The First Baseball Card?

[sports-rings]

An 1863 Harry Wright Card is Coming To The REA Spring 2013 Auction.



You can read about the card here: http://sportscollectingnews.com/excl19.htm

[Piratedogcardshows]

Very interesting story.Im sure whoever got it for the 80 grand will make a nice profit with the sale.

[GaryPassamonte]

It is a cricket ticket (card).

[jhs5120]

A very nice piece and I hope it brings a record amount, but I agree. It is hardly a baseball card.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Size is similar to a CDV, even though it is not one, I would look at it as a 19th Century baseball collectible in a very similar light.

[Jlighter]

I think the argument can definitely be made for it being a baseball card.

Harry Wright is most well known for baseball.

This was a ticket to a baseball game.

W600s and E107s with players in Street Clothes are baseball cards.(Obviously these are baseball players in a baseball set)

Saying that I personally believe that this is NOT a baseball card. I think the Atlantic CDV is more of a baseball card then this is.

[bn2cardz]

Why does it matter if something is designated as a "card" or not?
It has a baseball icon on it and it is a good size for displaying. It has a nice image that predates most baseball collectibles. Does it really matter if it is called a card or not? Does it change it's importance in the hobby?

[triwak]

However one refers to it... THIS would be my holy grail!!!

[GaryPassamonte]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

Why does it matter if something is designated as a "card" or not?
It has a baseball icon on it and it is a good size for displaying. It has a nice image that predates most baseball collectibles. Does it really matter if it is called a card or not? Does it change it's importance in the hobby?

That nasty five letter word- MONEY.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

Why does it matter if something is designated as a "card" or not?
It has a baseball icon on it and it is a good size for displaying. It has a nice image that predates most baseball collectibles. Does it really matter if it is called a card or not? Does it change it's importance in the hobby?

Originally Posted by GaryPassamonte

That nasty five letter word- MONEY.

I guess that is my confusion. Why would it bring more money? Why do people care if it is called a "card" or not.

[GaryPassamonte]

Greater minds than mine have tried to solve that conundrum.

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

I guess that is my confusion. Why would it bring more money? Why do people care if it is called a "card" or not.

Would you rather have something called the first baseball card or a cricket ticket. Just doesn't have the same effect. Definitely a big difference in owning one over another. It's like asking why are rookie cards worth more than other cards, especially for newer cards if they made the same amount.

Here is a personal example. I like Carlton Fisk, his rookie card has a tiny picture with two other players in the 72 Topps set. Why is that better than his solo 1973 card with a trophy on it or his 74 Topps, which has a great action shot and is my favorite looking card of him. There is a big % difference in price, but they are all easy to find cards. People like firsts and being the first baseball card ever is a huge first.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by z28jd

Would you rather have something called the first baseball card or a cricket ticket. Just doesn't have the same effect. Definitely a big difference in owning one over another. It's like asking why are rookie cards worth more than other cards, especially for newer cards if they made the same amount. .

I don't want to hijack the thread, but I don't care about a card being a rookie unless I am selling it. I really don't get the craze of owing someone's "first" card over owning their second. Apparently many other's agree since they would rather own Mantle's 52 topps over his 51 bowman.

Back to the subject though. I don't see how it matters in THIS case the picture of a significant person in baseball history is important to the hobby no matter if it is called a "card" or not. If you must have a "rookie" of Harry Wright then I assume it depends on if you own this piece or not.

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

I don't want to hijack the thread, but I don't care about a card being a rookie unless I am selling it. I really don't get the craze of owing someone's "first" card over owning their second. Apparently many other's agree since they would rather own Mantle's 52 topps over his 51 bowman.

Back to the subject though. I don't see how it matters in THIS case the picture of a significant person in baseball history is important to the hobby no matter if it is called a "card" or not. If you must have a "rookie" of Harry Wright then I assume it depends on if you own this piece or not.

You are obviously in the minority because there are plenty of examples of a rookie card being worth more than a 2nd year card

There are also many more baseball card collectors than there are baseball photo collectors, and obviously some don't agree that this is a baseball item as indicated above.

