[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I can say many things about this, but since I am closing an auction today, I will be brief. The 1863 Harry Wright is not a baseball card and never was; it's a CdV that was used as an admission ticket to a game, and because it contained a photograph of a popular athlete (wearing his cricket garb, by the way) makes it a form of keepsake. The date of 1865 for the Jim Creighton P&S is just an estimate. And the Baltimore card, which was on ebay and didn't meet the reserve, is very exciting as it introduces a new sporting goods establishment that we had not seen before on the reverse. However, it is simply a photograph of the Currier & Ives lithograph, not a photo of any actual players or game scene. It is an interesting baseball artifact but even less a baseball card than the previous two. I know someone is going to ultimately buy this new find as a new baseball card and pay way too much for it, but people are free to do with their money as they wish.