Frederick Photo Cards

[LincolnVT]

I'm interested in seeing any cards from this scarce set that anyone might have.

[oldjudge]

LOL, since you traded for the Frederick's Foto Ruth, how often will you post about it?

[LincolnVT]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

LOL, since you traded for the Frederick's Foto Ruth, how often will you post about it?

It's a fair question...I wasn't planning to post another picture of it, but hey maybe I will. LOL!! was hoping to see any other Frederick Foto cards of players if people here have them.

Thanks.

[ullmandds]

FF cards are rare...you just don't see many at all.

[Leon]

Here are a few different type fronts from my last collection...

[LincolnVT]

Leon:

Those are beautiful...wondering if anyone has ever attempted to pull together the set.

[Vintagecatcher]

In addition to the smaller standard cards, there are larger format Frederick Foto cards such as the two I own below.

Not sure if they are actually proofs or perhaps they were cut from an advertising poster.

Patrick

[camlov2]

[Bicem]

Very nice! What's the most desirable card in the set after Ruth?

[Dewey]

These are cool. New set to me.

[LincolnVT]

Originally Posted by camlov2

Beautiful group Brian!

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Bicem

Very nice! What's the most desirable card in the set after Ruth?

I think there are a few that made the majors in the set but no big names, from what I remember. Here is a larger, photo from them...similar to the cards but a bit larger.

[rhettyeakley]

Frederick Foto was a Sacramento company so a lot of the players pictured have ties to Sacramento in some way but certainly not all of them.

The larger version of these I believe are actually the proofs that they used to make the small cards with. My copy you can see the ink or paint pen as a raised application on the surface of the card, and it is in the same spot as the name on the small/regular version.

The best player not named Babe Ruth may be Alexander. I have never seen this card so I am not sure if that is Grover Alexander as I see no Alexander playing in the PCL in 1921. There is also the possibility that a card will be found of Sam Crawford, Lefty O’Doul or Gavvy Cravath as they were all in the PCL that year.

Of the cards I have seen over the years IMO the best non Ruth card is one Leon just showed that was part of his collection (I now own it)... Ernie Shore. Shore was a popular Red Sox pitcher and one of Ruth’s fellow teammates and famously pitched a no hitter after Ruth was ejected from the game in the first inning for fighting with an umpire. Also interesting is that Joe Gedeon has a card and he was ejected along with the Black Sox after the 1920 season for knowledge of the fix.

[Jason Carota]

Any significance to the cards with the Frederick Foto logo versus the handwritten caption?

[seattlerainiers]

Here's Alexander.

[Bicem]

Wow, guess that answers that. Thanks for sharing!

[Kawika]

Eskenazi for the killshot.
Brockelman & Luckey offered up a passel of the FF's several years ago. Here is my typecard.

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by seattlerainiers

Here's Alexander.

Awesome card Dave, I always love seeing your hidden gems!

I had never seen the “Alexander” anywhere but the known checklist and figured it made the most sense for it to be Grover, seems like they decided to make the best batter of the day (Ruth) and perhaps the best pitcher (in their opinion) as neither player had any real connection to the PCL like the majority of the players in the set did. Neat to be able to confirm another card of one of the top 10 pitchers of all time!

Now someone just needs to find a Cobb as well (that would be an amazing card!)

[JLange]

Not a Cobb, but here's a scan of Walter Mails (not mine) I've been looking for over the years.

[LincolnVT]

Originally Posted by JLange

Not a Cobb, but here's a scan of Walter Mails (not mine) I've been looking for over the years.

Wow! The condition of the Mails and some of the others looks great. Ver cool cards everyone. Love the image quality of these. Thanks for sharing!!

[seattlerainiers]

Here are a few more of the ever-colorful Duster:

[Leon]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

LOL, since you traded for the Frederick's Foto Ruth, how often will you post about it?

LOL, I am glad your "comment" didn't ruin a great thread. Nice try though.

And it looks like JLange (hey Jlange) might need to add 3 more cards to his Mails want list?

[prewarsports]

Just for discussion sake, what makes these "cards". The issuer was the photographer which essentially just makes them photographs. They were not issued in conjunction with products (like 19th century card/photos) from anything I have seen and other sets of photographs do not get the same respect and classification. If they were 5x7 or 8X10 they would certainly just be a set of photos yet other series of photographs like those from the American League Service Bureau (which are actually numbered like cards) would fall into this same category. I know they are small and look like traditional baseball cards, but they clearly were developed on a full sheet with essentially no borders and trimmed down by the photographer.

At their base root, these are tiny "type 3" photographs developed in composite form and trimmed then given away by a photo studio in Sacramento. I have no skin in the game and am not trying to be controversial at all, just curious why these are "cards" and other sets of superior photographs (off their original negatives) from studios are not? I would be interested in others thoughts and I am in NO WAY downplaying anyone's cards or collections.

