N28 Allen & Ginters NOT from 1887 ??

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

It has always been reported that the N28 Allen & Ginters cards were from 1887 and were generally considered the FIRST tobacco cards issued.

So how is THAT information explained in light of this:



The N28 "1887" card shows him CLEARLY on the BOSTON team...

but the baseball history books all show that he played the entire 1887 season for CHICAGO and did not suit up for Boston until 1888:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/clarkjo01.shtml



Surely I am not the FIRST person in the World to recognize this fact, am I??

After all, I just purchase a TRUE 1887 card of Clarkson (Old Judge) that SHOWS him with CHICAGO... so it HAS to have been issued BEFORE the Allen & Ginters card:

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan

I'm not sure about any of that but I can't believe that there are people out there can get cards that look that nice Anyone need a kidney? I'm selling one of mine for the small price of a Near Mint John Clarkson Old Judge card - or possibly an Allen & Ginter Cap Anson.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Who came up with the dates for these sets anyways??

This is a real "bummer" for someone trying to collect the "FIRST" cards of certain players.

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

Hal,

The N167 is the first Tobacco Issue. It was issued in 1886.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan

I couldn't even imagine if I were going to try and collect first cards for players from the 19th century or even early 20th century. I guess people back then just didn't think there would be such a demand on the cards that they were producing 100 or so years ago.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

ANDY:

Yeah, I know those N167 Old Judge cards were issued in 1886...

which is even BEFORE the "wrong" date for the N28's of 1887...

which is why I am surprised to read THIS in the Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards about the N28 Allen & Ginters:

"Generally considered the first of the tobacco card issues,..."



And by the way...

WHOEVER OUTBID ME on the N167 Ward in Mastro...

needs to "cowboy up" and identify himself!

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

Hal,

I can assure you that it wasn't me. However, I am VERY happy about the final price. I thought that I overpaid for the Ewing, but apparently, I got the steal of the century!

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

c'mon Andy....you know the 1886 Lone Jack is the first tobacco cards...and this is Comisky's real rookie

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Ahhh ... baloney!

You know that those Lone Jacks are from 1887 just like the Old Judges!!!



After all ... Lone Jack used a CROPPED CLOSE-UP of the SAME photograph that appears on the Old Judge card for their cards!!

How could Lone Jack have CROPPED a photograph that wasn't produced until the following year???

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan

I am thinking of making a network 54 HOF rookie card website as an addition to my own. I wanted to put all HOF rookie cards as kind of virtual HOF collection from board members and of course give credit to the owner. Would there be any interest in having this done? If so, it may be nice addition to the links site that people can go check out.

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

Bryan,

We can't even agree on which cards are rookie cards. Hal has a bunch of cards in his collection that he calls rookies, even when he knows they are not

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

Leon,

I have to agree with Hal on this one. Lone Jack's are most likely from 1887, not 1886. However, I do believe that the Kalamazoo Bats portrait cards are from 1886 rather than 1887. Wish I owned one

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan

Maybe just the best we can do. It was just a thought

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Yeah Andy...

it "peeved" me when someone discovered that the N28 Allen & Ginters may NOT be "rookie cards" since they probably came out in 1888 (AFTER the first Old Judge cards).



And then it REALLY PEEVED me that I was the one who made the discovery and screwed myself!!

What a bummer of a day.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Does anyone have a scan of the "1887" Buchner Gold Coin card of CLARKSON ??

If my memory serves me right ... it is basically a DRAWING of this exact pose:

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

Kalamazoo Bats and N167's show Larry Corcoran in a Giants uniform.He played for them in 1885 and the very beginning of 1886 [one game]before being loaned to the Senators. He was never returned to NY and signed with Indianapolis the next year


Chances are both sets are from early 1886

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

[Archive]

Posted By: John

Hal;

Couldn’t the Comisky photo go both ways? Maybe it was taken around 1885-1886 and the Lone Jack Company decided to crop the image for artistic reasons. Then the following year to show the 1886 champions, the Old Judge Company used an existing photo for their card of Comisky.

Just a thought, by the way Hal I hope someday to have a “bummer of a day” and find out that my NM card of any 19th player wasn’t the right one.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

I was wrong on the Gold Coin Clarkson:




John: No, it couldn't go the other way. The larger photo of Comiskey had to exist before the cropped version. I know you are saying that maybe the larger "photo" existed but just sat around for a year or two before Old Judge used it to produce a baseball card... but that isn't how the Old Judge cards were made. Old Judge didn't start taking their own photos until 1887, because their 1886 set was a hand-drawn set that was copied straight from a set of 1886 cabinet photos taken of the 1886 NY Giants by J. Wood Company.

