Peck & Snyder's WERE sold as cards!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

I just KNEW that I had seen an 1869 Peck & Snyder card that specifically stated on the back that they were sold as cards to the public... but I could NEVER find it until today! I was looking through my 1991 Sotheby's catalog from the Copeland Auction, and here it is:




After seeing the back of this card... there can be NO DOUBT that these cards were NOT "free giveaways" or "trade cards"... but were actually sold by Peck & Snyder for a PROFIT.

I sure wish I had bought 100 of them for $5 !!!

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

This is also very interesting, because it PROVES the link between the "22 Ann Street" address and the "126 Nassau Street" address for Peck & Snyder.

As you can see, the store address was listed on the card as "22 Ann Street"... but they obviously had some connection with the Nassau Street address since orders for the card were sent to THAT address.

As we know from this receipt below, the Ann Street address was closed in May of 1870:

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Here is the back of my P&S for comparison. It is also a "22 Ann Street" version.

[Archive]

Posted By: david

hal, didnt we have this discussion a while back when rhys showed us a catalog he picked up. you could order a larger version of the cabinet but it was quite expensive

[Archive]

Posted By: Daniel Bretta

Rhys already uncovered the fact that these were sold to the public a month or so back, but really what difference does it make whether they were given away or sold? They are what they are.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Yes, but Rhys' catalog was from something like 1873...

because you could buy the 1869, 1870, 1871 and 1872 cards from the price list that he found.


THIS particular card proves that they were SELLING the Peck & Snyder cards all the way back in 1869 and were never just "giving" them away...

since this card HAD to be from 1869 as the "22 Ann Street" address went out of business after May 1, 1870 and moved to 126 Nassau Street.


The catalog that Rhys found was from the "126 Nassau Street" address, which makes sense because it was printed a few years AFTER May 1, 1870.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

It says they were sold to the "trade". Does that mean general public? It looks like it means to stores to give away etc.....

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Daniel:

There is a HUGE difference between an early "Trade Card" that was given away as free advertising at a store...

and a "real Baseball card" that was being SOLD for just that!!!

This would clearly make the Peck & Snyder the FIRST "real" baseball card that was sold BY ITSELF and not just obtained from the photographer or the advertiser.

BIG difference.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I still think that if you were a good customer and spent a lot of money with them it is likely that they would give them out free. If you walked in off the street just to come away with a picture of the Red Stockings, you had to pay for it. Also, Rhys found the ad in a guide that was only published for two years, 1870 and 1871. I don't know which of the two he had. And to respond to Hal's last post, I think it is accepted that both the Peck & Snyder trade cards and corresponding CdV's are as close as one could come to a collectible baseball card in 1870, and are generally considered a form of baseball card by collectors today. Not in the same vein as an Old Judge, but that's all there was at the time.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Leon:

If I had ever seen one of these 1869 cards with SOME OTHER COMPANY'S ad on the back...

then I might tend to think that they were only selling them to other stores with "blank backs" so that the other stores could advertise on them...

but since I have never seen this, I have to believe that anyone who bought these cards from Peck & Snyder received them JUST LIKE this one -- WITH the Peck & Snyder wording already on the back.

To think that Peck & Snyder would sell them to other businesses but NOT sell them to customers off the street just doesn't make sense.

I think you are translating the language of the 1860's a little too literally.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Here is Rhys' thread...

http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/thread/1132645437/last-1132781629/Peck+and+Snyder+CDV+Advertisement

but his 1871 image is no longer visible.

Maybe he can RE-post it again???

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Barry:

Surely the biggest customers of Topps get some "free" handouts every now and then from Topps...

but that doesn't DISQUALIFY them as "real" baseball cards!



Like you said...

if some kid off the street had to PAY A NICKEL in order to leave the Peck & Snyder Store at 22 Ann Street with a card of the 1869 Red Stockings...

then that is NOT a "trade card" under the longstanding definition as "free advertising giveaways."

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

If these were for sale to the public, why were they only offered in a quantity 12 or 100?

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Why has EVERY baseball card company in history sold cards in PACKS of more than one?

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

But they don't sell you 12 of the same card today, in one pack? I absolutely think you are the most passionate collector on the board about proving a point. If I am ever in your neck of the woods and need a lawyer you are the man !! Keep going...and I am taking over and under on the posts in this thread

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

So who do you consider "The Trade" to be in this case??

Only sporting goods distributors... or basically ANY type of business in the United States that wanted to advertise?


