1951 Toleteros Gibson on Leland's

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

http://www.lelands.com/bid.aspx?lot=357&auctionid=512

The bidding is extremely low for this card right now. Anyone know why?

I am posting this because I am currently the high bidder and therefore cannot be "screwing" anyone by bringing this to light.

I will gladly take the card at my current bid level... but I expected for my bid to get blown away and it has not happened.

Maybe I will get a steal... but I am just wanting to make sure that there is not something about this card that I don't know about: too short, etc.

Or maybe the market has already been "saturdated" with the two other versions of this card that have sold recently??

[Archive]

Posted By: Kyle Bicking

Check out www.psacard.com for info on the "newly" discovered 1931 Josh Gibson postcard. It might hamper the sales of the Toleteros. My guess is last minute bids are to come.

Great card in the highest graded condition by PSA. I wonder if it would crossover at all.

~Kyle~

[Archive]

Posted By: Al Crisafulli

Hal, I would think that there's a very remote possibility that the market for the card is saturated with the recent sales, and also that there's a remote possibility that the discovery of the Gibson postcard that will be in the spring REA auction might have taken some of the luster away from this particular card.

A much more likely scenario, however, would be that the big bidders are sitting tight, waiting to see how much they owe Mastro and Mile High before bidding high in another auction. With six days left in Leland's, I would guess the bidding will become more brisk next week.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

postcard, or Josh Gibson 1931.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

I agree with both of those possibilities...

yet I am just making sure that none of the folks on our board know about any "story" behind this card that I don't know about.

With everything I read on here about certain cards that get graded SGC 40 and then come back "cleaner" a few months later and get graded a lot higher... I just wanted to be sure that nobody knew FOR SURE that this PARTICULAR card had ever been "rejected" by SGC or anything like that.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

I am interested in opinions about whether a real POST CARD that was written on and mailed can be considered a "baseball card."

1922 Eastern Exhibits were sort of a hybrid between exhibit cards and post cards... but the Gibson is clearly a post card AND it has writing on both sides.

Honest opinions are welcomed and encouraged.

I am on the fence regarding the Gibson post card and truly want to hear your thoughts.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

I like how you worded your loaded question...having said that, I do not consider a Postcard, a baseball card. I collect Cobb and Crawford baseball cards, that does not include PCs.

Brian E.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

I think it would be impossible to come up with a consensus definition of a baseball card which one could then apply to the Gibson. It appears to be from a set, that was issued in at least some quantity, depicting the player, presumably for some commemorative purpose. So to that extent it sounds like a baseball card. And it isn't a coin, or a stamp, or someone's personal photograph, so it doesn't fit readily into categories one might exclude with a fair degree of confidence. On the other hand, something about it doesn't really feel like a baseball card. For what it's worth, maybe nothing to some folks on this board considering the source, PSA calls it a card in the article.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al Crisafulli

I'm hardly picky with it comes to the definition of a "baseball card". To me, if it works in my collection, it is part of my baseball card collection.

I have coins, stamps, premiums, decals, blankets, felts, scratch-offs, photo inserts, box panels, playing cards, game cards, matchbook covers, and all sorts of other stuff in my collection. I consider them all to be "baseball cards".

So, to me, a postcard qualifies.

I can also just as easily see someone disagreeing, and being just as right.

I guess it's up to how you choose to collect, just like anything else in this nutty hobby.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Wesley

You are going to get a lot of varying opinions on this one. My answer is almost the directly the opposite of Brian's answer. Unlike modern baseball cards which are mostly found in wax or foil packs, prewar baseball cards were distributed in many different ways and one of those ways was as postcards. Postcards can certainly be considered baseball cards.

I also collect Ty Cobb cards and I definitely think that Cobb RC are his postcard issues. If you don't consider postcards to be cards then the first Cobb card would be either the T206, E90-1, E92, E101 or E102. All of these, however, have issue dates at least two years after the Dietsche, Wolveries News, HM Taylor, and Novelty Cutlery postcards as they all have 1907 as the initial issue date.

Likewise for Lou Gehrig, some consider his 1927 York Caramel Type 2 his rookie card. This is ignoring several exhibits that predate that card including the 1925 Exhibit with postcard back which I believe most of the hobby recognize as Gehrig's rookie card.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Hal, it looks like the price of the card has gone "up." I think it's still a "steal" at this price.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

You're right Jeff.

I am no longer high bidder... but I agree that the price is still low enough for anyone to justify buying it as "trade bait" if they already have one.

