collector interest - pre T206

[Touch'EmAll]

Just want to get a feel for the collector interest in pre-1900 era cards.

For every collector who collects T206 era up thru WW2 - how many own cards from pre T206 era? Personally, I have a semi-nice collection, but NONE in pre-T206 era.

First HOF ballot was 1936. It wasn't until 1939 that Cap Anson got elected. Did baseball voters feel he and other players pre-1900 players were not as good as the 1936 crowd, then also not as good as the second year 1937 and also 1938?

Now if the first HOF voting included a couple pre-1900 players I might be interested in collecting them.

But I feel like pre-T206 is a whole different era of cards - just not interested. How many other collectors feel the same?

[E93]

For many years I was strictly 20th century, mostly 1909-1930s. I took a dip into 19th century about seven years ago or so and have hardly been able to come up for air since. I love them now.
JimB

[milkit1]

The nineteenth century players not being elected in the first years had nothing to do with their playing ability and everything to do with their accessibility (most were dead). Also had to do with the shift in rules and the advent of equipment. More similar style of playing post 1890. The nineteenth century players (pre 1890) got lumped into a particular group that were a little more out of memory to the general public.
I shy away from them because of the prices yet these are the real men of baseball. Imagine playing a line drive with your bare hands. Yikes

[spec]

Sean Brennan is on target in pointing out that the lack of living 19th century players in the 1930s contributed to the limited HOF attention in players whose careers had ended prior to 1900. Even more significant was that nearly all of the sportswriters who covered their games or even saw them play as kids had also passed away. The writers who voted grew up watching the early 20th century stars and the early balloting reflects this "bias." Furthermore, statistics on 19th century baseball were spotty if not suspect as a result of changes in playing and scoring rules, and there were no encyclopedias, videotape or Internet (or even much microfilm) to fill the void.

[bbcard1]

I probably have 10 or so, mostly hall of famers, none are spectacular in any way. In all honesty, until the relatively modern era, they were just hard to find. I do have some problem reconciling the degree of greatness those players exhibited with modern day players. But mainly, it's just an issue of cost and interest. I will probably pick up a few more cards here and there, but I don't feel my collection is deficient because I don't have a Bid McPhee.

[Touch'EmAll]

Little off topic, but...

Lets assume the HOF had its first ever induction voting in 1966 instead of 1936 - 30 years later.

Many sportswriters would have passed that would have seen Wagner and Matty - does that mean they would not have made it in the initial vote?

Lets broaden it to, say, 8 inductees instead of 5 with first ballot occuring in 1966. Who would have been the chosen first 8? Would the original 5 all been included in the 8?

[DavidW]

I find it incredible that we still have pieces of cardboard from the 19th century. The further back we can go the more it amazes me. Some of my favorites are Old Judges, Kalamazoos, Goodwin Champions and many of the cabinet issues.

[steve B]

I only have a handful of poor condition cards from the 1800's. If I could afford them I'd have more. They just have an interesting "feel" to them. Either the photographic ones or the printed ones. I may like N43s the best, but I haven't owned any of the big photographic cards.

Steve B

[wonkaticket]

Wow Jim, that's quite a dip. Great cards!

[terjung]

Not going to try to follow Jim's amazing cards...

Suffice it to say that the focus and core of my collection is a set from 1903 that set the standard for the size of the T206 cards, obviously pre-dates them, and contains many of the rookie cards from HOFers in the T206 set.