Surely you would agree that Peck & Snyder would have sold 100 of these cards to the owner of a Bread Company if an order had come in, right??

Maybe the Bread company gave them away with every loaf of bread he sold.

If so, then they are DEFINITELY baseball cards, since "bread cards" have been a part of the hobby for 100 years.


And surely you would agree that Peck & Snyder would have sold 100 of these cards to a Saloon owner if an order had come in, right??

Maybe the Saloon owner then gave them out to his customers.

How is this any different than any business in modern times giving away a baseball card as an enticement to come into their business?? The card is still a card.



And surely you would agree that Peck & Snyder would have sold 100 of these cards to a Department Store owner if an order had come in, right??

Maybe the Store owner turned around and SOLD them to their customers for even MORE than he paid for them...since he IS in the business of making a profit.

How is this any different than Topps in 2005?

They sell the card to Wal-Mart... and they turn around and sell them for MORE.



Conversely... I seriously DOUBT that a SPORTING GOODS manufacturer like Peck & Snyder would have sold these cards to their COMPETITORS and allowed THEM to use the same exact cards as advertising for THEIR business!

They were not in the business of selling "marekting tools" to companies across the country.

They sold "sporting goods"... so to argue that they were suddenly in the business of printing and selling blank-backed marketing cards for OTHER types of businesses just does not make sense to me.

[Archive]

Posted By: fkw

My Opinion

The top card is a Trade Card. It just has an offer on back for merchants (any merchant) to buy it in bulk from the printer on Nassau St. (to give away). It could be bought by any merchant, it just happens to also have an ad for Peck and Snyder on the back as well, it doesnt mean it was given out by them. The Peck and Snider ad is just an ad on the back.

The second card is a Trade Card that was given away by Peck and Snyder.

Here is a Baseball Trade Card advertising a Trade Card printer, very similar but far less important

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

Why has EVERY baseball card company in history sold cards in PACKS of more than one?


Hal, with all due respect. Cards have been sold in penny packs where 1 card per pack was offered. Early Bowmans were sold that way 1 card for a penny 6 cards for a nickel.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Leon:

You are also OVERLOOKING the most important bit of information on the card.

The card orders were sent to: THE AMERICAN NEWS COMPANY

So... we know that Peck & Snyder didn't make the cards since they sold sporting goods and had nothing to do with printing presses and photography.

AND... we now know that The American News Company WAS the original maker of the card AND the company who would get PAID to make the 100 extra copies that anyone was ordering.


BUT... there is no argument that the card was CLEARLY made as an advertisement for Peck & Snyder's and NOT the American News Company.

If the American News Company had wanted to go into the business of making cards and selling them for a profit as advertising tools, then THEY would have put THEIR company information on the back of the card as advertising in BIG BOLD letters.

In other words, there was NO REASON for Peck & Snyder to even be mentioned on the cards... UNLESS it was Peck & Snyder who commissioned the idea and who paid for the cards to be made.


Therefore... it is extremely unlikely that Peck & Snyder would offer OTHER companies the opportunity to order these and put THEIR company name on the backs.

Would Topps let Fleer buy their cards and just put Fleer on the back?? Would Bowman have let Leaf? NO.



Like I said originally... I truly believe that if anyone bought 100 of these cards through the mail from The American News Company...

the cards would have still come with the Peck & Snyder advertising on the back.

Otherwise... I think we would have seen at least ONE such card with "The American News Company" back in the past 135 years.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhys

Here is my advertisement again if anyone still wants to see it, it is from the 1871 Peck and Snyder Guide offering the "nines" from 1870. They sell them individually here at a cost of 10 cents each.

Rhys

[Archive]

Posted By: Ryan Christoff

Hal,

You have conclusively proven that this was, indeed, a trade card.

I'd love to hear more about the 1869 baseball card collecting niche of collectors who purchased 100 of the same card, but this is clearly NOT who Peck & Snyder was targeting with this advertisement. I'm sure you can and will make a case that it was, but that doesn't make it so. I'm sure more than one board member here bought 100 Sam Horn rookies at one point, so why not 100 Peck and Snyders?

It says very clearly on the card that Peck & Snyder were WHOLESALE DEALERS in Base Ball Player Supplies. This does not say that they were a retail sporting goods store, even though we know they did have a retail store as well. A wholesale dealer in base ball player supplies would be exactly the right place for a sporting goods store to purchase 100 blank-back trade cards with the most popular and famous team of the time on the front in order to print their own advertisement on the back and GIVE THEM AWAY at their retail store. It was nothing unusual in those years. If you research the history of trade cards you will find out how popular they were.