That was my plan originally, and I may get back on board if nobody has any "horror story" about the card once having been an SGC 20 with a big wrinkle that has disappered.

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

I think there is no question that many postcards are baseball cards under most people's definition. Most people collect Exhibits and Novelty Cutlery postcards as cards.

I think there is a lot more division about "real photo postcards." A real photo postcard is often nothing more than a photograph that was printed by the local film developer with a postcard back at the request of the guy who brought the film in. It's hard for me to distinguish this from a photograph that was printed with no back at all.

There may be instances where a team or other distributor decided to make a set of baseball cards to sell (or to give away) and chose the "real photo postcard" format because it was cheap. But it's real hard to know if that's what occurred with the Josh Gibson. Based on the description of the Gibson, the seller certainly wants everyone to think this is the case. But I'm not sure how you could really know. The presence of someone's name on the postcard (supposedly the distributor) is a point in favor of the postcard being meant for public consumption, but I don't think it's definitive.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay wolt

Maybe some of the search modes aren't working since Lelands
spelled Josh Gibson's name wrong.

"Lot 357 . 1950-51 Toleteros Jushua Gibson PSA 7 NM"


Also, how rare is this card? It seems Lelands has the lions share
and offers them more frequently then any other auction house...jay

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Josh Evans from Lelands has moved down to the Caribbean permanently and is actively seeking out these cards from down there on a regular basis.

Last I heard, he has pretty much tapped out the market.

This explains why Lelands is always the company selling these.

After the SGC 88 and this PSA 7... my understanding is that they have a couple left but their quality is nowhere near as good as the 88 and the 7.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Re the postcard, there's no way this is a baseball card in the traditional sense. To me, at least, it's no more a card than if Gibson's picture appeared on a matchbook cover.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

The reason that I tend to agree with Jeff is that we still have Post Cards in 2005...

but NOBODY would even DARE consider a 2005 Post Card showing Chipper Jones on the front to be a "real baseball card."

If this Gibson item had been produced in 1881 when there really weren't very many real baseball cards and in the day when Cabinet sized photos were all we had... then I might (might) feel differently.

True, the Negro Leagues never really produced many cards... but the Negro League players had appeared in "real" baseball cards in the 1920's in Cuba and the Dominican.

Thus, it is hard to argue that this baseball team or league could not have made "real" baseball cards for distribution if they had wanted to.

For all we know, these might have been "calling cards" that the photographer made PERSONALLY for Josh Gibson and ONLY for him. This would be supported by the fact that Gibson is the one who signed and sent this Post Card.

We KNOW that Exhibit cards were sold in huge volumes to the public for "collecting" purposes... but we just don't know that about this item.

It might almost be better if the item was not inscribed by Gibson but by some third party ... or if several more of these were known to exist to VERIFY that these were not just PERSONAL "business cards" made for Gibson by the team photographer.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

I don't really care what you call it; I'd take the postcard over the card any time.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

Someone earlier touched on the issue: public issuance. To me, the hallmark of a "card" is whether it was issued for public consumption. A photo with a PC back that the local developer made specially for someone isn't a card because it was never meant to be distributed to the public. Don't get me wrong, they can be really nice and really collectible (I have a few myself) but they aren't what we normally think of as "baseball cards". If the 1930s Gibson was issued in connection with the team for promotional purposes, I'd say it is a "baseball card".

BTW, aren't these Toleteros "cards" really stickers? The Gilliam I purchased has a gummed back. If so, why are they "cards"?

[Archive]

Posted By: JudgeDred (Fred)

One key here is that the PC is from Josh's playing days. Add to the fact that it's a great image and you've got a very desireable baseball collectible. Card or not, it's incredibly cool.

[Archive]

Posted By: joe maples

Hello there, I collect Detroit and Ty Cobb items, when you narrow your collecting to this catagory postcards do become baseball cards. As far as Chipper Jones on a postcard, that would be a baseball card, just like some of the later Detroit Postcards. I don't worry about rookie cards, I have all of Cobbs T206 cards, his 1907 Dietche cards and the Wolverine cards. They are all baseball card to me. I have some large 30 x 40 inch Detroit News Photos of Tigers from, these I don't consider cards.

Joe

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Most real photo postcards were not issued/sold to the public. Many are simply family photos. Though there are cases of real photo postcards sold as commercial products, most notably 1930s Hollywood movie star postcards that were available in many stores.