While a rookie baseball card appeals to a huge mass of the collecting population, an item like this, whatever you want to call it besides the "first baseball card"(for argument sake) would not appeal to the same huge group of people. When you have less serious bidders vying for the item, chances are the price would be lower.

Basically, a baseball rookie card has mass appeal in the hobby, so it would obviously go for more money. You can't always get people to go outside their collecting zone with question marks surrounding the item, in this case, what to call it exactly. That alone will likely scare off potential bidders.

I don't have the money to spend on this, but if I did have those kind of funds, I'd be much more interested in the item if it was the first baseball card, because I mainly collect cards and that would be a significant one to own.

[bcbgcbrcb]

As I have mentioned a number of times before, when discussing "Rookies" of different players, when you have an item such as an 8 3/4" X 11" supplement that is obviously not a "card", let's just call it a Rookie (earliest item picturing the player in a major league baseball uniform) and move on. The term "Rookie" does not have to be followed by the word "Card" when it is not appropriate. If the "Rookie" also happens to be a "card", all the better to use the term "Rookie Card" then.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by z28jd

You are obviously in the minority because there are plenty of examples of a rookie card being worth more than a 2nd year card

There are also many more baseball card collectors than there are baseball photo collectors, and obviously some don't agree that this is a baseball item as indicated above.

While a rookie baseball card appeals to a huge mass of the collecting population, an item like this, whatever you want to call it besides the "first baseball card"(for argument sake) would not appeal to the same huge group of people. When you have less serious bidders vying for the item, chances are the price would be lower.

Basically, a baseball rookie card has mass appeal in the hobby, so it would obviously go for more money. You can't always get people to go outside their collecting zone with question marks surrounding the item, in this case, what to call it exactly. That alone will likely scare off potential bidders.

I don't have the money to spend on this, but if I did have those kind of funds, I'd be much more interested in the item if it was the first baseball card, because I mainly collect cards and that would be a significant one to own.

I know I am in the minority. I didn't claim I wasn't. I also don't care about paying more for a HOF if I can have a minor player for less expensive from a set. My point is why would you let a designation determine what you will buy? If you like the item should it matter if someone else calls it a RC or not or even a card? Why do you allow your collecting be dictated by semantics?

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

I know I am in the minority. I didn't claim I wasn't. I also don't care about paying more for a HOF if I can have a minor player for less expensive from a set. My point is why would you let a designation determine what you will buy? If you like the item should it matter if someone else calls it a RC or not or even a card? Why do you allow your collecting be dictated by semantics?

If you're investing/spending as much as this card will cost, you will want to know what other people think before you buy it.

Going buy your logic, if what you like/want is the first baseball card, then wouldn't you want to be sure this is it before you buy it? I can guarantee that there are people out there who want the first baseball card in their collection and those people are likely the ones that are going to be bidding on this, as long as they believe it is the first card.

If you just wanted a Harry Wright CDV because that is what you like, well you have a lot of cheaper items to choose from. I assume if someone is paying what this will eventually go for, then they're not just doing it because they like it. This is in a different category.

I can't figure out why people pay so much more for a psa10 than a psa9, they both look great and the difference may just be who submitted it. Yet if someone wants a psa10 based on number only, they will pay that difference. Still the same card, could look exactly the same, but if everyone agrees that psa is a legit grading company and the one graded 10 is therefore better, that makes it worth xx amount more. On the other hand, you're not going to pay the psa10 price for the psa9, just because you like it.

Not everyone spends their life on this board, they don't have time to do the research but they want to know what they are buying. If you leave the question/answer open on this, it won't go for the same price as if it is agreed upon to be the first card.

I'm not saying it is right, but being sure about something is what drives the market. If you were buying a painting you liked and someone said it might be a Picasso, you would probably want to know it is before you paid what they go for. You wouldn't just say eh I like it so I'm buying it anyway and if it is a Picasso, then great. Other people made great paintings during his era, why are his worth more? It's the name attached to it and if you attach "first baseball card" to this, it becomes historically significant

I think the difference here is that significance aspect and that is what will drive this price. I seriously doubt the winner here just wants a Harry Wright card and doesn't care what they call it because if it finishes in that price range, I'll be the one winning it and you can call it whatever you want then.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by z28jd

If you were buying a painting you liked and someone said it might be a Picasso, you would probably want to know it is before you paid what they go for. You wouldn't just say eh I like it so I'm buying it anyway and if it is a Picasso, then great. Other people made great paintings during his era, why are his worth more? It's the name attached to it and if you attach "first baseball card" to this, it becomes historically significant

I still don't get why it being a card makes a difference. What you call it doesn't change the size or the way it was distributed. So you are saying that it needs to be called a card by your peers before it is worth a certain amount of money? Again it comes down to semantics. Who is the official that gets to make the claim of when it is a card or not and how did that person get the authority?