Sporting goods stores are not competition for the wholesale dealers that supply them. They're customers.

It's clear that this is a trade card. Whether it's a baseball card or not is a different matter. But the back of the one in the Copeland auction is only proof of it being a trade card.

-Ryan

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Thanks Rhys!

Clearly in 1870 these cards were being sold INDIVIDUALLY to the public by Peck & Snyder...

so it really defies credulity to argue that they were NOT being sold to the public a year earlier.


Also...

if "The American News Company" did actually print some of these 1869 cards for OTHER companies with THOSE companies' ads on the back...

then wouldn't they still be JUST LIKE the 1916 M101-5 cards???

Those were all PRINTED by one particular company... but then sold to a bunch of different companies with THEIR specific ads on the backs??

I'm sure Gimbels gave those cards away to customers and didn't SELL them.

I'm sure Mall Theatres gave those cards away to customers and didn't SELL them.

They are still BASEBALL CARDS and not "trade cards."

I'm sure

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Ryan:

If what you say is true...

then a particular card would only be a "trade card" if it was GIVEN AWAY for free by the retailer who BOUGHT IT from Peck & Snyder and put HIS OWN advertising on the back.

That is clearly NOT the case with these two cards shown in this thread.


Wouldn't the one from the Copeland Auction then be considered a "salesman's proof" since it says "Sample Copy" on it and was being used under your scenario to show retailers what they could purchase?

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

And why then does my 1869 Peck & Snyder NOT provide ANY information on the back by which a retailer could ORDER any of these cards??


The 1870 material shown by Rhys PROVES that people had to BUY these cards from Peck & Snyder for 10 cents apiece.

Don't you agree that when Peck & Snyder SOLD one of these cards to someone... it came with a Peck & Snyder back???


You guys are arguing about the "Volume sales to the Trade" information but IGNORING the information from Rhys that came only one year later.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ryan Christoff

Hal,

The ad Rhys has is for the CDV, not the trade card.

-Ryan

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

Hal you are certainly passionate, but call me skeptical on your theory.

I think the sale in lots of 12 and 100 only of the same card argues that they were not intended, at least by the language on the card you scanned, for direct sale or distribution to the public.

I believe they were sold by a sporting goods wholesaler to its retailers, who could then give them away to their customers. I would wager that you had to have placed some type of sporting goods order to even qualify as being part of "the trade"; if so, your extension of P&S selling to bakeries and other industries seems far fetched.

How is this really different from what was done by Rawlings, Wilson and MacGregor in the 50's and 60's?

Edited to add : damn phone call kept this from being posted 10 minutes earlier. I agree with some of the preceding points made in the interim

[Archive]

Posted By: Rich Jacobs

Hal and Ryan: I think you are both misinterpreting the card slightly. It states that Peck & Snyder was a wholesaler. It would be very logical for it to give the sample card to each of its retail dealers who sold baseball supplies directly to the public. After looking at the sample card, each retailer could then buy cards in bulk with the Peck & Snyder information on the back, and could give them away free to its retail customers. The cards would, supposedly, spur retail customers to buy baseball supplies. That would, of course, benefit not only the retailer, but Peck & Snyder from whom the retailer would have to purchase wholesale.

Has anyone seem one of these cards with information on it from a retailer? If so, that would indicate they could be purchased in bulk and then printed with the retailer's information. However, since they all seem to be with Peck & Snyder information, I would think what I said above is correct: retailers could buy them and give them away with purchases, and Peck & Snyder as the wholesaler thought this would increase the profits of both it and the retailers.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ryan Christoff

Rich,

I think I'm interepreting the Copeland card the same way you are. That one was a sample card that was surely given to potential customers (retail sporting goods stores).

Isn't that what you're saying?

-Ryan

[Archive]

Posted By: Rich Jacobs

Ryan: You suggested the cards were sold or given away by Peck & Snyder with a "blank back" so that the retailer could "print their own advertisement" and then also give them away to their retail customers. I may have misinterpreted this, but I read it as suggesting the retailer would purchase in bulk and have the printer put the retailer's information on the back.

