1863 Jordan & Co

[Archive]

Posted By: Jon Canfield 

Anyone have a pic/scan or can tell me some more about the 1863 Jordan & Co issue? Just trying to do a little learning! Thanks!

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

This is a "card", regardless of what Leon says!

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred

Is that a card or CDV? When you think about it the letters CD are in the word card and the letters CD are in CDV so maybe it's a card...

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

It's a CRICKET card.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jon Canfield

Thanks for the scan! Glad I got to see one!

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Andy, with no due respect this is a ticket. Just because someone wants to pay about 80k for a ticket, then say it's a card, does not make it a card. The definition of "card" is a relative term. To me, when a card says "Admit to the bearer on demand" and gives a date, time, and place of a game...that this "card" will get you into...then it's a ticket. But that is only my opinion (and that of several experts I know). later.....

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred

Can we please see a scan of the back of this item. THANK YOU!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: Jimmy Leiderman

It's a ticket, and in my opinion (and that of several experts I know )well worth the +$80K and has more significance, than a "mass" produced "STORE AD CARD" like, let's say... a 1869 P&S Red Stockings.

[Archive]

Posted By: JC

This "Item" was in the last Lipset auction I think... It was just on the market and forgot the price it went for? I think it was around 5K.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Yes, that Hoboken ticket is way better than any Peck and Snyder.....and probably worth about a gazillion dollars.....

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

that ticket is also good for adimission to my place and will even get you a meal and a nights lodging. And just think, some poor sap only got to see a cricket match with it originally, so my deal is much better use of the ticket.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: HalleyGator

It is a "CRICKET TICKET" !!

Is it also a stamp ... so that you can "LICK IT and STICK IT"?

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

If I remember correctly, back during the Rookie card craze of the 1980's, for a card to be considered a true rookie, it had to be a "mass produced card available to the general public". So, like in our arguments on this board years back regarding Ty Cobb's rookie, we could debate this one to no end as well. I have to agree with Halleygator - it is NOT BASEBALL - it is CRICKET, and a ticket. However, it is extremely rare and significant, especially with Wright's image on it! This reminds me of the recent post of Lee stating I was using the word rare too much in my auction headings. I may have, but I NEVER tried to pass off a Cricket ticket as the first Baseball card!!!!!!!!!! The fact that 1869 Peck & Snyders were mass produced has ALWAYS been THE MOST IMPORTANT factor in considering this to be the FIRST TRUE Baseball card! There were a few cabinets issued before 1869, but these were not "mass produced" and made available to the general public (and these are more of a Baseball card than a cricket ticket!).

This card SHOULD have been marketed for what it is - a TRULY RARE important piece of history with Wright's image! Afterall, being "first" is not always the most valuable! Would you rather own a Wagner Rookie or a T206 Wagner, which is more valuable??????

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

and, as you know, there was an 1868 Atlantics, Peck and Snyder card. I consider it to be the first true baseball card. But again, this is all subjective, and I am sure we have had meaningful, long winded, debates about it before. I agree with everthing else you said....later

[Archive]

Posted By: Jimmy Leiderman

Leon is correct about the 1868 Atlantics P&S



but how about the Creighton P&S?

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

you got me there....

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't beleive it is known what year the James Creighton Peck & Snyder was made. Though it dates at least a few years after his death.

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

Here is why I believe it is both a ticket and a card:

1.) There were less expensive "regular tickets" produced for the same game, without a photo on them. There was a premium price for the Harry Wright item shown.

2.) There were supposedly 3 other players represented. The purchaser could choose whichever player they wanted (sounds like a set to me )

3.) Whoever was willing to pay the premium was able to keep the item, rather than leaving it at the gate.

We can argue until we are blue in the face about whether or not it a card, a ticket, or both. However, all of the documentation points to the fact that this item, or the less expensive "regular ticket", allowed entry into a game of base ball, not cricket. At least that was what the Mastro Catalog said.

I wish I had saved a scan of the back

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

the Atlantic Nine wasn't listed in the 2004 SCD! I remember seeing it before though (Brain cramp on my part - too little time with 19th Century items since I sold off my remaining VA Brights cards). Anyway, why is that card (1868 Atlantic Nine) not listed in the 2004 SCD????

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Hi Andy,


1.) There were less expensive "regular tickets" produced for the same game, without a photo on them. There was a premium price for the Harry Wright item shown.

A: According to Wright's ledgers, tickets/cards with photos were 50 cents each.
They could be purchased directly from Harry Wright.

2.) There were supposedly 3 other players represented. The purchaser could choose whichever player they wanted (sounds like a set to me )

A: 4 Players depicted, Hammond, Crossley, Sam Wright and Harry Wright.
47 Hammonds were sold, 57 Crossley's, 11 of Sam Wright and 150 of Harry W.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jimmy L

Sorry about the anon. post above.

[Archive]

Posted By: Halleygator

That proves my point.

If SAM Wright was a player ... then it was definitely CRICKET.

[Archive]

Posted By: Harry

even though it pictures Harry Wright in a cricket uniform.

The ticket came with a newspaper article talking about the upcoming game which was an "All-Star" game on Sept. 18, 1863 between the stars from New York vs. the stars from Brooklyn.

Whether or not it is an actual card will always be debated. I guess it really depends on your definition of a baseball card.

Jerrerson Burdick seemed to think that tickets could be considered cards.

