1865 Brooklyn Atlantics CDV for sale

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

I wonder how much investigation Peter Nash did on Peter Nash? And when do you suppose we get to read about it on Haulsofshame?

Peter Nash is a horror - I wouldn't wish a conversation with him on anyone. But it was impressive how he culled bits and pieces from our thread to use as if he thought it up himself. He 'forged' us

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Peter Nash is a horror - I wouldn't wish a conversation with him on anyone. But it was impressive how he culled bits and pieces from our thread to use as if he thought it up himself. He 'forged' us

He quotes Net54 all the time...I guarantee he's reading this thread.

[Al C.risafulli]

He 'forged' us

LOL

-Al

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

He quotes Net54 all the time...I guarantee he's reading this thread.

He did a pretty good job of organizing items from our thread into something he could use to build his case. It's a lazy way of doing things, but for those who don't choose to read his thread, he created his argument, then got opinions of 'experts' to verify what we had stated (e.g-presented my argument regarding the re-use of the Williamson mount, but through the mouth of someone else with a title) and re-wrote it.

Nash basically writes his blogs the way lazy high-schoolers wrote term papers - you take a good paper, reorganize it, then replace bits and pieces with other sources that say the exact same thing. That way you build up your reference list big enough for the teacher to accept it.

[drc]

We don't know if or how the photo was distributed, so we don't know whether or not it can be considered a trading card.

In the 1860s, some studio CDVs of famous subjects (Abe Lincoln, Queen Victoria) were sold to and collected by the public, and these can reasonably be considered trading cards. I would call them trading cards. But we simply don't know how/why this CDV was made or distributed.

I'm not of the opinion that something has to be a trading card for it to be worthwhile, but I wouldn't categorize it as a trading card-- not because it isn't, but because I don't know that it is. And I've never been much of a 'leap of faith' person.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by drc

We don't know if or how the photo was distributed, so we don't know whether or not it can be considered a trading card.

I think that's what I said, but maybe I was so long-winded that the message was lost.

[drc]

I didn't read all the posts. I just zoomed to the end and posted my opinion.

[Exhibitman]

"The nit-picking part here is that the definition of a “baseball card” has always been a card or similar item depicting a player or team that was designed to help sell another product."

Sez who? The Lord Commissioner of Baseball Cards? I must have missed that memo. I guess that means none of these are baseball cards: