As Jay suggested, this should not change the N172 catalog, but would it not suggest the possibility of another yet-to-be-discovered N172 California League card if it is indeed a GQ and all GQs have a corresponding N172? Or do you think there is too little known about California League GQs since this would make 3, even though the only other one does have a corresponding N172?
If it does imply the potential existence at one time of a couple more N172 California League cards, would that change how we think about N172 California League card production? These are just questions from a relative N172/N173/N175 novice. WOuld love to hear more about what the experts here think.
JimB

A new California League OJ is highly possible because of the known number of just 19 subjects and the fact they number so low each(1-3 examples known). I wouldn't doubt that there WERE more out there, it's just a matter if they survived all this time and now someone has to find them and know what they are looking at when they do.

I still think it is possible that an N172 card showing a player on Buffalo exists because a collection found years ago in an old desk had spots for each team marked and there was a spot for Buffalo. Every other team that was marked is a known team from the set

Adam, difficult for me to answer as this is specific to issues outside of baseball which is where most of my research is focused. The answer may vary based on whether you just look at just boxing vs other subject matters or perhaps may even be impacted by imported vs exported cards etc. I also don't know if the wavy advertisement at bottom is only limited to a single year. Perhaps Jay has some thoughts here.

As John stated, it is entirely possible that more California League N172s will be discovered however the poses will not match the GQ portraits discussed in this thread. It would now appear that the California League GQs date to 1887 or maybe 1888 (more research on Clements and Donovan may pinpoint date of issue) while the California League OJs date to 1889. It is possible that some players, such as McDonald, can be found in both GQ (portrait) and OJ (action pose), while others cannot based on when and where they played. Thus far, all three GQs are from the same team, Greenhood & Moran team of Oakland. If the GQs are in fact an 1887 issue, there could conceivable be cards from the San Francisco Pioneers, San Francisco Haverleys, and Sacramento Altas as well. If the GQs date to 1888 then Sacramento is replaced by Stockton. By the time 1889 rolled around and the OJ brand began issuing California League cards, Oakland, San Francisco, and Sacramento would be represented with Stockton being the only team without a card. Plenty of opportunities for more OJ and GQ players to surface but their shear rarity means many of them are probably lost to time forever.

No mention of Clements on the 1888 roster on Baseball Reference, unfortunately they do not have the 1887 roster for comparison. I'd lean towards late 1887 as the date of issue as Jay has suggested in the past.

1888 Greenhood & Moran Roster
Varney Anderson
George Borchers
John Cahill
Roscoe Coughlin
F. Delmas
Jack Donohue
Jack Donovan
Jocko Flynn
William Gurnett
Lou Hardie
George Harper
Phil Knell
Fred Lange
Dan Long
Frank Loughran
Tom McCord
Jim McDonald
Billy Newbert
John Ryan
Perry Schaffer
Joseph Shea
Will Smalley
John Strunz

Interesting team composite of 1887 team. McDonald & Donovan present, Clements absent. In this composite, the players are not in uniform.

http://oaklandwiki.org/media/cache/8...99fc008043.jpg

In all honesty, since there is only one copy each of the three Greenhood and Moran cards, we don't even know if they were actually issued. They could have been proofs for a potential issue(if the two trimmed cards are part of the same series as McDonald). Greenhood and Moran was a store in Oakland. Perhaps they sold cigarettes and were working with Goodwin on a project to put cards in the packs issued in the Bay Area, but the project died in the planning stage. I agree with Joe in that these images will not show up as N172s. I also agree that there are more California League N172s to be found. Nineteen is an odd number, and there are no Stockton cards known.
Adam, the serpentine Old Judge and Gypsy Queen boxers, based on my experience, are pretty much equally common.

Joe--Roster with Clements is in Spalding's book

Spaulding's 1887 book? If so, excellent, a late 1887 issue seems most probable.

I had a window seat put in a few years ago, nothing?? What gives?

This was a very cool piece on cards, thanks to Keith for taking something like our little world and making it mainstream if only for a few mins.

Cheers,

John

The last time I had a window seat was when I flew Pan Am. All I found was a floatation vest :(

Seriously, I don't collect these cards but this thread is fascinating!

Joe-Spalding's book is Always on Sunday and there are rosters by year in the back of the book.

Been away for a few days and just saw this thread. Great cards, and great discussion.

I did auction the MacDonald card but it was actually in November, 2001. Small point, but that's the date.

The two new cards look like the Gypsy Queen ad was clipped off. If the cards weren't trimmed I'm sure they would be identical to the MacDonald. And like some many unique or near unique cards, we always wonder where the others went. I've often felt that pretty much everything was destroyed in the 1906 earthquake, so that may explain the great rarity of them. Cool thread.

And for once I would like to see a thread where collector Keith Olbermann offers something insightful about baseball cards and not even one single yahoo chimes in with some political garbage. Keith's previous career and his passion for baseball cards are entirely unrelated. Grow up.

THanks Joe and Jay!
JimB

+1 Amen!
JimB

I'll give a "+1" to that. Great discussion here overall, and an interesting video from Keith, plus it's nice to hear commentary from the guys who "wrote the book". Interesting thread!

You'll be in my prayers, Barry, if Rush Limbaugh ever starts collecting/posting about rare baseball books.

I think he collects Percodans.

