WHAT IS THE KEELER ROOKIE

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

A little help from the HOF rookie card collectors--should the 1893 Keeler cabinet in the current Mastro auction (Lot #2105) be considered Willie Keeler's rookie card? It is a single card of Keeler as a major leaguer with the Giants and predates the E107 by a full ten years. It is the same pose that Rusie takes for his Newsboy cabinet and makes one think that there was a planned Newsboy of Keeler which was never made or is yet to be discovered.


1893 J.U. Stead Studio Cabinet - Willie Keeler

[edited to add link]

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

Looking at that lot, that is truly a fantastic restoration job. Do you think it would affect the bidding if it was described as such in the auction?

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

I know that others will disagree with me...

but I don't consider these old cabinets to be true "baseball cards."

They were not distributed to the public or made for advertising or collecting. To me, they are really nothing more than a polaroid picture of a player.

If I take a picture of some major league player and write his name on the bottom... does that then become a "baseball card?" Not to me.

If a baseball player and his family go to Olan Mills for a family photograph... does that then become a "baseball card?" Not to me.

To be a colletible baseball card (to me)... the card needs to have been PRODUCED by some company OTHER than the person who took the PHOTO. In other words, somebody or some comany was USING the IMAGES of the players for ADVERTISING or PROMOTION or SALES.

It also (to me) has to be a "CARD"... and not an 8" x 10" paper photograph that was inserted in a magazine or newspaper. Those are not made for carrying around in rubber bands and trading with your friends. Baseball "cards" should be made for collecting and trading. There is a reason they were called "Trading Cards" forever!

To me, a "baseball card" is something that you had to buy SOMETHING ELSE to get the card... or in more recent years, you had to buy a pack of cards that were distributed by a card company.

Thus, the true Keeler rookie "baseball card" is the 1903 E107 card.

If you want to try and get the earliest "baseball IMAGE" of Keeler... then the 1892 Binghamton team cabinet of Keeler in Mastro is the oldest I have seen.

That's just my two cents.

I would rather have a baseball "card" that is the same type of card that I could have gone to the store and collected in 1895. In other words, if I had been a kid back then, could I have gone to the local store and picked up these cabinet cards that were only available from the photographer's studio? No.

I want to own something that I KNOW at one point ... a hundred years ago ... was pulled out of a pack and cherished by some kid.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

This is why I have NOT purchased the 1886 J. Wood cabinet complete set of PROOFS from TIK & TIK, even though it would be the first baseball "IMAGE" of several of the New York Giant HOF's in that set.

I know that these photos existed BEFORE the N167 Old Judges (since the Old Judges say on the back that they were hand-copied from these very photos)...

but the 1886 Old Judges are baseball "CARDS" that were distributed to the public for collecting and for promotion and sales of a DIFFERENT product.

Again, just my two cents.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Hal--Very valid arguements. Maybe one needs to differentiate between rookie card and rookie representation. How would you classify the 1872 Boston and 1895 Baltimore team composites? Does that mean that a rookie card collector cannot get a rookie card of Spaulding unless they get his unique G&B? By that definition don't all the game cards fall outside the rookie card group?
BTW, unless I am wrong, I believe that these types of cabinets were produced for sale by the photographer so they are not like a unique polaroid. They probably did not receive wide distribution but, then again, neither did E107s.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Jay: YES, the 1873 Boston team cabinet and the 1894 Baltimore team cabinets that I own are NOT "baseball cards" to me. They are just neat rare items that are the closest that I can get.

YES, the G&B "card" of Spalding is clearly a "card" while the 1873 cabinet is NOT. However, since the G&B was produced long AFTER his playing days had ended... it is not really any different than a 1950 Callahan card of Spalding to me. In other words, Spalding has ZERO "REAL baseball cards" to me.

YES, "game cards" DO count as cards because you had to BUY them from some company other than a photographer's studio, and because they were distributed to the public.

Once again ... as long as I could have gone into Woolworth's in my hometown as a kid in 1895 and purchased the GAME in order to collect the "CARDS"... then it counts to me!

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Hal--I'm with you--thanks for the clarification!

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom Boblitt

trade my 1950 Callahan Spalding to anyone for the G&B Spalding. I agree it's a fair trade......Same for any of the others in my set like O'Rourke, etc. I'll pay shipping both ways.......

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Although Dan McKee will obviously disagree since he owns them...

I don't think the 1894 Alpha Engraving pictures qualify as true "baseball cards" either, since only ONE set was made and they were only produced by the photographer. Again, this is no different than a guy taking polaroids of the players in his studio. NOT cards to me.