Your example of Picasso here doesn't work. If you collect Picasso and you aren't sure it really is a Picasso that would be a better comparison to whether the person on this piece was really Harry Wright. Whether the Picasso painting was really a painting or sketch may be a better analogy, but even then it is more about the looks of the piece some people prefer paint over sketch. Or maybe if you were to discuss what phase of Picasso it was. That would be a better comparison. Though I would still say it doesn't matter what phase it was, if you like Picasso and you like the art, then buy it.

What you are talking about is whether something is worth your time because someone else told you it was. Again you are debating semantics to decide your collecting tendencies instead of enjoying the piece for what it is in cold hard facts. We know what the item was used for, you know who is pictured, you know what year it was distributed. If you can't decide you want it in your collection until someone else designates it with a certain word to describe it then so be it, but that doesn't make any sense to me.

[oldjudge]

Everyone has a different opinion, but mine is that this is a ticket and not a card. It is also a cricket ticket as, per the REA write-up, Wright had resigned from the Knickerbockers at the time of the Grand Match but was still an active cricket player. Look at the Sam Wright/Harry Wright CdV in Legendary and compare what it will realize to the $50K minimum that REA has on the Wright ticket. That is the value of convincing someone that it is a baseball card. The minimum is a safeguard against the card going for a CdV or Ticket price which would certainly be a LOT less than the REA minimum bid. It will be interesting to see if it gets a bid at that level.
Would anyone consider the tickets that many MLB teams now issue with players images on them to be baseball cards? Of course not, they are tickets. The same, in my opinion, goes for this item.

[triwak]

This is one of the hobby's most famous "cards!" Research it. This will go for 6-figs easy!!!

[oldjudge]

Ken--Side bet?

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

I still don't get why it being a card makes a difference. What you call it doesn't change the size or the way it was distributed. So you are saying that it needs to be called a card by your peers before it is worth a certain amount of money? Again it comes down to semantics. Who is the official that gets to make the claim of when it is a card or not and how did that person get the authority?

Your example of Picasso here doesn't work. If you collect Picasso and you aren't sure it really is a Picasso that would be a better comparison to whether the person on this piece was really Harry Wright. Whether the Picasso painting was really a painting or sketch may be a better analogy, but even then it is more about the looks of the piece some people prefer paint over sketch. Or maybe if you were to discuss what phase of Picasso it was. That would be a better comparison. Though I would still say it doesn't matter what phase it was, if you like Picasso and you like the art, then buy it.

What you are talking about is whether something is worth your time because someone else told you it was. Again you are debating semantics to decide your collecting tendencies instead of enjoying the piece for what it is in cold hard facts. We know what the item was used for, you know who is pictured, you know what year it was distributed. If you can't decide you want it in your collection until someone else designates it with a certain word to describe it then so be it, but that doesn't make any sense to me.

I'm just trying to tell you what people think based on my knowledge of collecting since I was five. I'm not an economy major and I'm done playing one. Think what you want about it, I honestly have no opinion as to whether it is a card or not. Sorry if you didn't get the analogy either, I used about ten for you, so pick another.

[drc]

There are a lot more baseball card collectors out there than baseball ticket or First Day of Issue envelope collectors, so if something is considered to be a baseball card there will be more demand and be financially worth more.

That's the financial answer to why whether or not something is a baseball card is important. I'm not at all saying financial value is the only way, or the best way, to consider or justify or measure a piece of memorabilia.

P.s. I don't believe anyone knows what is the first baseball card. In the area of early cards there is a lot of gray area, unanswerable questions and missing information, differing definitions and points of view and we're not certain when some cards were made. For two given early cards, the hobby may not know which one was made first.