Rhys

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

Just for discussion sake, what makes these "cards". The issuer was the photographer which essentially just makes them photographs. They were not issued in conjunction with products (like 19th century card/photos) from anything I have seen and other sets of photographs do not get the same respect and classification. If they were 5x7 or 8X10 they would certainly just be a set of photos yet other series of photographs like those from the American League Service Bureau (which are actually numbered like cards) would fall into this same category. I know they are small and look like traditional baseball cards, but they clearly were developed on a full sheet with essentially no borders and trimmed down by the photographer.

At their base root, these are tiny "type 3" photographs developed in composite form and trimmed then given away by a photo studio in Sacramento. I have no skin in the game and am not trying to be controversial at all, just curious why these are "cards" and other sets of superior photographs (off their original negatives) from studios are not? I would be interested in others thoughts and I am in NO WAY downplaying anyone's cards or collections.

Rhys

I was thinking the same thing this morning, esp after seeing all the diff mails poses

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

I was thinking the same thing this morning, esp after seeing all the diff mails poses

No opinion on the photo/card issue, but it does make sense that there are multiple poses of Mails, because he played and had a good season for the Sacramento PCL team in 1920, and then made a big splash for the Cleveland Indians late in the 1920 season, going 7-0 and winning a World Series game. Note that all the cards designate him as a Cleveland Indian.

Brian

[brianp-beme]

And for a long time collector it is always a pleasure to see images of cards I have never seen before...thanks everyone!

Brian

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

Just for discussion sake, what makes these "cards". The issuer was the photographer which essentially just makes them photographs. They were not issued in conjunction with products (like 19th century card/photos) from anything I have seen and other sets of photographs do not get the same respect and classification. If they were 5x7 or 8X10 they would certainly just be a set of photos yet other series of photographs like those from the American League Service Bureau (which are actually numbered like cards) would fall into this same category. I know they are small and look like traditional baseball cards, but they clearly were developed on a full sheet with essentially no borders and trimmed down by the photographer.

At their base root, these are tiny "type 3" photographs developed in composite form and trimmed then given away by a photo studio in Sacramento. I have no skin in the game and am not trying to be controversial at all, just curious why these are "cards" and other sets of superior photographs (off their original negatives) from studios are not? I would be interested in others thoughts and I am in NO WAY downplaying anyone's cards or collections.

Rhys

Rhys, although I have no evidence to say for sure but the size and nature of the cards would circumstantially indicate these were inserted in some sort of candy or gum product in California. The fact that they say Frederick Foto on front is just the photographer marking their images. Not all cards have the Frederick Foto on front (see Shore and Alexander in this thread). Those images may very well have been from a different source. The fact that we know these as Frederick Foto cards is only due to the fact we don’t know who actually “inserted” the cards into their product (that info is likely lost to time), had we been around in California in 1921 and seen who inserted them we would likely know them by a different name.

This isn’t unprecedented in the card world, for example we don’t 100% know who issued the 1913 Oakland Oaks team issue cards but the limited circumstantial evidence seems to indicate them being a Cardinet Candy Co issue, they likely faced pushback from the Zeenut makers (Collins Candy Co) as they had exclusive rights to PCL players images and the following season instead of making cards of hometown Oakland Oaks they made their more famous Texas Tommy issue featuring Major Leaguers from much further away from home.

[RedsFan1941]

i hope this doesn't ruin thanksgiving

[prewarsports]

All good. We already fight at Thanksgiving over football game anyways

I guarantee these were printed 8 to a full 8x10 double weight sheet of photo paper. The rough sizes of the cards, their composition as well as knowing how photos of the era were produced absolutely points to this. The photographer cut them up into equal sections as good as he could and that is how they were made and why they look the way they do. The thin side borders were because he laid them out to squeeze 4 images side by side to run length-wise across an 8x10 piece of photo paper and cut them after adding the name etc. The fact that only a few have the logo in the corner also helps this theory as those were almost certainly the corner images on the sheet before being cut up wheer photographers would put their marks. If they were issued with some type of product that would make sense to call them baseball cards, but all evidence including the back stamps indicate the photographer himself was a self promoter plugging his studio.

I dont care either way, I dont collect these, but absent evidence these were put into a product of some type, these are just as much "cards" as several other photo issues with finite checklists. My hunch is that IF the Frederick Photos were bigger and less baseball card looking, they would not be considered baseball cards, but to each his own.

What is and is not a baseball card will never have a definite answer, I am just speaking plainly as a photo guy here, and regardless of how these were issued, these are chopped up 8x10's used to promote a photo studio.

[LincolnVT]

Just about every "card" is chopped from a larger sheet.

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by RedsFan1941

i hope this doesn't ruin thanksgiving

Lol, we are all good, we fight less than most sets of brothers do, but we certainly have our moments!

The only ones that have the stamp on back are the larger “proofs”, none of the small “cards” have been found with the studio stamp on back.

[JLange]

And it looks like JLange (hey Jlange) might need to add 3 more cards to his Mails want list?

Very cool cards. Want list updated accordingly!

[prewarsports]

Originally Posted by LincolnVT

Just about every "card" is chopped from a larger sheet.

Wow, ok. I have a red plastic car in my driveway that my kids cruise around on but if I take that to the DMV they wont call it car just because my kids do.

