National Game, Tom Barker, Polo Grounds sets

[Butch7999]

Originally Posted by phikappapsi

... but they aren't really "baseball cards" so much as they are their own thing that I'd classify as baseball card-adjacent.
...

The word you want for that "thing" is "game." They were sold, as everyone knows, as complete sets,
in often attractive boxes, with playing fields and markers and a booklet or page of rules and instructions,
not collected a card at a time like proper "baseball cards." It kills us to see these great old games ruined
by being broken up to be sold off for parts. It seems no different than buying just the 3 of clubs or the
6 of spades from a regular deck of playing cards, or a leg from one chair in a set of Stickley furniture.

[GeoPoto]

Originally Posted by Butch7999

It kills us to see these great old games ruined
by being broken up to be sold off for parts. It seems no different than buying just the 3 of clubs or the
6 of spades from a regular deck of playing cards, or a leg from one chair in a set of Stickley furniture.

I don't know. It works OK for those of us that only collect the 3 of clubs.
https://net54baseball.com/attachment...1&d=1589221666
https://net54baseball.com/attachment...1&d=1589221708

[GeoPoto]

Or the six of spades.
https://net54baseball.com/attachment...1&d=1589222360
https://net54baseball.com/attachment...1&d=1589222376

[phikappapsi]

Originally Posted by Butch7999

The word you want for that "thing" is "game." They were sold, as everyone knows, as complete sets,
in often attractive boxes, with playing fields and markers and a booklet or page of rules and instructions,
not collected a card at a time like proper "baseball cards." It kills us to see these great old games ruined
by being broken up to be sold off for parts. It seems no different than buying just the 3 of clubs or the
6 of spades from a regular deck of playing cards, or a leg from one chair in a set of Stickley furniture.

that is an entirely fair and valid point. But, I happen to completely disagree with it - because; if it weren't for the baseball players making it collectible; it would have almost certainly held little to no value, and thusly would not be nearly as well preserved as it now is. So, in sticking with your analogy - if it weren't for the people that wanted that 3 of clubs; the game would likely be gone and forgotten completely.

[trambo]

Didn't want to leave this guy out. I do have a little diversity in my 1913 cards...haha!!

[clydepepper]

I've always liked them...love the backs, though I'm not showing any here:

1914 POLO GROUNDS- CHRISTY MATHEWSON PSA-10.jpg

1914 Polo Grounds- HONUS WAGNER PSA-9.jpg1914 POLO GROUNDS- TY COBB PSA-9.jpg

1913 NATIONAL GAME- WALTER JOHNSON PSA-8.jpg

[scooter729]

Not much in the way of errors / variations, though there is one Home Run Baker card which has a scarce version with a Fenway Breweries stamp along the side.

I have one of these from both the National Game and the Tom Barker sets....

[Butch7999]

Originally Posted by phikappapsi

... if it weren't for the baseball players making it collectible; it would have almost certainly held little to no value...
if it weren't for the people that wanted that 3 of clubs; the game would likely be gone and forgotten completely.

Was it Cleopatra who said "I'm not prone to argue"? And we know we're not going to change a single mind in here.
But, respectfully, there is a substantial clique of game collectors who would refute your basic premise.
Yes, famous names and famous faces do, as a general rule, give extricated components of antique games
a higher market value, but hundreds of games lacking those features or endorsements do pretty well anyway,
antiquity, aesthetics, rarity, completeness, and play quality all mattering more to most game geeks than does
resale value. So with no desire to debate, we'll have to agree to disagree.

This was my affordable option for a Tom Barker, Joe Jackson which was graded good by PSA