Commy Comiskey 1887 Old Judge PSA 2 (MK)

[Sean]

Charles Comiskey was the owner of that team (1919 White Sox). His low pay and insulting treatment of his players contributed greatly to their decision to take bribes to deliberately lose the 1919 World Series.

There was a good movie about them about 25 years ago-Eight Men Out. I'm not sure how factually accurate it is, but it is entertaining and gives a pretty good account of what went on.

[Bored5000]

Originally Posted by Sean

Charles Comiskey was the owner of that team (1919 White Sox). His low pay and insulting treatment of his players contributed greatly to their decision to take bribes to deliberately lose the 1919 World Series.

There was a good movie about them about 25 years ago-Eight Men Out. I'm not sure how factually accurate it is, but it is entertaining and gives a pretty good account of what went on.

Your point about Eight Men Out is well taken. This Shoeless Joe Jackson book is also an amazing read for understanding the dynamics of the scandal and its ramifications. This book really takes the halo off Shoeless Joe's head.

According to the book, Comiskey actively covered up the scandal because he did not want to hurt his attendance. Meanwhile, the players continued throwing games into the 1920 season, either because they were being blackmailed or because they were just looking for some easy money.

http://www.amazon.com/Shoeless-The-L...ss+joe+jackson

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Bored5000

Your point about Eight Men Out is well taken. This Shoeless Joe Jackson book is also an amazing read for understanding the dynamics of the scandal and its ramifications. This book really takes the halo off Shoeless Joe's head.

According to the book, Comiskey actively covered up the scandal because he did not want to hurt his attendance. Meanwhile, the players continued throwing games into the 1920 season, either because they were being blackmailed or because they were just looking for some easy money.

http://www.amazon.com/Shoeless-The-L...ss+joe+jackson

I read another good book on the scandal about 15 years ago: Shoeless Joe and Ragtime Baseball. The author apologized way too much for Joe's actions, but it included a copy of Joe's grand jury testimony.
Joe was asked by the D.A. whether he hit, fielded, ran the bases, etc. with the intent to win at all times, and each time Joe answered that yes, he did.
About 5 pages later Joe was asked if he took part in a meeting with gamblers in which throwing the Series was discussed. Joe replied that he did. He was asked if he was promised money to throw the Series. Joe said that he was promised $10,000, but that he only received $5000. "We got the screw" was his exact quote.
Jackson appeared to believe he hadn't done anything wrong because, although he took the bribe and conspired to lose, he had actually played to win, making him either really dumb or really naive IMHO.

[Zone91]

Is the Comiskey a popular card in the Old Judge set or just a regular guy?

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by Zone91

Is the Comiskey a popular card in the Old Judge set or just a regular guy?

Are you really asking if a HOFer is the same as a regular guy?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

Are you really asking if a HOFer is the same as a regular guy?

I hear he was sort of a regular guy - if you asked him for money, he generally said "no". He enjoyed a good meal, he liked to go to baseball games.

Oh yeah, and he had two major league baseball parks named after him.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I hear he was sort of a regular guy - if you asked him for money, he generally said "no". He enjoyed a good meal, he liked to go to baseball games.

Oh yeah, and he had two major league baseball parks named after him.

But the real question is- "was he on Twitter?" ....

[Zone91]

Runscott

I guess that would help a lot having 2 baseball parks in his name. Thanks.

[Bored5000]

Originally Posted by Sean

I read another good book on the scandal about 15 years ago: Shoeless Joe and Ragtime Baseball. The author apologized way too much for Joe's actions, but it included a copy of Joe's grand jury testimony.
Joe was asked by the D.A. whether he hit, fielded, ran the bases, etc. with the intent to win at all times, and each time Joe answered that yes, he did.
About 5 pages later Joe was asked if he took part in a meeting with gamblers in which throwing the Series was discussed. Joe replied that he did. He was asked if he was promised money to throw the Series. Joe said that he was promised $10,000, but that he only received $5000. "We got the screw" was his exact quote.
Jackson appeared to believe he hadn't done anything wrong because, although he took the bribe and conspired to lose, he had actually played to win, making him either really dumb or really naive IMHO.

I am familiar with the book you mentioned. I have not read it, but that was one of the choices I looked at when I was looking for a Shoeless Joe book. I ultimately went with the book I did because the reviews talked continually about how the David Fleitz book goes down a far different road than Eight Men Out or Field of Dreams in that it doesn't paint Shoeless Joe as a saint or a martyr, but provides a lot more balanced profile of the man's positives and negatives.

One of the points the Fleitz book really drove home was that Shoeless Joe may have been an illiterate country boy, but he definitely understood what money was and was motivated by such a fact. The grand jury testimony of Jackson that susbsequently disappeared always seems very damning. A lot of Shoeless Joe books and movies simply gloss over that fact.

[Zone91]

bn2cardz

Yes because they say he was a so so ball player with a batting average of only .264 and 1530 hits....to me that does not seem like much compared to say a modern player like Derek Jeter with over 3000 hits and a much better bating average. I was just wondering.

[Zone91]

So is a batting average of .264 and 1530 hits good stats for players back in his day? I may be wrong when comparing to today's players.

Or is he better known because of the 1919 scandal?

[Bored5000]

Originally Posted by Zone91

So is a batting average of .264 and 1530 hits good stats for players back in his day? I may be wrong when comparing to today's players.

Or is he better known because of the 1919 scandal?

He is most known for the 1919 Black Sox scandal, and that permanently tarnished his image. But he is in the HoF because he also had 10 years as a manager and 30 years as an owner. Between his playing career, managing and owning, he had 50 years in the game. Only a handful of people can say that.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by Zone91

bn2cardz

Yes because they say he was a so so ball player with a batting average of only .264 and 1530 hits....to me that does not seem like much compared to say a modern player like Derek Jeter with over 3000 hits and a much better bating average. I was just wondering.

Originally Posted by Zone91

So is a batting average of .264 and 1530 hits good stats for players back in his day? I may be wrong when comparing to today's players.

Or is he better known because of the 1919 scandal?

I am sorry but there is so much information that can be found about the history of the game that it seems lazy to just come here and ask if such an influential person in MLB history is worth more than an average person.

It is like asking about Connie Mack's cards values or why Branch Rickey's Cracker Jack card is worth more.

http://sabr.org/bioproj/person/8fbc6b31

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Zone91

bn2cardz

and a much better bating average.

I'd say your bating average is growing with every post.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

I'd say your bating average is growing with every post.

You overestimate, I am sure....

[Matthew H]

Comiskey's Old Judge cards don't seem to be as popular as some other HOFers. There seems to be plenty of them available, by OJ standards. I also don't know of any specific Comiskey collectors, although I'm sure they're out there... He doesn't seem to be one of the more popular HOFers to collect, regardless of his contribution to the game. With that being said, the price seemed about right for a faded, not so widely collected player. It was definitely more than I would pay for that particular example.

[Zone91]

Matthew H

I know the EXACT same card sold for 1050$ in 2009 same MK.

Link:

http://www.cardtarget.com/cgi-bin/gm...791&grade=auth


That is what I was wondering if the new buyer got a really good deal or did the previous buyer know a lot more about this player and appreciated him more...I guess the answer would most likely be yes. Any how I was wondering why such a price change on the very same card.

[Matthew H]

Originally Posted by Zone91

Matthew H

I know the EXACT same card sold for 1050$ in 2009 same MK.

Link:

http://www.cardtarget.com/cgi-bin/gm...791&grade=auth


That is what I was wondering if the new buyer got a really good deal or did the previous buyer know a lot more about this player and appreciated him more...I guess the answer would most likely be yes. Any how I was wondering why such a price change on the very same card.

It's hard to judge a cards value based on a BIN. Like you've probably already read, anyone can ask whatever they want for something, and there might even be someone willing to pay that much, will it ever happen again? Who knows.

As far as the buyer just being more appreciative of Comiskey than others... I doubt it, since he no longer owns the card.