Edited to add that's a good point Rob, but when he does I promise you I will stick to discussing the books.

A very interesting theory.

One could have stopped at the word "liberal" and left it at that... but to play the "communistic" card is idiotic. I don't throw the word "nazi" out when describing conservatives... It adds needless fuel on a political fire.

Back to the cards...

"nazi" would be wrong. "Fascist" would be the better analogy.

Sorry, spent some time yesterday reviewing my daughter's world history paper.

Right.
 

You are correct, sir.

Way better analogy. (which leads to this: if you use a Nazi comparison, you've probably lost the argument, anyway.)

Godwin's Law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Barry, if you dislike someone intensely, for any reason, and they offer up something insightful about a passion of yours, and you agree with them and would like to add to the discussion, I'm sorry, but if you are a normal human, the best we can hope for is that you stay out of the discussion.

If you were Nietsche's Superman, then we might expect you to transcend your human emotions temporarily and bond with this person. Maybe the two of you would even grow close through your hobby, and end up coming to understandings on the issues that you formerly disliked him over. But that is really a lot to ask. As an example, every now and then I offer something new and interesting regarding an area of collecting that I am absolutely positive another forum member would love to discuss. He doesn't. Why? He absolutely despises me. I get it, and it's probably all for the best, as we are only human. It takes beer to get over some of these things - I have seen it work. I would gladly drink a beer with either Keith Olberman or Rush Limbaugh.

Scott- couldn't disagree more.

You can dislike Keith, or Rush, or anybody. But you can dislike them silently. In this case, just stick to the story regarding the new baseball card find, and limit your comments to that. In Rob D.'s example (a funny one at that), I would be able to discuss Rush's rare books without expressing my personal feelings about him. Those don't even matter- the topic is the books.

As I like to say, one doesn't have to have an opinion about everything.

I think we agree - dislike such people silently. You are probably more self-actualized than most internet forum participants, in your ability to compartmentalize your emotions. That would not surprise me - you have always had high forum behavior expectations. Nothing wrong with that. When respected forum members like yourself voice such hopes, there's more of a chance that they will at least be partially realized.

I think the difference would be that Rush Limbaugh could not keep his political comments out of our forum whereas Keith Olbermann has shown the ability to separate his sports life from his political life. He even made a post here at Net54 that said he wouldn't go political.... Rush was kicked off of ESPN because he couldn't do it. While I agree with KO on most of his political views I don't have a problem with those that don't and he was certainly a polarizing figure in his time at MSNBC. Calling him a Nazi or communist is a little outlandish though, he seems to be a very solid capitalist to me.

I don't think any of the far-left or far-right folks can avoid 'going political' when they are in the media spotlight. ESPN is a lot different from Net54.

But you make a very good point - if Keith Olberman can do it on this forum, I don't see why the rest of us can't...unless we have less self-control than him.

It's really amazing the stuff he ends up with - while I'm kind of worn out discussing T206 printer problems, his set of proofs that never made it to production, is mind-blowing. And these cards are amazing as well. New discoveries in our hobby are always great.

Thanks Scott for the kind words.

You can like or dislike anyone you want. You can hate me if you choose, I'm okay with that. But you don't need to make a public display of it. If KO says, This is a rare baseball card, there is no political connotation to that statement whatsoever. Therefore, leave the political comments out of the discussion. You don't have to agree with his opinions on anything but you can keep your mouth shut about it (I don't mean you Scott, I think you're a really good soul). And yes, a little self control can go a long way. You don't see a whole lot of that on the internet.

We're all guilty about it........even Barry S brought up a reference to Limbaugh's Percodan usage. That's a similar way to kind of defame him--or point out some of his hypocritical behavior. I don't necessarily agree with Olbermann OR Limbaugh but they're both paid a handsome salary to do what they do--whether they believe it all or not....and Limbaugh was sacked from ESPN because of his reference on Donovan McNabb....not so much political as it was seen as somewhat racist.

Bottom line.....everyone has a slant. Bottom line #2.....the cards are WAY cool. There have to be more of them out there. The whole doggone city of San Francisco didn't completely burn up did it? Guess I'd better brush up on my SF history. You think Mark Macrae would have seen some of these in the day or maybe he has a whole file cabinet of them.....

Hey Tom- at least the percodan joke wasn't political.:o

Well, Tom, your comment got me curious, so after a quick search and a glance at this page, it seems like 80% of the city was destroyed by the quake, the fire, and.... people setting their own homes on fire. A quick blurb and a map of the damage:

It is also believed that the San Francisco fire and quake destroyed Seymour Church's baseball museum/collection, some copies of his History of Base Ball 1845-1871 Volume I,(published in San Francisco) and whatever might have gone into volume II. Unfortunately there are no relevant photos in volume I to this discussion, but for those who might not have ever seen a copy of the book, the photos and color lithographs that are there are remarkable and even include a 1902 photo of mathewson, in a book published in 1902.

+1

My beef is that there is no implied agreement w/ Olbermann's opinions when one agrees or comments on his baseball card discussion. Just because you love his analysis on an Old Judge card does not make you a fan of Single Payer healthcare. So there's ZERO need to blurt out that you think someone is a commie when the discussion has ZERO to do with politics. That's what set me off.

Hey! I never knew there was a (spot on) law about that!

Thanks!

+2