I think it much more likely that they were sold by the printer only with the Peck & Snyder information, rather than printed with the retailer's information. If it were as I think you suggested, we ought to expect to see at least some cards with other than Peck & Snyder information on the back, but I'm not aware of any.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Ryan:

Don't you agree that the CdV's that Peck & Snyder sold for 10 cents apiece in 1870 would have had the P&S advertisement on the back?

Surely they were not going to pass up an advertising opportunity that they had already used in the past.


If so... then why would Peck & Snyder SELL the CdV's that have their ad on the back... but GIVE AWAY the trade cards for free?

That makes no sense, as NOBODY would buy a CdV when they could walk in and GRAB a trade card with the exact same image for free.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

And just because the 1870 advertisment is for the sale of "Cartes de Viste"...

I don't think this EXCLUDES one type of card or the other.

We are talking about 1869 here... so it's not like they even had a reason to call one thing a trade card and the other a CdV and the other a "baseball card."



There is just no way that a company would try to sell something that they are also giving away at the same time.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I think everyone is making too big of a deal regarding whether Peck & Snyder's should be called trade cards or baseball cards. I think we can live with the two terms being practically interchangeable. The issue has characteristics of both- advertising for an emporium and the ability for the general public to collect them as a set. Weren't Bowmans printed with ads to sell Blony gum and Topps to sell their chewing gum? And these are baseball cards by anyone's definition, even though they were issued specifically to sell a different product. I think the terms "baseball card" and "trade card" have morphed over the years based on the different ways these artifacts are now collected.

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

I hadn’t posted on this subject previous to today because I did not think that sufficient information was available to draw a conclusion. Although I still feel that way, the “new” evidence provided by Hal constitutes adequate data for me to formulate an opinion.

It seems to me that if you extrapolate the P&S pricing from $5. for 100, through $0.75 for 12, you arrive at each card costing a dime. If that is true, I ask myself: what Civil War era kid could or would buy a card for that price?

My answer is – none. Heck, a dime would buy enuff candy to overload a kid, and leave sufficient extra cash to buy his Pa a shot of Ol’ Red Eye. And really, you haven’t lived unless at least once in your life you had so much money that you could buy a wad of licorice, then follow that up with a tall peppermint stick, then do the licorice again, and another peppermint, and go again; then take one set up with you “for the road” Keep the extra penny for emergencies, and give the nickel to your father for the saloon.

Or you could buy a P&S card. No contest. My opinion is that these cards were not for kid’s purchase.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Ten cents was clearly above the budget of a kid, so it was something collected by adults. No harm there. Let me elaborate on my previous post. Ten years ago, 19th century collectors viewed Peck & Snyder's solely as trade cards, because it was an era when memorabilia such as early photography was more significant than say Old Judges, which were not terribly popular and not widely collected. Today, the emphasis on card collecting is overwhelming and other types of 19th century artifacts have taken a back seat; thus, it is only natural the term baseball card has broadened as the hobby has evolved and matured. That is why I think it is fair to call them either one. Remember the old jingle for Certs- "They're a breath mint and a candy mint- they're two mints in one." That sums up my feeling about Peck & Snyders.

[Archive]

Posted By: Daniel Bretta

I'm with Barry on this one...Whether this is a trade card or a baseball card really makes this no more or less desirable to any but a few who are hung up on the symantics.

Is the card going to be less important to you if it's only a trade card?

With that said I think it's interesting and important to track down the history of such items and I commend you Hal and anyone else who's trying to track this information. The 1869 Red Stockings were sensational and certainly Peck and Snyder were cashing in on their fame and using them to promote their own brand of baseball supplies.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Hal's research is always superlative but the cards are extremely desirable whatever you call them. As Daniel said they are not more valuable as baseball cards or less valuable as trade cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: ramram

Pardon me if this was mentioned earlier as I haven't had time to read all posts, but....when all this was discussed before (or at least when we were digging into the address thing), didn't we find out that a printing company was located in the same building with Peck & Snyder? Was this the same company that printed the cards?

Rob M.

[Archive]

Posted By: Max Weder

According to the inflation calculator, a card costing a dime in 1865 would cost $1.18 today in 2005 dollars. I'll leave it to others to comment on what that means in terms of the Peck & Snyder cards--trade or baseball or both.

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

Max

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Needless to say...

I know many kids (and "kids at heart") who would gladly spend $1.18 today on a baseball card.

Certainly not out of their budget by a long shot.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rick

I went to the goverment website for inflation which only goes as far as 1913 and a dime then would have the same purchasing power of 2 bucks now.

