the unscrupulous mind!

petein mn

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

Here's an interesting story that sort of sums up the lax attitude the Museum had about the Burdick Collection for many years, and why so many cards are missing. Many years ago (in the 1980's) when I saw the collection I noticed the Goudey Lajoie (which I remember being a really nice one) dangling from its album page, secured to it by a single piece of adhesive tape (at that time I don't remember there being a plastic covering around it). Had I wanted I could have easily pulled the card from the page, put it in my jacket pocket and walked out. Nobody was watching me. Concerned about such lax security for such a valuable card, I informed the Museum's representative who was administering the viewing for the collection that perhaps they might want to take better precautions for such a valuable card. The person responded by asking me to write a note listing the card and stating its approximate value (which at the time was around $6K) and leave the note sticking out from the card's album page. I did this and then left. Six months later one of my friends went to see the Burdick collection. When I asked him how the visit went, he told me of the following strange thing. When he was looking at the Goudeys, he noticed in the page where the Lajoie was located a note listing the value of the card at $6K. The card was still dangling from a piece of adhesive tape just as it did 6 months prior. So here you have it that not only did the Museum do nothing to safecard the card, they actually made its theft more likely by highlighting the card's value!! No wonder, I guess, so many cards are missing.

[Archive]

Posted By: drc

People often lament collectors auctioning off significant baseball items instead of donating them to a museum. As this and other museum stories illustrate, if you care about your rare collection it is often best to sell it to a private collector. If you sell it through someone like MastroNet, your collection will be published in a catalog for posterity.

Books-wise, the New York Public Library is the second or third largest library in the world (US Library of Congress is the largest). In their defense, it would be too much to expect the NYPL to hire a full time curator of baseball cards. An extra book stocker likely would be the piority.

Perhaps the grumpy employee Ted mentioned received a Ph.d. in Comparative Literature from Colombia and was now relegated to supervising baseball cards. The only thing lower in his mind was the NYU grad in charge of comic books.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter ullman

point well taken...most art snobbs probably consider baseball cards a joke...but this is just their ignorance. this is the metropolitan museum of art...not the public library.

pete in mn

[Archive]

Posted By: BruceBabcock

I saw the Burdick collection at the Met in 1999 and the T206 Wagner was on display at the time. I can't remember what else was on exhibit but I've seen shiny stuff at shopping malls displayed with more eye appeal. Coincidentally, on the same trip, I saw a second T206 Wagner just a short distance away at the NY Public Library. I can't recall now why it was on display and who it belonged to.

[Archive]

Posted By: dstudeba

Based in purely fiscal terms, looking at the Met's entire collection, baseball cards are a joke.

I agree that it would have been better for everyone (the Met included) if Burdick had chosen another place for his collection.

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

Thank you, Peter, for posting the photos, and telling us of the trip.

Years back I managed to buy a player's contract. Pepper Martin's Cardinal contract. 1934. The Gashouse Gang. When it arrived, I was amazed, just looking at it, and holding it. I called the seller, and he was concerned that I'd called, fearing something was wrong with it. To the contrary, I told him I thought it wonderful, and felt bad owning it, that I might send it to the National Baseball Museum. I still clearly recall the pause in his voice, then he said, "Frank, please don't do that." Too many great items are in Cooperstown, sitting in boxes, lost in the basement, never to be seen by fans. At least if you have this, then you can show it to people.

So I have it on loan to the Cardinals museum in St. Louis, and it is on display for all to see.

[Archive]

Posted By: Griffin's

I saw it a few years ago as well, tucked in the hallway. At the time it had a few T205's and some Remars and '53's. I guess you have to check in regularly to see a decent part of the collection, and only baseball at that.
In case anyone missed it, here is a link to Adam W's account of his visit a few years ago.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/message/1081090494/Burdick+Collection+Visit

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I've viewed the collection many times over the years, including trips with board members Jay Miller and Ted Zanidakis. I can fill everyone in on a few things. When the collection was finally completed in the 1960's, it was readily available to anyone who wished to make an appointment. Until about 20 years ago (Burdick finished mounting the cards around 1962) it wasn't looked at very often and was only known to a relatively small number of people. It's hard enough to find the room, hidden behind musical instruments, and I don't think too many people knew it existed. As the baseball hobby gained popularity in the 80's, the Museum found themselves swamped with too many visitors and I remember one of the curators telling me that too many people were handling the cards and they feared damage and theft. Their response was to make it much more difficult to see the original albums, unless you were doing research for a book, and they decided to take portions of the collection and simply frame them and put them up on the walls for viewing. However, you could only look at what was on the wall at that time. Years ago Jay Miller and I went to view the Old Judges- it's a huge collection with an Anson in Uniform included- but all the cards were pasted in so it is doubtful they will ever be removed and displayed. Other cards were placed in albums differently and can be removed more easily, and those are probably the ones they show to the public. However, it has been several years since I have been there so they may have now instituted a new system. I think the sheer number of requests they were getting to see the collection just became a nuisance. Everyone in the room always seemed a little too busy and felt the baseball card crowd was an imposition.