Even if you don't know exactly how and who issued it, a postcard that was machine printed is generally considered to be a commercial issue. This is because lithography, photoengraving and other were mass production processes for commercial projects, and wouldn't be used to make a family photo for the mantle.

As far as the Gibson postcard goes, someone would have to convince me that it was or probably was a commercial product before I considered it a baseball card. I just read the PSA article. That this Gibson and other postcards originate from the personal collections of contemporary Negro League players would suggest they weren't commercial issues. If, instead, they were found in the scrapbooks of Joe Schmoe fans, then they'd appear more likely to be commercial issues.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

That's what I was trying to say.

We know that other teammates of Gibson had these exact same postcards made of themselves... but ALL of them were found in their PERSONAL belongings...

and only ONE has been found for each teammate.



My guess is that photographers back then were just like photographers are still today...

and that is that they always print up ONE example of something to give to you, and hope that you will ORDER a bunch more from them.

The photographer may have made one postcard for each player, given it to them, and then said: "Call me if you want a bunch more of these to use for sending mail to your friends."

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Also, please NOTE that the only thing printed on the front of the Post Card says:

Harrison
Hot Springs
'31 Ark

Thus, the front is clearly a "promotional" piece for the PHOTOGRAPHY STUDIO and not for the player or the team.

Surely if these had been produced for distribution for the TEAM... the team NAME would have been included, right?

"Homestead Grays" is not on front or back anywhere. Nor is the player's name.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

But in an effort for full disclosure:

It is a very cool and very rare item, and I will bid on it for sure.

[Archive]

Posted By: James Feagin

That postcard is a beauty, and I would MUCH rather own that than an "all-time great" card/stamp.

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Evanov

Coming 5 years after Gibson's playing days ended, I personally have little interest in the Toleteros card. I see it more as a tribute card. Other collectors have told me the same. That, and the increasing supply, will bring the price down.

Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Nowhere in the REA description does it refer to this item as baseball card or rookie card. It's a collectable double autographed postcard from Gibson's rookie year, but I would consider it dubious at best for someone to call it Gibson's rookie trading card or a trading card unless someone uncovers proof they were sold commercially to the public (As already noted, evidence indicates they weren't). Interestingly, I have yet to hear anyone clearly claim it's a rookie card or baseball card. In their half self promotional article ('Another first for PSA!'), PSA kinda sorta does, but really doesn't. Hal, it appears you're safe.

It should be noted that in the early 1900s, the postcard photograph was a common form of family photograph. It wasn't because they were intented to be mailed (some were, to friends or family members), but that the postcard was a convenient size for such photos. If you look in your old family photos, you may find real photo postcards of ancestors that were never mailed and obviously weren't intended to be sold at Woolworth or Life magazine. I have a WWI real photo postcard of my grandfather in sailor suit. He had it shot and made at a small studio in France as a souvenier for himself and the family back home in Minneapolis ... Many times, the printed stampbox and address lines on back are just something that happens to be on the back, and the photo was never intended to be sold or even mailed. The postcard often went straight into the family album or on the livingroom desk. Many old high school baseball and football team photos were real photo postcards. Again, most of these were made as mementos for the players and their families, just as with your little league or cub scout team photos.

[Archive]

Posted By: JudgeDred (Fred)

Not trying to start anything here but I was hoping for clarification on the following:

"It's a collectable double autographed postcard"

Did someone actually authenticate the signatures as being Josh Gibsons?

I rarely hear of Josh Gibson signatures for sale. I wonder how many are out there and WHO would be an expert on authenticating it. Again, I'm not trying to start a pissing match, just wondering....

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Yes, Fred...

it is slabbed by PSA/DNA as being signed BY GIBSON.

[Archive]

Posted By: DJ

Josh Gibson signatures are very rare and rarely come up for auction in authentic form. A signed team ball sold for $15K in 2003 in either Lelands or Mastro (can't remember) and a friend of mine paid $5K for a index sized cut last year. According to Spence, he knows of only one or two single signed baseballs, despite the fact that there are A LOT of forgeries in ss form and in cut form.

This is not a Gibson card, but absolutely amazing never the less.

DJ

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

earliest playing days, signed by him personally...who would want a silly thing like that

!!!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: Harry Wallace (HW)

Yes, I would love to have it in my collection, but I certainly do not consider it a baseball card.

There have been several team postcards from the 1930 era that feature Josh Gibson that have been sold in the past (Hunt's, I believe). They went for a lot of money, but no one ever called them cards or even a "team card."