[triwak]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Ken--Side bet?

No thanks, Jay. I need to save my money for one of those 6-figs!!!

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by drc

P.s. I don't believe anyone knows what is the first baseball card. In the area of early cards there is a lot of gray area, unanswerable questions and missing information, differing definitions and points of view and we're not certain when some cards were made. For two given early cards, the hobby may not know which one was made first.

Once SGC began slabbing cdv's, the definition of 'baseball card' changed - all sorts of cdv's became eligible.

But ultimately, if two people who want the first baseball card both think this is it, then the price will reflect their thinking (even though it isn't)

[drc]

These items fall under the category 'Origins of baseball cards.' They resemble baseball cards in ways, but aren't baseball cards as we know them today. They are from the days when baseball cards were being formed, like the intersection of of townball to basesball.

There are a few early items that fit my definition of baseball cards, a few near misses and many that do not. Calling something you own or are auctioning a baseball card only because that means it will sell for more is, of course, intellectually corrupt and following the path of Shop at Home and QVC. I remember when Shop at Home would call about anything a 'rookie card,' because rookie cards sold for more. Joe Montana's first appearance as a Kansas City Chief would be offered as his 'Kansas City Rookie Card.' A Ted Williams 1959 Fleer was his "Fleer Rookie Card."

I'm not an active baseball card collector. It's the baseball card collectors who make the 'baseball card' label such a big issue. I like baseball cards, but tickets, studio CDVs and cricket cards are nice too. Having said that, I have a personal definition of what is a baseball card and sometimes voice my opinion as to whether an item is baseball card.

[FirstYearCards]

The definition of a rookie card: whatever you chose as you own personal guidelines. I have been collecting for years(HOF rookies), and have set my own rules. For my own purposes, here is how I collect:

http://www.firstyearcards.com/FAQ.html

[bcbgcbrcb]

Great stuff, Bill. I'll have to check that out much closer when I have a chance.

[Jlighter]

Three cards from this "set" just sold at Legendary for 15,000.

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...ntoryid=154257

[oldjudge]

They are as much the first baseball card as the Wright. Both Hammond and Crossley played in the baseball game.

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by Jlighter

Three cards from this "set" just sold at Legendary for 15,000.

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...ntoryid=154257

Shockingly low. So far this morning there are three separate threads about very low prices for 19th century cards in last night's auction. Can anyone explain that?

[RGold]

I follow 15 auction houses, averaging 3 to 4 auctions each per year. Plus eBay. Throw in that we are all waiting to see the REA preview.

I don't think it's just 19th century material. There were three listings in last night's Legendary auction that I normally would have bid on, and I decided, you know what, I think I would rather hold off and see what comes to market this Spring.

[GaryPassamonte]

Barry,
I think the market is so thin for many 19th century cards that once they are added to the collections of 19th century collectors, the market becomes all the thinner. All it takes is one or two players to not need or want a particular card and the demand collapses. Many hard core 19th century collectors are not sellers, particularly of the more obscure issues. Once they're in a collection they stay there. The result is a thin market with wide price fluctuations. In my thread you mentioned the similarity in pricing for the 1870 Forest Cities, 1870 Athletics, and the 1875 Hartford CdVs historically.. In order, the prices from the most recent sales of these CdVs: $32000, $2000, $16000. They each have a single digit population, but have quite different prices. It would seem the market is very small.

[ullmandds]

I def agree that 19th c rarities have a very thin audience...but I also wonder if perhaps over the last few years shill bidding has artificially inflated prices of many cards...and now that it is more closely scrutinized...we're seeing more normal prices?

[bcbgcbrcb]

I still think that 19th Century material is a good long term investment, take advantage of a soft economy and soft market now to pay off later, I believe..........

I agree with everyone else that last night's Legendary prices were quite favorable to buyers, wish I had some more cash on hand but was precluded from bidding because I am broke right now.

[benjulmag]

The P&S Red Stockings did okay at 81k. The market for that card obviously is much deeper.

[bmarlowe1]

It's interesting (at least to me) that SGC and PSA don't agree on who is Hammond and who is Crossley.

