Collecting 19th Century Woodcuts vs. 20th Century Original Photos

[bcbgcbrcb]

In terms of supply and demand for the serious vintage baseball collector, would the 19th Century woodcuts be the equivalent of the 20th Century original photo?

For example, there is an abundat supply of original photos of 20th Century stars such as Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Honus Wagner, etc. In a similar manner, there is a good supply of woodcuts of many 19th Century stars such as Cap Anson, King Kelly, John Ward, etc. However, finding an original photo of one of those guys would be nearly impossible.

The bottom line here is that I am trying to decide whether to keep my 19th Century woodcuts as my player representations for my HOF collection or replace them with cards or something else more widely accepted within the hobby? Keep in mind, my objective for my collection is to own the earliest image of each HOF'er and in many cases my woodcuts pre-date the player's earliest card by several years.

[novakjr]

If you're referring to the NY Clippers. I'd almost consider them to be the equivalent of cards...They're not too big, and were numbered at one point, weren't they?

[bcbgcbrcb]

David:

Yes, the NY Clippers were one of the key woodcut issues that I was talking about. You're right, thery are the closest to cards as they are listed in the SCBC and there was a series of around 68 different ones issued over a two year period from 1879-80. Of course, there were many more before and after and a book was recently published which was dedicated to over 500+ NY Clipper baseball woodcuts.

Initially the 1879-80 series were numbered but the numbering dropped off after the first several were issued, I don't think they even made it up to #10.

Here's a scan of one of those.........

[novakjr]

Very nice Phil. The Harper's are another mess all-together, especially since I only deal with full-issues, or at the least, full-pages. Currently I count mine, but will eventually upgrade to individual items. Cards/NY Clippers/Pins/whatever. Once I upgrade though, I still plan on keeping the Harper's as display items...They look awesome matted and framed.

I'm still undecided on the July 25, 1874 Athletics, and the May 3, 1890 "Opening of the Baseball Season" woodcuts. I'll have to say that I don't like the ones that have been cut into original card-like pieces. BUT they were eventually re-printed as cards by TCMA in the '70s, so I might give them card-like consideration..Again, my preference is the whole page though..

[bcbgcbrcb]

Agreed, David, full-pages are better, sometimes full issues can be cumbersome though. Almost all of the 1874 Philadelphia woodcuts that I have seen are full pages, not so with the 1890 since that one spanned about 8 pages total.

[mcap100176]

"The bottom line here is that I am trying to decide whether to keep my 19th Century woodcuts as my player representations for my HOF collection or replace them with cards or something else more widely accepted within the hobby? Keep in mind, my objective for my collection is to own the earliest image of each HOF'er and in many cases my woodcuts pre-date the player's earliest card by several years. "

Why not just collect the cards while keeping the woodcuts?

Michael

PS - I'll gladly take your woodcut collection for free if you want to give it up!

[bcbgcbrcb]

Well, I have decided to make a compromise with myself.

I am going to keep the scarcer woodcuts that I really like (including the 1879-80 NY Clippers) and replace the others with cards or some other type of collectible.

[aquarius31]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

I am going to keep the scarcer woodcuts that I really like (including the 1879-80 NY Clippers) and replace the others with cards or some other type of collectible.

Hi Phil, I think that's a good approach. As both Doug and Barry have mentioned, the woodcuts are under appreciated and as a result also under valued especially compared to 'cards.' That doesn't mean that they are less collectable and as you know, the tough ones are highly desirable and very rarely come up in auctions.

I collect both cards and woodcuts. I definitely look at the woodcuts much more often than my cards. While I consider both an art form, I think size matters and the larger woodcuts (whether cut out of NY Clippers) or a full page print are truly impressive.

[mcap100176]

Derek - since Phil and I both live in NJ, I get them for free! Especially since you are from Boston, we don't take too kindly to your kind around these parts!

I would keep the woodcuts. Is there such a thing as "too big of a collection?" A majority of the time, the woodcuts are more interesting to look at than cards.