They were expensive...maybe thats why they are so rare nowadays.

apparently not too many poeple or retailers bought them

[Archive]

Posted By: Andrew

I greatly enjoy these Peck & Snyder threads and the latest argument does make a compelling case that this is the first baseball card. So what's the second oldest (undisputed) baseball card?

“A smooth sea never made a skilled mariner.” - English Proverb

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

According to the inflation calculator, a card costing a dime in 1865 would cost $1.18 today in 2005 dollars.

the only problem with that is not too many folks had the 1.18 back then.

Steve

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

lots of other cards! Does that make them any less baseballcards? jeez...

[Archive]

Posted By: fkw

A true (normal) baseball card is usually given away with a product or service. Until recent modern cards, a card that was purchased without a product or service was a "collectors issue" and usually worth far less than other cards of the era (ie. R316, Exhibit cards, Berk Ross, TCMA, strip cards).

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

For what it is worth, there are CDV's of the 1869 Red Stockings with both Blank Backs and with just the player's names that are known to exist. There was a Blank Back version in an REA Auction in the past few years.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

That's right Andy, and THOSE are what I would certainly classify as "true" CdV's. Those have zero advertising, and are therefore much more in line with a keepsake photograph that was made personally for the players themselves. Especially since there is not even a listing of a photographer's studio on them.

But I don't think for a second that Peck & Snyder was selling BLANK-backed CdV's when we have already seen that they appreciated and understood the value of putting their ADS on the backs of these cards.

Furthermore, I don't think any of those "AD-FREE" cards or CdV's were put out by The American News Company as a way to sell more copies... since there is no information listed on the back that tells people how to order more (like there is on the Copeland copy).

Here is the back of JC's Peck & Snyder, which is the THIRD in this thread with the 1869 Ann Street address:



His and mine do NOT provide anyone the opportunity to call or write and order more copies.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

The more I think about it...

the more I am convinced that the Copeland example WAS indeed a salesman's copy that he took around the country showing retailers as an example of what he could provide them with in regards to marketing.

This would, of course, explain why it says "SAMPLE COPY" on it in BIG letters.

Therefore, I agree that that THIS particular card was never distributed by Peck & Snyder...

but was used by a salesman from THE AMERICAN NEWS COMPANY to try and sell more of the cards to companies (like Peck & Snyder) so that THEY could use them for advertising.

The only reason it says "Peck & Snyder" on the back is as an EXAMPLE to other prospective purchasers so that they can see what it would look like with THEIR company's logo on the back.


---------------------


Having said that... I think ALL of the OTHER cards from Peck & Snyder that we know about WERE ordered by Peck & Snyder from The American News Company and then SOLD to the public for 10 cents apiece.

In fact, we KNOW this from the 1870 information that Rhys found.

I do NOT think it is any "coincidence" that the cards cost FIVE CENTS apiece to purchase from The American News Company...

and then Peck & Snyder was selling them for TEN CENTS apiece.

Peck & Snyder was making FIVE CENTS for every card they sold... which as you pointed out was about $1 a card in today's money.

Not a bad profit per card by any stretch, and explains everything we have seen in this thread.


-------------------------------


Also, since we KNOW that Peck & Snyder had to pay FIVE CENTS apiece for the cards...

and we KNOW that they were selling them for a nice profit...

I think this shines serious doubt on their willingness to just GIVE them away for FREE advertising to anyone who came in off the streets.

Photographic materials were just too rare in those days to be giving them away.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Hal- I just noticed something from the back of your CdV. The Haney Guide was named as such because it was published by Haney from its inception in 1866 until 1868. In 1869, Peck & Snyder bought the publishing rights, and if you look at an 1869 Haney Guide, it has a 12 page section on green paper advertising all of their sporting goods products. So they purchased it both to sell in their store and get the word out about their sporting goods. That's where I got my color advertising poster from- the inside cover of one of the 1869 books. Likewise, they were more than happy to push their new acquisition on the back of the CdV. One thing we can say about P & S was they were pretty sophisticated when it came to marketing. I wonder how many other companies of that era were as equally aggressive.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Barry: Thanks for the info!


I knew about Haney's Guide... but just assumed that Peck & Snyder had always printed it since my card said so.

I never knew that Haney had published it himself up until 1868 and then sold it to Peck & Snyder.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I picked up that little tidbit from Grobani, the definitive bibliography for early baseball books. It mentions the publishing change beginning in 1869.