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

Hal,

A shot in the dark here, but is it not possible that the N28's were produced after the season ended in 1887 but after Clarkson had been sold to Boston and that the image was changed to reflect the new team?

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Back to the ORIGINAL question:

Given the Clarkson discovery... does anyone have any reason NOT to think that the N28 Allen & Ginters cards MUST have come out in 1888 and NOT 1887 as previously suggested by Lemke and others???


Edited to respond to Josh: Certainly a possibility Josh... but I just can't see them making a card for a guy who had not yet played a single inning for that team ... when they only made 10 baseball cards in the whole set.

But who knows ... I guess the N28 Allen & Ginters could officially be the very FIRST:

1887 Topps "TRADED" SET

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

Clarkson was sold to Boston on april 3rd 1888,they wouldve been pretty good to know that in 1887 in enough time to make the card

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Now THAT is why I visit this site!!

Where else can you get free information a SABR genius like John!



Looks like the N28 set was DEFINITELY an 1888 set and NOT an 1887 set.



I will forward this to Mr. Lemke and others.

[Archive]

Posted By: DD

Being fairly new to this forum, I guess the real issue is not the year the cards were made, but whose collection would you rather own, Leon's or Hal's? Mixing and matching is not allowed.

[Archive]

Posted By: John

The first known true tobacco insert premium issued by Thomas Hall Company. Issued between 1880-1892. The cards consist of mostly actors, actress, celebrities and presidential candidates. One of the card backs has the line “The American Tobacco Company Successor” meaning that that series was issued before the company was bought up by ATC.

Well over 500 cards in total in the set. Relax Hal no rookies to be found here unless you like Oarsmen or Pedestrians if so then your screwed.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Leon has the "Four Base Hits" King Kelly card...

but I have a VERY RARE card being shipped to me that will RIVAL that one...

and I will post a scan of it as soon as it arrives.

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

Why am I beginning to think that Hal won the Wagner in the Leland's auction.

[Archive]

Posted By: John

But I have heard Leon is much sexier!

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

JOSH: You're getting very warm!



Right player...

wrong year.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I would rather have Hal's collection than mine. His is nicer grade but mine probably has a few rarer cards, condition aside.....AND no fair....Hal is a lawyer and makes more bucks than I do.....later

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Ah ... what the heck:

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

I would rather have Leon's restaurants!

I love baseball cards ... but I also love FOOD!!



And YES ... Leon is the SEXIEST man in the Card business (keep spreading the word!)

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Now you have really opened a "rookie" can of worms....let the stories begin......

[Archive]

Posted By: Bill Kasel

Look at that cardboard fly!!! This is a great string of posts, and ones I really enjoy reading.

Hal, whether its debated ad nausium on the Wagner H. Reccius rookie or not, it is a phenomenal card! Congratulations. I could spend a week browsing your's and Leon's websites, but the drool would end up ruining my keyboard.

Bill Kasel

[Archive]

Posted By: Ralph

....BCD was right about you guys.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
J/K

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

And just to ward off any "dirty talk" about it being a "Minor League" card of Wagner:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/w/wagneho01.shtml

You can see that the Louisville Colonels were an official member of the REAL National League in 1897, 1898 and 1899.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

And NO, it is NOT cut out from a cigar box.

There is writing on the back.

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

We are never going to agree on this, but I believe that a card needs to be from a set to be a true rookie card. That would make the E107 Breisch Williams the true Wagner Rookie, which doesn't make the Reccius Wagner any less desirable. What an awesome card.

Isn't this fun?????



(I've got to keep Hal interested in the Breisch Williams Wagner just in case I ever decide to sell it)

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Awesome card...congrats....I think I might have been the underbidder on it in the Mastro a few years ago. Regardless if it is or isn't his rookie (and it very well could be) it's great. With that being said one of the rifs (?) about the card has always been the question of "why Wagner?" and why no other cards exist, even from entire set (that we know of)? Honus wasn't really as great as he was going to be, relative to others at the time. Other players had much better stats when he was on that team. Some believe that Recius could have made this card after his popularity gained with his hitting so they could captialize on his name, not unlike in today's market. regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

Andy, how can the E107 be Wagner's rookie? Doesn't he have a W600 from 1902? Or do oversize/cabinet cards not count?