Just my 2 cents.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

The bidding on the Toleteros Gibson card is still only about 40% of what the card is worth...

so it might be a chance for someone to get a "steal" if everyone else is out of money after all of these other auctions!!

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

The item in question here is a postcard. By definition: it is a card. It depicts a baseball subject, therefore, it is a baseball card.

No need to make this complicated.

Now my baseball card collection does not include coins, stamps, decals, blankets, felts, scratch-offs, photo inserts, playing cards, game cards, nor matchbook covers; but it does include: premiums, box panels (and it could include postcards and maybe even game cards, or worse stuff).

As far as "but NOBODY would even DARE consider a 2005 Post Card showing Chipper Jones on the front to be a "real baseball card." I DARE.

And "If this Gibson item had been produced in 1881 when there really weren't very many real baseball cards and in the day when Cabinet sized photos were all we had... then I might (might) feel differently".

IMHO each card stands on its own merits, independent of what else exists.

Regarding: "As far as the Gibson postcard goes, someone would have to convince me that it was or probably was a commercial product before I considered it a baseball card". A postcard is a commercial product by design.


CWYWC

And we each can have our own definitions.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

CWYWC.

CWYWC!

CWYWC!!!!


Someone has been listening!



I can die now, as my mission on earth is complete!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

If you die, Hal, will you leave me your caps and smileys?

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

By the definition of the single word 'card,' the following things are cards.

business card
Those annoying cards that fall out of magazines
Christmas card
Square piece of blank heavy paper that was left over when I cut something on my papercutter
AOL junk mail ad card I received in my mail box
credit card
YMCA memebership card

These are all cards and they can all be collected, but that doesn't make them all trading cards. Baseball card, as it is used in the baseball card hobby, is short for 'baseball trading card.' The Gibson postcard is a fine and dandy item and it is literally a card (post card, rectangular piece of heavy paper), but it isn't a baseball trading card.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe Jones

unless you trade them

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Good one, Joe!



OK... I think I understand it now.


The Gibson postcard is a "BASEBALL card"...

but it is not a "baseball CARD."

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

It's a common mistake to read a short term literally, in particular technical names. Many scientific names were consciously coined as nicknames for convenience's sake, and are wrong if read literally. If all labels were worded to be accurate and whole when read literally, the names would be as long as the definitions and it would take us hours to answer, "And how was your day, dear?" For example, how many of the expensive baseball cards in your collection have ever been traded, Hal? For those that have never been traded (perhaps including the T206 Wagner), does that mean they are not baseball cards ('baseball trading cards')?

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

I agree with you 100%.

I just thought Joe's joke was funny.



Then again... I guess I "traded" somebody a bunch of green papers for my Wagner card... so does that count?

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

When you think about it, if taken literally, the word is 'trading' (present tense, not past or future tense) cards. Couldn't that be literally interpeted to mean that it is only a trading card during the act of trading, and not before and after?

Then there was the time I ordered a Turkey Red Cabinet for my bedroom. Not only did it have no drawers for my socks and shirts, but the color wasn't even a close match to my turkey red walls.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe Jones

Sorry, I just had to say it. for fun!

[Archive]

Posted By: Glenn

Given that the word is a present participle in the active voice, the item wouldn't truly be a trading card unless the card itself was doing the trading; otherwise it could only hope to be a being-traded, having-been-traded or being-about-to-be traded card.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

and when you bathtub soak an album and they float to the top, they are treading cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

We have recently seen two similar cards trade at very different prices: the CA League OJ and the Mastronet Imperial cabinet. Both exhibit a high level of quaintness and historical interest and are from the same era.

Independent of one's definition of what constitutes a baseball card, there are parallels between the differences here and that of the Gibson cards.

The Gibson signatures though, may skew the auction results.

