1887 N172 Comiskey vs 1973 Topps
 

Both of these sold very recently, on ebay, for the same prices. It just doesn't seem fair but it is what it is. Old and neat cards don't get their just dues many times..Someone wrote a tiny 25 on the back which is the reason for Comiskey being a PSA 2 MK...(the Schmidt is a great card too but still...)

I always loved Comiskey's black eye on the card.

That Commy went for a very reasonable price, but unfortunately more than I could afford to pay right now.

I have nothing against Topps cards. However, I've never been a believer that financial value = non-financial worth.

LOL Jay I had never noticed that before - I bet a lot of guys that played for Comiskey would have liked to have given him another one...

I am not a fan of buying cards of a guy who almost ruined the game because he was so cheap he was cheating his players. In general, I try to spend my money on prewar cards over 1948-1975 cards. I feel that they are better values.

LOL I just showed the first post of this thread to my daughter then went on a 20 minute rant about how I would like to see Comiskey removed from the HOF and replaced with Buck Weaver.

I do, however, agree with the premise of this thread. Lots of prewar stuff is a BARGAIN relative to postwar.

Oh, come on, you guys. The stories about Comiskey being a skinflint owner who underpaid his players range from objectively false to highly misleading. They originated with Nelson Algren and James T. Farrell, who wrote accounts of the Black Sox scandal that were distorted by their leftist political views, and were uncritically passed on to a broader audience by Eliot Asinof in Eight Men Out, which was basically a historical novel. People who have researched Comiskey through documentary evidence and contemporary sources (including salary data that was unavailable to Asinof, who didn't cite sources in any case) have found a picture that's almost diametrically opposed to the caricature depicted by Asinof. Comiskey was generally well-liked within the game, even beloved by many. The stories that Asinof told about Comiskey's cheapness and deception are all provably false, with one very arguable exception. See the following link, and Tim Hornbaker's 2014 biography of Comiskey, "Turning the Black Sox White".

http://scoopyballpark.blogspot.com/2...t-v-commy.html

He still shafted his players to insulate himself from the scandal (and Ban Johnson). Having his attorneys extract confessions from Jackson and Cicotte, all under the guise of looking out for the players' best interests is a scumbag move.

As if that weren't enough, Joe's missing 1920 "confession" miraculously surfaced just in time to be used against Jackson in court when Joe was suing Comiskey for backpay in 1924.

You can't polish a turd.

Man, if I only collected "good character" types, I'd probably only have a bunch of Matty's (which wouldn't be a bad thing, I guess.)

...a pretty girl walked right past me at breakfast this morning...didn't even notice me.

Call me 'Vintage'.


-

Can't see the back, but it looks as if someone also wrote a tiny 14 on the front ...

Don't get me wrong, I'd still take the Comiskey over the Schmidt any day. I'm not really a big "rookie" collector, especially the multi-player cards like this one, but I can see why someone would pay a premium for a card in nice condition like this example.

The person who wrote the "14" on the card's obverse worked for Goodwin & Co. This card is part of the short number series, all of which should have a number not starting with "0" in the UR. Occasionally, the number wore off or was inadvertently left off the glass plate negative, but it should be on this card--it is in the photo. I can recommend a good book on the topic. 😀

Why do you guys keep calling that a "Schmidt?" That card is a "Cey." Go Dodgers!



edited to add, this is not my penguin.

That is because it is Schmidt's rookie card. Cey's rookie card was 1972 Topps.

No, it is a "Hilton"

It is not even Cey's rookie card!

Steve

Did I say this was Cey's rookie? Because if I said it was Cey's rookie, you should say don't say that about Cey, but I don't see where I said Cey's rookie. If I could see where you saw me say Cey's rookie, I could see what you say about Cey. But I don't see what you saw, so what can I say, it's Cey! :D

Along with two bunches of WaJos! :)

I totally agree. I buy prewar almost exclusively and I find the 73's to be one of the more hideous sets Topps has ever put out, but your talking about a high grade sp rookie of perhaps the greatest 3rd baseman of all time. Not really surprised it went for what it did.

Ron Cey's Rookie Card is in 1972 on a 3 player card. IIRC at this early hour, the card number is 761.

So Cey Hey! And let's go back to Mr. Schmidt

A very historical card where we see the origin of mistakenly using an apostrophe on a word simply meant to be plural. Card collectors, some 130 years later, continue to discuss their Goudey's and their Matty's in the spirit of this very card. :D

Attachment 287413

Thousands upon thousands of people have watched Mike Schmidt play. Not a person alive has seen Comiskey. So in that sense I can understand it.

Which opens up a whole new can of worms in regards to the market floor for vintage. Eventually, it's just gonna be millennials (I want to apologize in advance for my generation) collecting, and not a person alive will have seen Mantle, Mays, etc., play. :eek: