Which planet do they mean?
 

This is not a comment on the photo(s), but the marketing use of the word 'specimen' reminded of what my dad would say in such situations: "More like urine specimen."

So we're up to 3 copies? That card is wicked extant.

"...the only known specimen on the planet!"***

[***The "planet" is the name I have given to my desk, so when I refer to the only one on the planet, you should understand that to mean the only one on my desk...at this time...]

:o

This not so unique photo went for $9148.55 - was it worth it?

The description resembles one Brian Drent used for an item perhaps a couple of years ago which also turned out not to be one of a kind, although I am sure he did not know it at the time. I am sure it was discussed here but I cannot recall the particulars.

Let me add that Goodwin was sent an email on 2/3/2010 with the info posted in this thread.

It's a beautifully posed image, with that great grandstand in the background. Still, without Harry Wright in the photo that's a lot of money. But with regard to the fact that it's not unique, I feel the catalog description should have been amended. When I did auctions often somebody who knew more about a particular subject than I did would email me, and if I could verify the information I would add it to the text. Not a big deal at all.

Heh. "other industry leaders"....that should include Mark Rucker who probably knows more about 19th century baseball photographs than anyone. He owns Transcendental Graphics...IOW he owns one of these images. In the future Goodwin should check with Mark before making a claim like that.

the prior thread
 

Dan- I'm pretty sure Mark doesn't own the cabinet. He keeps images of everything he can find, as that is his business. But he sold off most of his original material a long time ago.

Isn't there an image of this in that mid-1980's National Pastime? I can check mine shortly and see.

NO, it's not in the NP.

A few points:

1-To say any photographic image is unique is ridiculous. It may be very rare, but you can never say with certainty that there is no other one out there. Is this image rare--yes.

2-The cabinet that is shown above is not the same as Goodwin's cabinet, which is an identified Sweeny cabinet. Same image--different cabinet.

3-Is the buyer unhappy with the purchase--No, I bought it and am extremely pleased to have gotten it.

Jay- do you see those people sitting above the grandstand? Are those luxury boxes?:)

That's Steinbrenner's great grandfather's box

Ah yes...Ebenezer Steinbrenner!

So, I think Jay is saying that when Goodwin calls it an "unprecedented cardboard memento" - they are right because the other known "momento" is not a Sweeney.

I'll defer to Jay's considerable expertise in that area, but it seems that mention of the non-Sweeny "momento" in the description would have been more - I don't know - transparent. Even if the final price was acceptable, this may have affected the bidding.

Mark--I agree with what you are saying about the write-up. This is not a problem with only Goodwin however; the hype is pervasive in almost every catalog. I'm simply saying that I just ignore the hype and look at the item. Could it have affected the bidding, maybe, but probably not much if at all.

The practice that annoys me the most is, when examining the rarity of vintage cards, auction houses quote how many have been graded by SGC and PSA. This is truely meaningless. Most of the great Old Judge collections, as an example, have very few of their cards graded. Being the highest graded Old Judge is being the big fish in a very small pond. The result that I thought was really crazy in the Goodwin auction last night was the N172 Galvin PSA5 going for $9,400. That is not a particularily scarce card and, even though not graded, there are certainly better copies out there.

While I'm at it, another practice that gets to me is lot descriptions that seem to be judged on how many flowery phrases can be jammed in to each paragraph. A one sentence example from the upcoming Legendary Auction's description of the restore-reversed Wagner is shown below (not trying to pick on Legendary--I could have found examples in virtually any current catalog):

"A conservator’s earnest attempt to bring back the card’s signs of aging resulted in the sight one sees, today, when viewing it. "

Jay- if I graded that sentence with my English teacher's cap on, I would request a rewrite. For some reason they feel convoluted sentences enhance a piece's importance.

Jay -

The other thing I wanted to know - is that Recreation Park? I have no reference (I don't think) to compare.

http://wapedia.mobi/en/1884_Philadelphia_Quakers_season

Interesting that cabinet is from a Cleveland photographer. Perhaps Cleveland was in town for the game and he tagged along. Wonder if there once existed a complementary Cleveland team shot.

BTW, this site's image is the second Cleveland cabinet(like the unique one in Goodwin)

While trying to identify the players in the photo (I'm really bad at this and any help would be appreciated) I noticed that between eighth and ninth players, in the background, stands a suited Harry Wright (I'm pretty sure).

BTW, I'm not sure that the player identification in the write-up is entirely correct. While I think the third player is Coleman and the sixth is Andrews, I don't, for example, think the first is Mulvey. Vintage Philadelphia experts on the board--what do you think?

You know, that very well could be Harry Wright. If you take a loupe to it I'm sure you will easily find out.

IMO - at the level of facial detail as published by the auction house - you can't be too sure of anything.

False alarm--It is not Wright