1866 E.S. Sterry & Co. First Known Baseball Cards SGC - $250,000.00

[Archive]

Posted By: CarltonHendricks

eBay item number: 150296832230
http://cgi.ebay.com/1866-E-S-Sterry-Co-First-Known-Baseball-Cards-SGC_W0QQitemZ150296832230QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUS_SM_ Sports_Cards?_trksid=p3286.m20.l1116
What's the story on these cards in the link above? Are they really the first cards?

Below excerpted from listing:
HISTORY: The Unions of Lansingburgh (later known as the Troy Haymakers) began their professional baseball existence in 1866 and were considered a good, but not great, team. They were, however, among the most notorious gamblers in baseball, fixing games and often bribing umpires to their statistical advantage. If any team could be considered the Black Sox of 19th century baseball, the Unions of Lansingburgh would have been a strong candidate. Bill Craver, the "Buck Weaver" of the Lansingburgh club, holds the infamous distinction as the first in professional baseball to be banned for illicit gambling in the Louisville scandal of 1877.

P.S. I don't usually out stuff on eBay, but this is different

[Archive]

Posted By: Jodi Birkholm

Brian Wentz.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhys

These cards have been cataloged for years and sold for about 10% of the asking price through Lew Lipsett a few years back and are listed in the SCD guidebook. CDV's are "cards" with their own niche, however unless they were produced in conjunction with a product (like Peck and Snyder cards) than they really are nothing more than Studio Cabinet cards with a more Baseball card sized shape. Dont get me wrong, they are really cool, but you would be hard pressed to find many people who agree they are the first baseball cards because if you are going to go down the road of CDV's being cards, there are earlier CDV's picturing baseball players than these. As for the asking price, I think inflation should catch up to the price in about 2056 unless we keep pumping out economic stimulous checks and in that case it might be closer to 2021.

Rhys

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

In general, if a CDV was used for commercial/advertising purposes, it will be considered a trading card-- add on back, sold at stores or in catalogs. For example, the Peck & Snyder cards can be found both with advertising and were sold to the public via the P & S catalog.

The problem is it's often impossible to know how a CDV was distributed-- commercial purposes or just a studio photo. Typically, a CDV is called a baseball card if it is known for certain the card was a commercial item. And if you don't know, you don't know.

There are cases where a CDV or cabinet was made by a photographer known to have sold his celebrity photos to the public-- Mathew Brady, Sarony and others. Brady and Sarony had galleries were the public could buy photos. With these photographers, it's more likely the item was a commercial product, even if there is no advertising or other signs. If you own a Napoleon Sarony cabinet card of James Jeffries, it likely was a commercial product offered to the public, and is as much a trading card as a T5 Pinkerton cabinet.

For the eBay CDVs, it is relevant that they show the players formally posing in their uniforms. At the least, they are formal team photos.

[Archive]

Posted By: CarltonHendricks

Thanks everyone..I knew this was the place to ask...glad I didn't pull the trigger and waste the 250g's

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Whether or not they're trading cards, they are worth a fair amount of money. A CDV of a known pro player in his uniform from this early is worth something whether or not it's a commercial/advertising piece. Further, an 1860s bunch of player CDVs from the same team is rare. I can't think of another example, unless it's some Ivy League team. Also, I didn't say they weren't sold to the pubic. I don't know how they were distributed, which means there's some speculation involved trading card-wise. My rule is that you have to know, or at least be 90 percent certain, that the card was a commercial/advertising item before I call it a trading card. Speculation doesn't prove it for me, as you can speculate about any cabinet card, CDV or photo. Though I'll always listen to others' opinions and evidence and have changed my opinion. There may be info about these CDVs that would convince me they are trading cards. Otherwise, they're still rare and valuable.

I'm a photo collector and, to me, a photo doesn't have to be a trading card to be collectible. A CDV doesn't look any different once REA calls it a trading card. Whether or not a CDV or cabinet card qualifies as a trading card is an issue for trading card collectors. I know that trading card collectors focus' is on trading cards, so appreciate their concern with the issue. If you collect game used baseballs, it's not a mere technicality whether or not that baseball was used in a game. 'Game used' is what you collect.

[Archive]

Posted By: CarltonHendricks

DavidCycleBack, thanks, good discussion, thanks for clarifying they are important, and I do like them...was just jesting on the 250g's...posted because they were so unusual

Well here I am goofing off when I should be finishing the National story...and I'm closing in...but this discussion brought to mind my only cdv's I own, which I got earlier this year as I recall....This will illustrate how little I know about cards...when I got these I was disappointed they were only 2 1/2" by 4"..I was expecting cabinet card size...my friends had to explain cdv's were better than cabinets...I got them because they were super rare sculpture...the one of the Muller is in Rucker's book..the other one is way out there....says "Baseball" but it's cricket..all the more reason to have such an example. If anyone has the Muller "Striker" (batter) cdv...of course I'd like to buy it!!

Boy cards are a hassel...I'm nervous handling them, as I know condition is so important...I think that may have been the first time I ever actually touched them out of the sleeves....good grief..got'um back in the plastic before something happned...ugh...I'm happier with stuff I can just pick up and examine and enjoy without being nervous.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Assuming the 1867 date applies to the CDV, that would be one of the earliest known baseball cards. Has obvious advertising on it.

For some of the earliest baseball cards, they're known as genuine baseball cards but the exact year of creation is unknown. For example, some say the Peck and Snyder James Creighton is from 1865, others will say 1870. I don't think anyone knows for certain. Also, Peck & Snyder CDVs were sold over several years in the P & S catalog. Someone posted an ad a while back. You could buy a 1868 Brooklyn Atlantics card in 1870. All the Atlantics could have been made in 1868 and the leftovers in stock sold over the next years. That would be my guess what happened, but its also possible they made more after 1868. You don't know. Another interesting question is was the Peck & Snyder 1869 Cincinnati Reds trade card made in 1869 or 1870? As we all know, a Topps team card shows the team from the previous year.

So the earliest days of baseball cards are foggy and speculative. Though an 1867 baseball card unquestionably ranks amongst the earliest known.

As someone who specializes in photographs, I often use phrases such as "circa," "1930s," "early 1950s" or "Civil War era." Sometimes the date of making is stamped or printed on the photo and you can are certain of the year, sometimes even day. But many times you don't know the specific year the photo was made, even when you are confident the photo is original. If an unmarked photo could have been made on December 31 1971, that means it also could have been made January 1 1972. Though, under most circumstances, whether the photo was developed in 1971 or 72 has no effect on the value that Steve McQueen photo. Even the buyer might not care one way or the other. If it's a 1971 image printed in 1995, then it's an issue for the buyer. But 1972 development is no big deal.

What is interesting with movie photos is that the movie stills (photos sent to press and displayed in the theatres) are sometimes dated the year before the movie came out. There are the usual delays and machinations in the release of a movie. Thus, you can have Gone With the Wind stills, dated 1938 and showing scenes from the movie, even though GWTW is a 1939 movie.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jodi Birkholm

In regards to the "Pitcher" statue depicted in your scan....Isn't that very similar to the statue of the same name by 19th century artist Douglas Tilden? If I'm not mistaken, he was blind. Forgive me if any of the above is not 100% correct--it's been over 20 years since I read about this.