Same is true for the 1904 Alleghany game cards. Only ONE set ever produced, so no kid on the streets in 1904 could have EVER collected these. In fact, the only existing set was probably stolen from the U.S. Patent office years later.

HOWEVER ... because BOTH of these sets are so rare and so cool and so well-known ... I would LOVE to own some of these and would buy them in a flash for the right price!

But I would think of them more as RARE baseball ITEMS more than I would think of them as true baseball "TRADING CARDS."

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

Hal,

No Alpha Photo Keeler card has ever been discovered.

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul Krauss

MASSIVE restoration job and a very SUSPECT bidding activity.

Isn't Jay Miller the consignor of both the J.U. Stead Keeler cabinet and the Bingos team cabinet that he previously bought from Scott Forrest?

http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=153652&messageid=1065317100

Too bad pre-restoration scans aren't showing, but I'm sure some regulars here have them saved.


Search tool rules!!!!


PPK

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Andy:

I know that there is no "Keeler" in the 1894 Alpha set... but I was just jumping off of the specific topic and generalizing so as to explain my position.

Summary: I don't think ANY of the items in the 1894 Alpha or 1904 Alleghany sets can be called "true baseball trading cards"...

but they are still NEAT and RARE ... just like these old cabinet photos and other baseball images.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

I think Mastro DOES say in the description that "professional mending" has taken place, don't they??

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

But I disagree about card decks. I don't consider any cards from game decks to be true baseball cards. Same goes for those baseball game inserts in the '68 Topps set - would you really consider one of those little things a true Mickey Mantle "card"?



Okay, I'll defer additional comments...

Hal, I have re-read the Mastro lot description and "professionaly mended" refers to the four insignificant pinholes. So, having re-checked based on your post, I am copying back in the original text of this post that I had deleted:
.
.
.
But this thead is an advertisement for Jay's Keeler cabinet that goes off on Mastro this week, so let's get back to that one . I consider it to be a really cool mounted photo, probably worth $2-4K (depending on who's bidding), not a rookie card. And while my original repsponse to Jay's question has been ignored, I think it's also a valid subject, and "fair" since Jay has given his Keeler cabinet the limelight - don't worry about antagonizing Jay - he's a big boy.

Personally, I think restoration of photo mounts, is fine, as is cleaning up of the photo, as long as no new material was added. I don't even know that it's necessary to advertise such "clean up" restoration when selling, although I would. Why? Simply because in our hobby the odds are real good that many potential bidders have seen the "before" version of such a high profile item. I think that if the restoration were put in the description, those bidders would be MORE likely to bid (because they don't feel there's intent to deceive). On the other hand, bidders unfamiliar with the previous version will probably bid more not knowing it's been restored. Also, I think Mastro (and other auction houses) should ALWAYS be as up front as possible with auction descriptions, just so we'll trust them - I think it's better for their business.

Personally, I can't believe Jay's selling this - it's historically significant and one of his favorite players, as is the Bingos cabinet (which I should have kept ).

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

Jay,

Perfect timing on your Keeler question.....right before the Mastro Auction ends for the Keeler Cabinet card that you consigned. Very predictable. Why not just ask us kindly to bid on your consignments?

By the way, I was planning to bid on the Keeler, but I won't pay NrMT prices for a restored card. I liked it better when it looked like this. Scott brought up a good point. Care to explain?

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Scott:

I agree with you on "modern" game cards and inserts. Those should not count as true baseball cards.

However, in 1913 for example, I think buying the "National Game" or "Tom Barker" card games was probably the ONLY way that a kid could have gone to the store and purchased some cards that had major league players on them.

In other words, I take into account for old vintage cards the fact that NOBODY was really selling packs of "baseball cards" on their own yet.

I am also convinced that kids would SAVE and COLLECT the cards that came with these old games... even long after the board itself was gone. Kids probably traded the cards between themselves and NEVER even played the stupid game.

[Archive]

Posted By: dan mckee

Hal, actually I cannot disagree with you. I feel these Alpha's were not issued to the public as you say so I do agree with you. I do consider these cards because of the size but not cards as we know that were issued and collected by the public. Dan.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

If you consider game deck cards to be "true cards" because kids couldn't get them any other way, then by that logic you would have to consider Jay's Keeler cabinet a card as well...which leads to the inevitable conclusion that it's a rookie Unless you disqualify it purely because it's a real photo, in which case Old Judges wouldn't be cards either.