One thing seems certain, these "tickets" were printed as part of a three card "set" are were meant for the bearer to keep as a souvenir.

"Tickets" were included in the original American Card Catalog under a "UT" designation. The Sports Collectors Bible lists several of these sets, such as UT-4 Chicago White Sox, UT-7 Ticketron Dodgers, etc.

[Archive]

Posted By: Glen V

Just for the sake of debate, is a Fans Cigarette a card, or just a raffle/ballot/contest ticket? What about Butter Creams, or other similar issues where a person was to fill out the back and turn it in?

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Don't know if I want to go here but I think the Fans card is a "t"obacco card from the twentieth century, hence the T231 designation. Nice try ....later

[Archive]

Posted By: Elliot

Here's my Newsy Lalonde hockey HOF rookie card...

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

Is that what issue you are posing w/the Lalonde?

IMHO, it is. My 1963 Topps Dave DeBusschere is his RC, 1969-70 BK notwithstanding. You cannot ignore a Topps-issued card of a professional athlete in a regular issue set.

Here is another one: Is it a rookie card if the card does not depict the named person? Two famous ones come to mind: 1969 Aurelio Rodriguez depicting the Angels batboy and the "RC" of Green Bay Packers great Jim Taylor, whose first two cards showed someone else.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

It's his first card, but only his "rookie" lacrosse card, not his rookie hockey card. That's like saying Bo Jackson was no longer a rookie for one sport because he had played in another.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

__________________________________________________ _________I thought the Lacrosse brand LaLonde was LaLonde's rookie. But Elliot's looks more like the earlier hockey cards. I'd post my LaLonde, but my "temp files" is full, and I can't fignure out how to cancel any of them!

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

In my opinion the item is a ticket with a photo on it--nothing more. Ticket--maybe commemorative ticket--maybe special ticket--but not card. An item given out at only one place, at only one time, should not count as a rookie card anyway, even if it were a card. Otherwise, the baby pictures of little Harry given out by his mother to relatives would be his rookie card. I also don't consider all the current tickets to major league baseball games with pictures of players on them to be cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

I agree with Jay. It's a fancy pass ... Which doesn't mean it isn't a nice item.

I'd count the 1868 Peck & Snyder as the official/concrete first known baseball card (Don't know the date of the Creigton, so it's out of consideration)... But don't feel bad for the owner of the 1863 ticket, as he also owns the Peck & Snyder!

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

Adding, that that's just my opinion and I don't mind if others disagree.

Once in a while a kid doing a school paper or whatever asks me what was the first baseball card. As I'm sure the kid isn't interested in the 'issues', I say it's the 1869 Peck & Snyder Reds.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

The pass, ticket, card,or photo of Creighton is OBVIOUSLY a VERY desirable collectible, and pre-dates the first card, card of first professional team, etc. etc. What does it matter if it's a "mass produced" card or not?

Lew Lipset owns the very large and beautiful card (debatable, I guess) of Radbourne called a "Red Stocking Cigar" card (two other -players are owned by others). Of course, I would turn it down because there's a Bostom team schedule on the back! It's NOT a card, it's a schedule...Are you kidding? I would have bought it instead of the '69 P and S and the Radbourne OJ portrait, but it wasn't for sale.

I assume nobiody wants to define himself out of a great collectible!

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Julie, no is arguing that this isn't a great collectible, just whether it is a card or not. To many people, it is important to define what is a card and what is not. Personally, I say it is not a card, but still a great collectible what any fan and historian of baseball would love to have.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

my Wrights look so much older! Gee, wonder why; maybe because they are.

Look ma, no whiskers!

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Anybody got a good 1869 Peck & Snyder Cincinnati card to sell?

It is the last card I need.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

I ponder the meaning of that! The very last card I need will be the one I think of the day after I die.

Do you have all the HOFers?
Do you have all the cards you've ever seen that you find attractive?
Do you have one card from each set that you know exists?
No new sets to conquor? No old sets to finish?

...except for the '69 P and S?

INCREDIBLE!

No, I won't sell my '69 P and S now, but maybe someday--nobody in my family is interested in cards but me...

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd (nolemmings)

and say it's a card, at least if what Andy and Harry post is true. Great topic though.

If people could have used a "regular", non-photo ticket to gain entrance, and then buy (or receive free) the Harry Wright, Sam Wright, Crossley or Hammond items inside the gate, would we then agree that it is a card? If so, then I think the fact you could keep the item as a souvenir--not surrender it--makes it more than a ticket, and the fact that the premium for the picture was paid before rather than after you entered the ballpark is really a distinction without a difference.

What were the circumstances surrounding distribution of the Peck&Snyders? Were they offered over a period of time or just in conjunction with some one-time sale in 1868 and 1869? Do we know? If the latter, is that really different than the Wright item for one event? What if the Hoboken event was advertised over a period of a month or two, such that those interested had many weeks to obtain it. Is it then more in line with a "summer sale" with P&S Sporting goods, if that is how long those cards were available?

Next, these are aparently different than the CDVs or cabinet cards that players may have had created individually for distribution to their family and friends and fans. This "Wright" and others ostensibly were available to anyone who wanted them--I suppose even if you couldn't attend and just wanted the pictures.

Finally, as Julie and others touched upon, the hobby seems to acknowledge other erstwhile tickets and schedules as cards, so that should not by itself disqualify this item.

My 2 cents.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

You are correct.

What was I thinking?

I should have said: "It is the only card that I am yearning for at this sitting."