![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Nick
I need help with an ID for the card picturing "Baby Anson" in the auction link below. There is a picture of it in Lipsets book(Figure 7?), but I could not find a set to go along with it. If any one knows the value of it or what set(if any) it is part of I would appreciate the information. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Robert Balke
Hi Nick it looks to me to be a trade card from the 1800's. It also seems to have been trimed down it should be the size of a postcard. It is not a diecut it should be rectangle. But very nice price for the scrapp card. Rob |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Hankron
Robert B is correct. It's rectangular trade card that was trimmed down to highlight Baby Anson. I know that there is a Baby King Kelly card too. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Hankron
A brief history of The Victorian Scrap |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: fkw
Hi, |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Julie Vognar
I'd say you got taken a little. With the Scrapps, the object is to get one with no brown stain on the FRONT (all but a handfull have wood glue stains on the back). |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Nick
Julie, |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Jaime Leiderman
I guess not, considering these items were meant to be pasted on albums unlike regular cards. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Julie Vognar
But I'd say the stain is a definite drawback (because it's the BACK, not the front, that gets pasted in the scrapbook). Ideally, no stain, front or back, all the embossing shows, front and back, no paper residue, front or back--and I've seen about 3 of these, none of which were for sale. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Albie O'Hanian
fkw-Thanks for the information. I have been curious about that cards after seeing a couple on ebay. I am glad to know they are not rare or expensive and I did not overbid. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Nick
I've always thought Thompson was the most valuable card in the set? I know an item is only worth what someone will pay for it, but I believe the Thompson card books for around $1,500. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: RC_McKenzie
I think Comiskey is listed as the most expensive card in the set, but you could argue that Thompson is the best player of the lot. I snagged a Buchner Thompson the other day on ebay at a low price. I'm still kicking myself for letting the Buchner Ned Williamson go by the boards. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Jeff
Hi Nick, |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Julie Vognar
huge borders, but a good deal of wear to borders. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: david
i have actually found the opposite to be true. scrapps are very highly sought after by type collectors and i cant remember the last time a dealer didnt want twice book value for one. |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Looking for N162 Cap Anson | Archive | 19th Century Cards & ALL Baseball Postcards- B/S/T | 1 | 01-26-2007 10:05 PM |
OJ Cap Anson | Archive | 19th Century Cards & ALL Baseball Postcards- B/S/T | 0 | 09-29-2005 06:34 PM |
Cap Anson | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 3 | 04-10-2005 04:58 PM |
Interesting Cap Anson Card | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 8 | 12-03-2003 12:17 PM |
according to Cap Anson...... | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 4 | 01-07-2003 03:32 PM |