We had a really interesting thread on this a couple of years ago - I believe the conclusion was that a real "card" had to possess a certain number of qualities representing "card-ness", but not ALL - and I agree that the Keeler cabinet would fail the test. I'll try to dredge up that thread.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Scott--Let me answer both of your questions.
1. I got tired of collecting Keeler cards so I have consigned them to Mastro for auction. There were a few cards in the prior collector auction and the rest in here.

2. When I gave the cabinet to the Mastro guys it was in the form that is shown in Andy's post. They decided to have it cleaned(glue removed, etc) and the first time I saw the cleaned version was when I got the catalog. I think it looks better this way but that is just my opinion.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Should be disclosed in full......and yes, this is a very predictable thread......as usual..(that was kind of a Yogi-ism)...later

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

I didn't know Mastro operated that way. I guess that opens another can of worms (but very clean worms - no dirt or mucus).

So Mastro makes recommendations like this to consignors, then does the work themselves if the consignor says it's okay? I wonder if they do it in house, or have a restoration service that they regularly use.

But this wasn't purely a matter of "cleaning" - the photo had holes in it, which have been "filled" with something. If this could be done with a photo and it's mount, wonder what could be done with a .... hesitance ... baseball card? uh oh, the worm is gathering dirt again.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jimmy Leiderman

OUCH!!!
I love this board
Nice investigation report


Bill, can I start my own "bid on my mastro consignments" thread without using the regular B/S/T channel?

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

This is a little scary.

What if someone sends a PRO graded card (trimmed) to Mastro for auction...

and Mastro says: "Hey, let us see if we can use our 'pull' to get that in a PSA holder for you."

Mastro would be doing the seller a favor...but it would also certainly INCREASE their income since the buyer's premium would be higher on a higher sales price.

If there is any way that Mastro (or ANY auction house) can do this with PSA or GAI or SGC... then something would be rotten.

Then again ... Mastro DOES say that the cabinet photo has been "professionally mended"...

so I guess the responsibility is on the BUYER to call Mastro before they bid and ask SPECIFICALLY what was done to the cabinet photo.



AND ... as we mentioned a while back on the "Just So" restoration thread ...

what REALLY scares me is that the buyer of this cabinet photo will later be able to SELL IT to people WITHOUT those buyers having any way of knowing that it was ever restored!!

Boo, Hiss !!

[Archive]

Posted By: Ryan Christoff

"The cabinet appears to be in Near Mint condition, but has four insignificant pinholes, all relegated to the corners of the photo and not affecting the central image, which have been professionally mended."




I would have to say that no, unfortunately that isn't Keeler's rookie in the auction. As you can see, the example on the left that was on ebay is clearly not the same example as the one on the right that is in the current auction. The one in the current auction appears Near Mint except for the restored pinholes. The one on the left...not so much.

Additionally, the one on the left is obviously earlier, so that one must be the real Keeler rookie.

What would that Keeler rookie would bring if it ever came up for auction? Wow! A Keeler rookie. Can you imagine?

Perhaps we'll never know.


-Ryan

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

What does that mean? An auction house to whom a card is consigned has discretion to alter/restore/"clean" a card? Or did they advise the consignor they were capable of doing such things in order to fetch a higher price and the consignor consented? Or did the consignor ask them whether anything could be done to improve the card? Those before and after photos are VERY disturbing, particularly where the description in the catalog does not appear to reference the cleaning. Am I missing something here? Has anyone asked Mr. Mastro about his convenient omission?

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

The responsibility is clearly on the buyer - anyone can go out and buy a microscope and easily find most repairs. I feel certain that anyone paying $4K for a cabinet card will certainly put it under the lense as soon as they receive it. JC - you use a microscope, right? Leon? Jay? Jimmy?

Another interesting idea: we have established that Mastro has the resources to "fix" undesirable flaws in vintage items. It also seems that most of us (me included) think this is okay for cabinet cards. Why not baseball cards? Is it simply because cabinet cards aren't slabbed by the graders? If PSA and SGC started slabbing cabinet cards, would it then be considered deplorable to restore such items? Example: now that some cdv's are being slabbed, we've seen that the restored ones have lost value. Maybe I'm wrong about that?

Joe P must have something to say about this (seriously Joe, I'm not pissed at you anymore).

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

I don't want to see ANYTHING "restored" or "altered" or "modified."

I think that 100-year-old things should LOOK like they are 100 years old -- that's part of the magic.

EXAMPLE: What if someone buys a REAL version of Babe Ruth's jersey ... and cuts it into 2,000 little pieces ...

and then uses each little piece as a starting point and manufactures 2,000 "new" jerseys that each contain a tiny swatch of the orginal??

Can they all "technically" be said to be "Babe Ruth's REAL jersey - with some professional restoration work done to it." ???