This person matches the guy labeled as Crossley in pencil on an NYPL Spalding collection cricket team photo (that includes Chadwick). But, there a quite a few ID errors in the NYPL Spaldlng collection, so who knows?

[GaryPassamonte]

Corey-The P & S Red Stockings card was a particularly nice example and I think the Ann St reference might have influenced some. Maybe there are some P & S back collectors out there?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

The P&S Red Stockings did okay at 81k. The market for that card obviously is much deeper.

Have always felt it is undervalued and under appreciated. I wonder how much the write up concerning it being potentially the first of the series affected the price?

[oldjudge]

The Ann St address was the sole determinant in the price going where it did. Otherwise, it is a $35,000 piece. The CdV with the ad on the back for Chadwick's 1869 book, followed by the Ann St address trade card, are the earliest Cinc images.

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

The P&S Red Stockings did okay at 81k. The market for that card obviously is much deeper.

That was my old Red Stockings card. I recognize it because of the smudge on "ew" of New York.

[Runscott]

You could be dead-broke, find that card picking in Maine, and then retire in India.

[drc]

Prices did seem low. I wonder if its because so many were offered, plus the shilling in previous auctions post struck me as possibly valid.

The 1869 Reds are one of the most famous teams, so that's where a lot of the value comes from and will always come from. The 1927 Yankees of its day.

I can say that, as someone who worked with a big non-sport CDV and cabinet photo auction recently, baseball CDVs fetch a lot of money, even at these prices. $5,000 is a lot of money for a CDV. For perspective, the auction had an original Russian studio family portrait cabinet of the Romanov family (Czar Nicholas, Anastasia et al) and I think that sold for around $1,000.

I add that, while I fashion myself a photo expert, others on this board and in this thread know a lot more details about these early baseball CDVs. I only brought up the Sam and Harry Wright CDV because, browsing the catalog, it didn't visually resemble an 1870s CDV so I looked into it further.

On this board, I think I'd be called a photo generalist, with a passing knowledge of old baseball.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

The Ann St address was the sole determinant in the price going where it did. Otherwise, it is a $35,000 piece. The CdV with the ad on the back for Chadwick's 1869 book, followed by the Ann St address trade card, are the earliest Cinc images.

How do you know that? Can you say conclusively that P&S did not operate two locations simultaneously before expanding one (Nassau Street) so as to enable them to consolidate the other one (Ann Street) within it? Absent some dispositive proof that the Nassau Street location was not in existence prior to 1870, I will continue to believe it more likely that the black baseball verso on the Red Stockings P&S denoted the first printing, the black ice skate verso the second printing and the red baseball verso the third printing. Also, it has been my observation that the black baseball verso P&S Red Stockings as a group exhibit noticeably better contrast than the red baseball versos, which is consistent with the belief they were issued earlier than the red versos. As to the contrast of the black ice skate verso Red Stockings, I recall examining only one --the one just sold by Legendary (which at one time I owned). Its contrast, while nice, does not compare to the contrast of the finest black baseball versos.

Also, with regard to price, I do not believe that its realized price would have been materially different had it had the baseball Nassau Street verso.

[oldjudge]

Corey- let us agree to disagree on the dates. I think Ann St probably dates first (and definitely does not date second). As for the Ann St address, to paraphrase Mike Milken, I have a high degree of confidence it was the cause of the lot's realization.

[benjulmag]

I will also add that the 1868 Lowells P&S has the baseball verso. The card is trimmed so the address does not appear but presumably it was Nassau Street (I don't recall ever hearing about an ice skate verso with anything other than the Ann Street address).

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

As for the Ann St address, to paraphrase Mike Milken, I have a high degree of confidence it was the cause of the lot's realization.

Didn't Mr. Milken's acumen result in him ending up in the slammer?

[barrysloate]

I say the lot went for 81K because two people fought over it to the end. Take one person out of the equation and the next one sells for half the amount.

[GaryPassamonte]

Barry- That's basically my original point.

[barrysloate]

I know Gary, the air is very thin at the top. Almost every record price I ever achieved in my own auctions- and there were quite a few- was the result of two bidders, and two only, fighting it out. It was very rare to have more than two involved. That's why I've always said that extreme prices have to be assessed carefully. They may only happen once.