Paul

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

They don't count to me. They are very cool. The Young that I just won is going to be my first. But they are not really "cards" to me.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

I agree with Andy on the fact that W600's are not "cards."

I do not, however, agree with Andy on the Wagner card isue.

Are the N167 Old Judge cards not "rookie cards" because they did NOT produce cards from other players in the league?? No.

Are the 1914 Cracker Jack cards not "real cards" because they did NOT produce cards of EVERY player in the league?? No.

Are the N28 Allen & Ginter cards not "real cards" because only 10 baseball players were pictured and not the whole league? No.

The 1897 Reccius card of Wagner is his rookie card...

but I can live with Andy saying that the E107 set in 1903 was the first baseball card "set" that included a Wagner card.

[Archive]

Posted By: Elliot

Forget Leon's or Hal's, I'd rather have Scott B.'s collection.

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

Id rather have Jay Miller's collection personally.....wouldnt it be great if each of them traded their collection to the first person who mentioned theyd rather have their collection

I think they should

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Nice try John. So does this make the Kalamazoo Bats cards of Ward, O'Rourke, Keefe, Ewing and Connor their rookie cards since they were an 1886 issue? They would have been issued the same year as N167s so how do you choose between the two? Personally, I would rather have the photographic card but I was wondering what the rookie card collectors think.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Jay:

Most of the Kalamazoo Bats cards say "Copyright 1887" on the front...

but apparently SOME of the cards have photos of players on their 1886 teams...

and some have photos of players on their 1888 teams.


BUT...

all of the HOF's in the N167 set played for the New York team in 1886 and 1887.



so even if you found a Kalamazoo Bats card for one of those HOF's that did NOT say "Copyright 1887" on the front so that it possibly "could" be from 1886...

there would NEVER be any way to prove it.

Thus, I think the N167's get the nod as being the true rookie "cards" for those players...

even though the players clearly had J. Wood "cabinets" issued prior to the N167's.

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

Hal,while technically youre correct by saying most have copyright lines of 1887 its likely that Kalamazoo Bats cards were issued in 2 series.Besides Corcoran,Elmer Forster is also shown on NY whom he only played for in 1886.The NY cards are all portrait cards different from the philadelphia cards and they dont have copyright dates.Since they dont you have to go by the team on which they appeared,when 2 of the players didnt play on the 1887 team then its unlikely that its an 1887 issue as it wouldnt make any sense.Corcoran not appearing on the Giants after May of 86 and Elmer Forster who is with the Mets on the card only played for them in the beginning of the 86 season. Dude Esterbrooke and Chief Roseman were also on different teams in 1887 and are pictured with the Mets.

So technically its possible the Hall of Famers who were with the team in both years were issued in 1887 its very unlikely they would only issue the non hall of famers in 1886.Theres also no NY players who were only with the team in 1887 or after in the set

I think the only way to be certain you have a rookie Hal is to get that 1885 team cabinet set.I can help with the cost by purchasing one of those non hall of famers

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

It should also be noted that H812 cards known as Welton Cigarettes use the same players and poses as N167 with no known differences or anything to suggest that they werent also made in 1886.To me,and im not a rookie collector,i have no reason to believe if you wanted a rookie card[not cabinet] of players that appear in all 3 of those sets any one of them would be considered a legit rookie

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

John: Thanks for the info on Corcoran and Forster being with NY only in 1886.

Do their Kalamazoo Bats portrait cards - which show them in their 1886 uniforms - say "copyright 1887" on the front ...

or do they NOT have that language on them??

What about the HOF players on the NY team who have K-Bats portrait cards...

does ANYONE know if THOSE cards say "copyright 1887" on the front or not??

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

according to Lew Lipsets book none of the NY players have copyright dates and they are all studio portraits.The philadelphia players are all outdoor shots and have 1887 copyright lines.I have only seen a few of the NY players and none of them had copyright dates at all

In reality if you ask me theres 2 different kalamazoo sets[for players cards that is,not counting cabinets].Its not like the old judges or t206s where they were produced over years and some cards are in more than one series of printing.These cards seem to have been a NY teams set in 1886 and a Philly teams set the following year

1- 1886 players vs 1887 players with their right team
2- studio portraits vs outdoor action poses
3-copyright dates vs no copyright dates
4 no crossover cards or updated player/team changes