I don't like it. Leave things as they are.



But again, that is just my two cents.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

I've noticed more and more the use by auction houses of "appears near mint". What is the definition of "appears"? Does it mean that if you stand at a distance of ten feet and close one eye, you wouldn't be able to see the glue residue or erased writing?

I think they should say "at first glance" it "seems" to be "near mint", but it isn't.

Or maybe all cards should be described as "near mint"? (10-near mint at close range,9-near mint at 5 feet....1-near mint at 100 yards)

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

I don't know enough about them to know if restoration is considered legitimate or not, and I don't see why it would be, but I cannot BELIEVE it is legitimate to restore a card to this extent and not disclose it. I find the whole thing appalling, and I have a hard time believing the bidding would not be affected if the "before" photo was published or the details of the restoration were revealed. But again, I don't know about cabinet cards, so if I am wrong I am sure the more knowledgeable folks here can point that out.

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

"Appears" near mint may be used in the temporal sense. It NOW appears near mint, although prior to the professional restoration job it APPEARED well you fill in the grade.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

...at a castle in a remote area of Spain - the "Cards Templars" are donning their robes.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

a very costly face-lift. At first, the two cards don't even appear the be the same card! You have to look very carefully to see tiny blemishes or marks that the two have in common that two different copies of the same photo would not have. And I'm not just talking about filling in pin-holes!

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

I might have said something similar already, but Mastro DID mention the mended pinholes. If the rest of the work was simply cleaning (no material added), I don't think we should have a problem with their description (other than the "appears near mint" grade) simply because they have better resources for "cleaning" than we do, as long as they mention any "residuals" such as glue traces and evidence of erased writing.

Again, it was a remarkable clean-up job and should increase the value.

[Archive]

Posted By: andy becker

being a rc card collector with unlimited funds...i'm just so happy that jay took a a moment to point this out. i'll be placing a "top all bids" with mastro within minutes

to the "other andy":
what a joke, GREAT CALL


and paul:
i haven't looked, but let's here some more about the fishy bidding.

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

Why, and I just don't know the answer, is this sort of cleaning acceptable for a cabinet card whereas I assume it would not be on a 1915 Cracker Jack or am I wrong about that too?

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

Mending pinholes in a CJ would NOT be acceptable if paper/color was added - the non-disputable grading authorities would doubtless notice these, and the new owner would be screwed out of a gorgeous plastic slab.

However, to me "cleaning" (no material added) is okay as long as the after-effects are noted when selling (pencil writing residue, etc.)

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Interesting dilemma.

If I had a baseball card that's ONLY blemish was some GLUE on the back from where it had been stuck in an album...

and someone could REMOVE the glue WITHOUT re-coloring the card or bleaching it or adding any new paper or anything like that...

then I would have no problem with someone removing the glue and "cleaning" the card.



But once PINHOLES have been repaired ... then a card has gone from being "cleaned" to being "restored", and the value drops WAY down for me.



Again, this is why I REALLY WANT someone reputable like SGC to start slabbing cards as "Authentic-Rebacked" or "Authentic-Bleached" or "Authentic-Trimmed"...

although there would still be NOTHING stopping someone from REMOVING the card from the slab and selling it to unsuspecting buyers WITHOUT disclosing any of those problems.

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

Obviously reasonable minds can differ, but to me adding v. subtracting is at some point a matter of semantics. Is "subtracting" a crease that was there OK? Is bleaching a card OK, it doesn't add anything? Is power erasing a card to make it better centered OK, it doesn't add anything? To me, what Mastro did (leaving the pinholes out of it) completely altered the condition and appearance of the card. I can't see a way to rationalize that particularly where it was not disclosed. I admit there may be instances where "cleaning" is so de minimus that I wouldn't care but this doesn't feel right to me. And full disclosure doesn't solve the problem either for the reason that Hal pointed out. Somewhere down the line someone is gonna get hoodwinked. Just my two pennies.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Good points about "adding" vs. "subtracting".

I would not be OK with a card that once had ink writing on the white border ... but was then "power erased" so that a layer of paper was removed to erase the writing.

I would HOPE that the grading companies would spot this on a card, however.

Like I said...

I just wish everyone would LEAVE everything THE WAY IT IS!!

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

Too much money in it. I would like to think that cleaning of that sort is detectable on close scrutiny, or at least by our favorite professional graders, but one can only wonder.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

When I say cleaning to "remove" I'm of course referring to removing things that weren't there originally...and the pinhole mending IS in the description.

