1865 Brooklyn Atlantics CDV for sale

[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:

[drc]

I would say if there's no advertising/promotion of another product, but they were commercially sold as collectibles, that too would count as trading cards.

There will be a question by some about the size (another technicality), but Exhibits were sold as collectibles so would fit my definition of a baseball card in that aspect.

Keeping my opinion to myself, but a lot of folks on this board don't consider postcards to be trading cards, advertising splashed across them or not. They just consider pcs something different.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Sez who? The Lord Commissioner of Baseball Cards? I must have missed that memo.

It's understood

But I was kind of surprised that he proclaimed himself to be an expert on 19th century baseball cards - I've never seen any evidence of it.


Regarding cdv's, etc as advertisement. William T. Sherman wrote a letter to Napoleon Sarony, ordering cabinet photos of himself that he wished to sign at the bottom and give away. He complained that Sarony had used too much of the space at the bottom for his own studio information, and as such, it was a "Sarony advertisement". He threatened to use another photographer if Sarony wasn't willing to send him photos that did not have the Sarony information on the front.

Edited to add: “Enclosed is the check for $18. for the pictures sent—but the Special one—Imperial Mounted on a large sheet is not at all what I wrote for. Sheridan is dead, and could not if he would come to your Studio—the best photo I have of him is by C. Rankin of Washington and is on a panel 17 x 11 1/2 in which no margin at the top and sides but a good margin below for autograph, date & c. Such as a photograph should be. Gutekunst of Phila. promises me one of same size and kind of General Grant. Yours of me either 13,331 Cabinet—or 2945 panel 7 1/2 by 13 inches—No margins top or sides, but a full inch White Margin below—(without advertisement). Your photographs of Me are the best extant, but as issued are advertisements of ‘Sarony’ and not likenesses of Genl Sherman. I think you made a mistake and I tell you so with a Soldier’s frankness. ..."