New Old Judge discovery
 

Saw this on the twitter feed of olberman. Unknown old judge cards of minor leaguers.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=y...ure%3Dyoutu.be


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Awesome
 

very cool piece. I love it when KO talks cards, hell I just love hearing him opine on anything.

Not sure why he refers to the cards as Old Judges. Can the experts chime in?

What Steve said...how are these Old Judge cards?

If they were distributed in Old Judge packs, what else would you call them? How 'bout Old Judge Minor League Supplement cards? And the line Gypsy Queen example would be a Gypsy Queen ML Supplement.

Cool discovery no matter how they are designated.But I agree they don't seem like Old Judge cards.

I think he's just guessing they came out of an OJ pack, but nothing on the card itself suggests that.

Amazing story. Thanks for posting this!

I just hit "play" on last night's show, and couldn't believe how excited I was when I heard him talk about these newly discovered cards.

Cool stuff

Pretty cool find.

So who got that amazing scrapbook full of cards?

what's a window seat?

It's a window with a large area at the foot of it so someone could sit there...like a very large window sill. We have several in our house, next to large windows.

Great cards, great discovery and reported by a passionate collector.

The baseball card hobby is the only going I enjoy hearing Olbermann talk about.

I can't disagree more with his liberal-socialist-communistic view of how things should be and no other way. God help us all already as it is...

With KO I put politics aside, I have to :).......so let's quickly get back to cards and all will be good.....

OJ GQ Cards
 

In the video, Keith showed evidence of a Greenwood & Morans card with Gypsy Queen advertisement along the bottom of the card which was very similar to the Gypsy Queen cards (The ad on GQ cards is on top). Then looking at the 2 newly discovered G & M Minor league cards, they looked just like the GQ Greenwood & Moran card, except they didn't have the GQ advertisement at the bottom of the card. It is reasonable to think these 3 cards are the same, but not so sure about saying the two newly discovered came out of a GQ pack and/or especially an OJ pack. It sounds plausible to think they were some type of supplement for the Oakland area and were a part of GQ, but the distribution is a mystery. Perhaps they were simply handed out in the area?

It's pretty amazing that any of these regional issues managed to survive after the great earthquake and fire.

I'm assuming the album was the album sold by SCP that a board member picked up? Or did Olbermann get a different album. The two new prospects look like they've had the Gypsy Queen tagline cut from the bottom. The Donovan that showed up originally sold in a Lipset auction I think for just South of 100K a few years back. Neat, neat stuff.

Actually, I think Barry S sold it in one of his auctions and it brought around 81k? (still a ton of money)......and the consignor, who is a good friend, was very happy.

GQ
 

Tom - Good catch! I went back and looked at the video again, and I believe you are correct. They look cut at the bottom and it seems very safe to assume these 2 looked like the other Greenwood & Moran GQ. Very nice piece that Keith and crew put together. I love dormant cards that are unearthed. :)

I have to disagree with you guys...I do not believe the 2 newly discovered cards had gypsy queen cut from the bottom. I base this on a few factors:

1-the size of the 3 cards are pretty close...in order for the 2 newer ones to have had gypsy queen cut from the bottom they'd have been a bit longer.

2- the cut on the bottom of the newly discovered cards looks original

3-the quality of the photos is slightly different

4-in conclusion esp based on the fact that these were local/minor league players they may have been created by a factory worker for his/her own personal use based on some pics that were available and didn't necessarily ever have any advertisement on them.

Just my thoughts.

After further review...who knows!!!!!

Wow--so much misinformation. First, these, if anything, are Gypsy Queens, NOT Old Judges. Old Judges came in Old Judge cigarette packs, Gypsy Queens came in Gypsy Queen cigarette packs. Second, the two new trimmed cards were not scanned next to an existing McDonald Gypsy Queen. The McDonald is an image of the card, not the actual card. My guess is that they are all the same size.
Third, the McDonald sold in Barry Sloate auction for about $80,000. The card was originally found by David Bryan on Ebay. The auction took place in the late-1990s I believe.
The only problem with the cards is that there is no identification of the manufacturer. The most likely scenario, as I note above, is that they are the same Gypsy Queen set as the McDonald. However, I guess they could be from another set, or they could be unissued printers scrap--who knows.
BTW, the McDonald image posted above is not the full image. Our book has the complete image.