[Archive]

Posted By: petecld

Hal,

I've been suggesting to SGC that they slab altered or trimmed for years now... for some reason they won't which is particularly odd to me since their sister company (CGC) has been doing this with comic books since day one. You see many restored comics in plastic tombs assessed "Apparent (--- grade)" and what was done to the book. The labels also have a different color and thses books do ell at a considerable discount compared to an unrestored book of the same grade.


PASJD,

Bleaching sure as heck does "add" something - chemicals - which will eventually eat away at the stock of the card. Of course a restored card will look different - that's the whole point. I'd love to do an air analysis inside some PSA holders.... and yes, it can be done without even opening the slab.


General observation:
What's interesting to me is the "outrage" type response people have regarding a PROFESSIONAL retoration job but when it was suggested that people do it themselves at home - dipping card in water, removing glue or paper pieces, pressing the card between two heavy objects to "flatten" the card, no one had a problem and thought it was great idea..... go figure.

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

To me the wear and tear a card gets in its natural lifetime, including getting stained, or written on, or whatever, becomes part of the card, and anything non-trivial that gets done to it to restore it back towards its original (i.e., new) condition should be disclosed so that the purchaser can make up his or her own mind based on all the facts. Again, I am not sure how I would define non-trivial, but what Mastro did ain't non-trivial and if I had purchased that item for thousands of bucks and then found out what he had done to it and what it looked like before I would be livid.

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

Don't you think any of the cleaning Mastro appears to have done involved "chemicals"? What's the difference? I am sure he didn't just use soap and water.

[Archive]

Posted By: petecld

There are chemicals....and then there are CHEMICALS. A professional restorer doesn't use bleach. There are non-corrosive cleaners and solvents which I'm sure were used to clean the card or remove glue residue or dirt. Mastro isn't a back alley auction house, I'm sure they didn't just whip out the Clorox...

The primary goal of a PROFESSIONAL restorer it to protect a piece, stabilize any type of damage that may get worse - like a stain caused by bacteria from humidity, any yellowing, or brittleness, etc. and leave it in a more stable state from before. Bleaching is NOT a professional process, it's a destructive one that eventually destroys a piece.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhys

There is a rebacked N172 Anson on ebay right now with "Authentic" as he grade. I have also seen a few other like this lately so perhaps GAI is grading cards as authentic which have been restored/altered.

Also, I disagree on the cabinets are not cards argument, but it is just my opinion. I do not see any difference between a cabinet with a photographers advertisement on it being used to sell pictures to the photographer, or get people into his store than an advertisement for gum or tobacco on the bottom to get people to use their product. Most of these cabinets were not just taken once and given to players. These guys were celebrities and their cabinets were produced and sold to the public most of the time, especially photos of the player in uniform. You could have walked into the photographers store and said give me a keller cabinet, and they would have sold you one. hey probably had a sign outside that offered photos of the New York Giants for a price. These popular studio cabinets were advertising tools, the same as Old Judge cabinets. Only difference is the product is the picture itself and not gumor candy.

If the cabinet was produced wih an advertisement at the bottom which said, "Come to Duffy's Bar" it would be a trade card, used to advertise the bar just like Tobin lithograps. If it said, "Drink Duffys beer", it would definely be a card and I see little difference in the two. In both cases the card is being used to solicit business and is used the same way baseball cards were later.

I know others will disagree with me, but that the way I see it and always will. A good understanding of 19th century advertising can shed a lot of light on the subject.

Also, I have a friend you sent a complete ungraded gum set to mastro and they told him flat out they were going to "send it off to have it worked on". Kind of scary.

Rhys

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

But let's also be realistic - I'm talking about cleaning that cannot be detected. If you flick off some small pieces of tobacco from an old Polar Bear-backed card, or soak off some minor bits of album residue, to a point that no one could tell it was ever there, what's the point in mentioning it? The exception is removing writing where some evidence remains - but then again, how can you tell how intense the writing was to begin with?

And to be devil's advocate, what if the "aging stuff" was added recently? What if some kid got hold of Dad's NM t206 card and got crud and writing all over it...say yesterday...is it okay to remove that?

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Man...

I can't WAIT to see what Andy Baran's "Just So" Burkett card looks like after seeing this!

I honestly had no idea that things could be made to look so "new" again.

Sure, everyone will know that Andy's card has been "restored" since the card is one-of-a-kind...

but it will sure look a LOT cooler than it did when it was all trimmed down!!

What are you hearing on the progress, Andy?

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

Petecld that distinction makes sense, thank you for explaining it, but if Mastro is so professional why don't they disclose their noble efforts at protecting the card so that the bidder is aware of them.

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

Several months to go.......