I will state a couple of observations from several decades as both a collector of cards and photography.

1. There is not one single other set of cards in the Standard Catalog that I am aware of that is a hand chopped piece of photography that has not one shred of evidence that it was issued in any product or was part of any promotion that is considered a baseball card.

2. There are numerous issues of photography that fit every parameter used to distinguish the Frederick Foto cards as "cards" (except for the cute card like size) that would never in a million years pass as baseball cards.

My question was all in the name of trying to get opinions from other educated collectors about the nuances of a popular and VERY valuable set of baseball cards, but it does not look like people really care so I will walk away and wish everyone a nice holiday weekend.

[Leon]

The reason I consider them to be cards is highlighted.

Having handled a good amount of them they just have the feel and look of baseball cards. They are printed on thicker stock than a photo (from what I remember), have their names and or teams and there are multiple cards known of most players. Their cuts aren't much worse then E220!!

Originally Posted by prewarsports

All good. We already fight at Thanksgiving over football game anyways

I guarantee these were printed 8 to a full 8x10 double weight sheet of photo paper. The rough sizes of the cards, their composition as well as knowing how photos of the era were produced absolutely points to this. The photographer cut them up into equal sections as good as he could and that is how they were made and why they look the way they do. The thin side borders were because he laid them out to squeeze 4 images side by side to run length-wise across an 8x10 piece of photo paper and cut them after adding the name etc. The fact that only a few have the logo in the corner also helps this theory as those were almost certainly the corner images on the sheet before being cut up wheer photographers would put their marks. If they were issued with some type of product that would make sense to call them baseball cards, but all evidence including the back stamps indicate the photographer himself was a self promoter plugging his studio.

I dont care either way, I dont collect these, but absent evidence these were put into a product of some type, these are just as much "cards" as several other photo issues with finite checklists. My hunch is that IF the Frederick Photos were bigger and less baseball card looking, they would not be considered baseball cards, but to each his own.

What is and is not a baseball card will never have a definite answer, I am just speaking plainly as a photo guy here, and regardless of how these were issued, these are chopped up 8x10's used to promote a photo studio.

[LincolnVT]

Do people have thoughts on what the "going rate" for one of the Sacramento player cards might be in let's say VG condition? Was trying to look around at recent auction sales on line, but I'm not seeing much.

Thanks.

Ethan

[brianp-beme]

I spotted this one floating in the interweb air and thought I would share, because of the partial neighboring 'card'.

Brian

[seattlerainiers]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

I spotted this one floating in the interweb air and thought I would share, because of the partial neighboring 'card'.

Brian

Heh!

My card and accompany article on the interweb. Some of you may enjoy the article. There are other visuals, including some Zees:

http://sportspressnw.com/2156392/201...00-hit-machine

[BeanTown]

Ethan, would love to see your Ruth posted here in this thread. Its a great "baseball" card and my second favorite Ruth behind the Baltimore News "baseball card".

[LincolnVT]

Ok...I was holding off, but you have been pretty generous in showing me some of your treasures / hidden gems!

Originally Posted by BeanTown

Ethan, would love to see your Ruth posted here in this thread. Its a great "baseball" card and my second favorite Ruth behind the Baltimore News "baseball" card.

[LincolnVT]

Here is my SGC 20...

[TUM301]

Nice Ethan, The Babe as a Red Sox. Awesome !!

[Bicem]

Originally Posted by BeanTown

Ethan, would love to see your Ruth posted here in this thread. Its a great "baseball" card and my second favorite Ruth behind the Baltimore News "baseball" card.

Why is baseball in quotes?

[BeanTown]

Originally Posted by Bicem

Why is baseball in quotes?

Emphasizing I look at it as a baseball card and not a photo. Not to get in a debate over it, but its my opinion. Great card Ethan and thanks for posting.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Bicem

Why is baseball in quotes?

Better.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by BeanTown

Emphasizing I look at it as a baseball card and not a photo. Not to get in a debate over it, but its my opinion. Great card Ethan and thanks for posting.

I figured you put the wrong word in quotes. "Card" might have been better to use there. There is no question it's baseball.

[edjs]

Here's my 2 cents, I mean, 2 cards/photos.

[yanksfan09]

Keep these coming, really cool set! Love the Alexander, never saw that before!

[SetBuilder]

From an aesthetic perspective, these cards are hideous and unsightly. By the time these cards were printed, there were higher quality methods available to make better looking cards. It looks like this Frederick photo company chose the cheapest and lowest quality materials to make this set. Not sure what makes them so coveted other than their rarity.

[BeanTown]

Originally Posted by SetBuilder

From an aesthetic perspective, these cards are hideous and unsightly. By the time these cards were printed, there were higher quality methods available to make better looking cards. It looks like this Frederick photo company chose the cheapest and lowest quality materials to make this set. Not sure what makes them so coveted other than their rarity.

Will you be working on the set now?

[SetBuilder]

Originally Posted by BeanTown

Will you be working on the set now?

No.

I don't want to offend anyone who has a lot of money invested in these ugly cards.

I'm sorry.