Yeah, what Jay said is what I think. If anything they are GQ cards, but even when you look at the space at the bottom of the McDonald between the name and the ad, there should at least be part of the GQ ad showing, even if they were slightly trimmed. Based on that, I'd say they are more likely proofs of the GQ card. Definitely not an Old Judge card though

Incredible find, unfortunately I had some problems with the production of the segment

If you look at the 1:56 minute mark, here is a picture of the scrapbook page with the two newly discovered cards.

http://bid-brain.com/documentation/GypsyQueenPage1.jpg

Then you look at the same page at the 2:10 mark and it has the only other discovered California league GQ card. Obviously a photoshop job.

http://bid-brain.com/documentation/G...nPage2_210.jpg

Then to continue their photoshopping job they put the three cards together and again fail to account for the relative sizes at 2:51.

http://bid-brain.com/documentation/G...nPage3_251.jpg

It looks like if the bottoms were just trimmed off we would still see part of the Gypsie Queen lettering judging ratios by eye. My guess would be that they are some type of GQ proof. Whatever they are, they are extremely cool!

Thanks also to KO for promoting this cool find and the hobby in general through his show.
JimB

I do believe that when the sizes are checked it will show that the new cards have the ads cut off. This was relatively common, and could have been done to make it fit in the scrapbook since they look slightly larger than the normal GQs. Does anyone have the exact measurement? According to my SCD big book it says it is approximately the same as a regular GQ.

http://www.baseballcardresource.com/...5_Madden_A.jpg

Jim -

Take a look at the first picture in my post, it is more photoshopping. That picture of the three cards together should not be shown to collectors as it is misleading in many ways.

From the album photo, it's clear that the cards were trimmed near the team name, unlike the 'doctored' or enhanced pictures which appear to have added a significant amount of lower border. I still stand by my belief that they're from the same set and that the two cards that were recently found had the Gypsy Queen tagline trimmed. The enhanced cards with the bottom border added are somewhat deceptive but I assume done that way to just show the cards better.....still very, very cool stuff. You have to assume that there are more of them out there. On the album.....again.....was this the album that was sold in the recent SCP auction for $80K+? Or is it another album out there?

Cool stuff guys. OJ or GQ...it is neat either way.

Z Wheat

Tom--the albums were the Cambridge Collection, sold by Goldin, not SCP. These cards are different, although Keith blended them together in his piece.

Ah.....thought that was a couple of other nice cards you found in the album!

So.....Olbermann engineered the two newly found ones into pages of the Cambridge Collection for viewing purposes?

No, the page he showed with the two trimmed cards was not from the Cambridge Collection. The other scrapbook pages were. I'm not sure why he showed the Cambridge Collection stuff at all.

What a fantastic hobby, where there are so many scholars that study the hobby so hard, and yet there are still new discoveries all the time.

When I saw the piece, I immediately assumed that he was reporting on cards that were in the Cambridge Collection. Thanks for clearing that up, Jay.

Still, given the audience (which goes far beyond card collectors, most of who do not understand this stuff), it was a solid piece. And a great discovery.

-Al

FWIW, the boxing cards shown in the screen cap all have had their ads hacked off, so I assume that the same fate befell the two cards in question. Here are the Godfrey and Wilson cards as they should look:

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...full%20crp.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...4%20Wilson.jpg

Adam--what you are saying is not correct. The serpentine Gypsy Queen banner on the McDonald is in fact different than the serpentine banners on the boxers. Look closely and you will see this.

So I take it this was a private acquisition, or are these cards going to auction somewhere?

Also I think Adam was saying the boxers on the page were trimmed. It is therefore not a leap to assume that if the collector trimmed the boxers they would not have a problem trimming the California League cards.

Window seats
 

My house was built in 1905. I just checked my window seats . . . Zippo. Nada.

You should have bought the house on Linda Vista. That one is probably chock full of cards.

I don't think uniformity was the code of the day in the 1880's . Also , the photographic style is very much similar to the Old Judges and Gypsy Queens . The difference maybe because they were minor leaguers . Hopefully more minor leaguers will show up to clear some of the mystery . Mr Olbermann does a good job of wrapping the history around that early Era of cards .

Extremely interesting!, I see I'm late to the party but still more to discuss here. What makes this confusing is that the newly discovered cards are shown differently throughout the segment. As mentioned, most of the scrapbook pages originate from the Cambridge collection which only contained 3 GQs in total. But it appears these new California League GQs were found amongst a treasure trove of GQs (attached below). If the image I've attached below is the true representation of the cards (no photoshopping), then I believe these are GQ cards w/ trimmed advertisement banner. The trim at bottom is tight and hence no evidence of the GQ banner. The card proportions appear correct to me, a bit wider than normal N175s. The un-photoshoped images also show a strong left border shadow that was typical of many Goodwin & Co. cards produced in 1888 and especially 1889 & 90 (including the McDonald GQ).