[Archive]

Posted By: BlackSoxFan

While I cannot disagree with the analysis of this piece as a card but not a baseball card, I will say that people SHOULD just accept the fact that Gibson does not have a rookie card. Just because I think they should, does not mean I expect that to happen.
That being said, I believe the 'perceived' value is poorly arrived at by the collectors that are willing to pay more than $100-200 bucks for this card. I have so many problems with its' place in the set. I really cannot see how Gibson card really 'belongs' in the set. That is, it is part of the issue, but really should not be. I do not believe that a rookie card should ever be considered a rookie card if it is issued 'posthumous' or if it is produced along with Players/Teams/etc. that the player has no association with. In this isntance, you have both of those scenarios playing out. A double whammy if you will.
The 'postcard' of Gibson has a much more 'authentic' place in the hobby (double entendre anyone?). It dates to and was produced during the mans career AND life. I would easily choose it over the Toleteros card. For that matter, if one is to say that one of these two items should be worth over 20k, the Postcard would be my pick.
This is a very controversial topic and I am sure people are going to come back with all sorts of various 'retorts' and explanations to my point. I don't care to argue and will not get into a 'shouting match' over this, but I really think that the collectors who spend serious coin should spend some time and really think about why the card is as valuable in their own eyes as this item is. Alright, Let it FLY! Leon, Shammus, everyone else ... DUCK!!!

Regards,

Black Sox Fan

<EDITED FOR TYPOS ... WILL FIX GRAMMAR>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

email me

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

I think the value of the 1950-51 Toleteros is "relative" to everything else.

For instance, there are only a handful of these Gibson cards known to exist... and this is the ONLY known true set of cards in which Gibson was included. This obviously decreases the "supply" side of the equation significantly.

At the same time, Josh Gibson is a LEGENDARY Hall of Famer... so this increases the "demand" side of the equation significantly.


FOR EXAMPLE... let's look at the 1948-49 Leaf "Tribute" card of BABE RUTH.

It was issued in a known set, it was issued AFTER his death, and Ruth is the "white" Josh Gibson. Great analogy to work with.

The "highest graded" example of the 1948-49 Leaf Ruth card (PSA 9) lists in the PSA report as being worth about $35,000.


NOW... since we know that the highest graded 1950-51 Toleteros Gibson (SGC 88) sold for $70,000 a few months ago... all we need to do is figure out why the Gibson "tribute" cards are worth about TWICE as much as these Ruth "tribute" cards.

This is easy. The grading companies have seen about 650 of the Ruth cards... and only about 6 of the Gibson cards.

So we are talking about a card that is very similar in nature to the 1948 Ruth card... yet is 100 TIMES more SCARCE. In reality, it is probably 1,000 times more scarce as a lot of Leaf Ruth's are still ungraded.


Heck, look at the "tribute" card of Ruth that were printed even LATER and distributed in MUGH HIGHER quantities:

http://cgi.ebay.com/1962-Topps-BABE-RUTH-138-The-Famous-Slugger-PSA-9_W0QQitemZ8733508602QQcategoryZ55922QQrdZ1QQcmdZV iewItem




NOW, having said all of this... what would the Gibson Toleteros card be worth if everything else was the same...

except that it was issued in a 1945 set WHILE HE WAS STILL ACTIVE???

Answer: A LOT MORE! I agree 100%.


If there were still only a handful known to exist... it would be somewhat akin to the 1914 Balitmore News card of Ruth (due to rarity).

What would an SGC 88 version of the 1914 Baltimore News Ruth card fetch?

$700,000?


So, YES, the fact that this is a "tribute" card to Gibson is a "drawback" on the card... but that has ALREADY been factored into the price.

Otherwise... if Gibson had still been playing in 1951... the card would be worth AT LEAST FIVE TIMES MORE than it is now!!


So while the Toleteros Gibson is expensive... it is well worth it "relatively" speaking.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al Crisafulli

I have no problem with the Toleteros Gibson and the prices it fetches.

More and more people are choosing to collect cards of Hall of Famers only. There are some members of the Hall that simply do not have many cards - in-period or otherwise. A recent thread on this board about Ban Johnson comes to mind. How many different Ban Johnson cards are there? Two? And don't they go for ridiculous prices when they're on Ebay?

In my mind, Ban Johnson is not a Hall of Famer that should command a premium price, but he does because of the relative scarcity of his cards. HOF collectors need one, and unless you'll accept a shiny card, there aren't too many options.

The Gibson is very similar, IMO, in that if you want to own a Josh Gibson card, you don't have many choices.

Gibson is one of those players where a variety of different types of collectors converge - HOF collectors, Negro League collectors, Cuban card collectors, slugger collectors - and with the scarcity of the Toleteros card, the price gets driven up pretty high.

To me, the debate about whether it's a "rookie" card, or a "tribute" card, or even a "real" card simply doesn't enter into the equation. It sells for what it sells for because there are people who are willing to pay for it, and as long as there are more willing buyers than there are available cards, it will continue to fetch insane prices.

-Al