IF these are to be considered GQs, we are left with a dilemma of how to catalogue them. To date, all photographic cards from Goodwin & Co. are lumped together in the same Cartophilic listing. That is, Old Judges cigarette cards (N172), Old Judge cabinets (N173), and Gypsy Queens (N175 large & small) are lumped together to define the complete list of players, poses, and variations. However, every N175 and N173 player can be found as an N172. Now there are unique poses such as King Kelly portrait in street clothes that are not known as N172s (only known in cabinet form) BUT the N172 set really defines all the possible players (all 522 subjects - Wilson being the last addition).

The previously only known California League GQ is that of James McDonald. He also enjoys having a rare 1889 California League Old Judge card. When we wrote the book, we opted to catalogue the N172 as 308.5-1 and the GQ as 308.5-2 (see page 317). But these two most recent California League discoveries of Monte Clements and John Donovan are new players to Goodwin's photographic ensemble. So one could consider adding new player numbers of 79.5-1 for Monte Clements (between Jack Clements & Elmer Cleveland) and 129.5-1 (between Jim Donnelly and Charles Dooley) for John Donovan. I suspect most purist would require more evidence to prove these are Goodwin & Co. issued cards (i.e. GQs) via an untrimmed copy before adding Clements and Donovan to the list.

Another option would be to pull these three unique California League GQs into a set of their own and not catalogue them, cartophilically, with the other Goodwin & Co. issues. Those few who are going after an example of all the players would probably rather keep these separated and I don't blame them. Or you could just tell yourself you want an example of all the players that can be found on an N172 and just live with the fact that two numbers, 79.5 & 129.5, don't matter.

Regardless of how these cards are perceived, thank you KO for bringing these to light of the hobby in such a grand fashion. Assuming you read this, it would be great if you (KO) could share a little more information on these cards including high resolution scans that have not been photoshoped.

Joe-forgetting the technical numbering system for a second, these cards, if they are Gypsy Queens (you can't be 100% certain, although that is probably the case) are part of some Gypsy Queen subset. They are not small or large Gypsy Queens, but are, for lack of a better term, the phrase I used in the book, a medium Gypsy Queen. Their discovery does not change the number of members in the Old Judge set --there are still 522. It does increase the number of subjects in the Photographic Baseball Cards of Goodwin and Company to 524. Personally, if it could be verified that they were in fact Gypsy Queens, I would have no problem assigning numbers to them, the Cartophilic Society listing includes all of Goodwin's photographic cards. However, their discovery does not change the Old Judge set.
On a side note, it is interesting to see the many variations in the Gypsy Queen set. You have the large Gypsy Quuens which are very rare and whose method of distribution is still a mystery. You have the normal small Gypsy Queens which are much rarer than their Old Judge counterparts, probably due to the unpopularity of the Gypsy Queen cigarettes. And now you may have this California League Gypsy Queen set. Are we having fun yet?

I'm in complete agreement with you Jay, I didn't mean to suggest these two latest cards are to be considered OJs. I was careful to refer to the new players as merely adding to "Goodwin's photographic ensemble" and only really impacting the Cartophilic listing. I agree that a complete run of Old Judge subjects stands at 522 but the number of different subjects in the Cartophilic listing has now jumped to 524 IF we agree these were issued by Goodwin & Co. (which as previously stated I suspect is the case). There are now so many updates for the 2nd edition of the book :)

Very cool discovery, I love this stuff!

Keith was able to share some clear scans of the cards, no photoshopping. The brightness and contrast are not quite right and the scans are cropped rather tightly, but the scans adequately capture the cards as I expected and hoped to see them. I've added the McDonald (not mine), to scale, for comparison. While the trimmed bottom on the new finds won't allow us to 100% confirm they are Goodwin & Co. issues it sure looks probable. Note that all the GQs on the scrap book page are trimmed on the bottom, not just the California League GQs. Neat cards, and thank you again Mr. Olbermann.

+1

I'm not sure why KO's politics needed to be brought into this topic at all. Invariably, those discussions devolve into some sort of partisan pissing match.

Can we please just enjoy these newly discovered cards, and keep the elephant and donkey out of the room? Thank you.

+1............. back on subject. Thank you to KO, Jay & Joe.. GREAT STUFF and more exciting stuff for the hobby and incredible pub for the Old Judge and 19th century cards. Please keep it there.

Joe, Jay, other OJ masters, what is the relative scarcity of GQ cards with the wavy logo at bottom as compared to OJ cards with the wavy logo at bottom? Any idea as to the ratio between the two?

Joe - Thanks so much for those scans. Hopefully that clears up a lot of confusion for collectors.

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.....