A McCreachery Card Theory

[RCMcKenzie]

Great cabinet, Jay.

Jaime, without checking to see if I'm contradicting myself, my problem with your theory is that the makers of the riddle would have to have intentionally created one of the most obscure inside jokes of all time. It would have taken 120 years and sabr-esque research to unveil their joke on a single tobacco insert, that appears to have been discontinued after a single printing.

I remember making a Rodney Dangerfield reference from 'Easy Money', as he played a photographer in that movie.

[oldjudge]

Joe--as always, an excellent observation. Do you think that because there was no name on the proof that a Goodwin employee screwed up the name on the N172, or are you of the mind that it was a joke?

[Joe_G.]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Joe--as always, an excellent observation. Do you think that because there was no name on the proof that a Goodwin employee screwed up the name on the N172, or are you of the mind that it was a joke?

Jay, just making an observation that might help explain how the wrong name wound up on the N172, riddle or not; there may have been some confusion (merely another theory). We see many mistakes within the N172 set that should have been avoided, even when names were present on the negative.

I do believe the card makers did know who the portrait was however. Deacon was very recognizable figure. I do think they were poking fun at him by calling him a manager. As for the riddle in the name, there is merit in Jamie’s theory, it is quite possible the name plate was a joke on a couple levels . . ., son of God/child, better suited to be a Manager than player, etc. But Goodwin may have thought better of the card and stopped producing it after a very short run (ie may have stopped when Goodwin & Co. management realized what they were printing).

I will say however that Deacon's religious beliefs were not "wacky". He was one of many bible following citizens at the time although not many could be found in the baseball ranks (teammate Lady Baldwin being an exception, another bible quoting and following player). Deacon was generally looked up to, not made fun of. There was a great deal of respect for him, he was recognized as perhaps the greatest player of the 1870s (best catcher in a decade were catching was the single most important position) and he wasn't too shabby at 3rd base either (his "second" career during the 1880s). Most in the baseball world, players and press alike, found his beliefs and morals refreshing (not wacky), role model like.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

Jaime, without checking to see if I'm contradicting myself, my problem with your theory is that the makers of the riddle would have to have intentionally created one of the most obscure inside jokes of all time. It would have taken 120 years and sabr-esque research to unveil their joke on a single tobacco insert, that appears to have been discontinued after a single printing.

Rodney Dangerfield references aside, Rob you make a decent point.

Jay, thanks for sharing the stunning cabinet of Deacon White, and I agree that Joe makes an excellent observation about Deacon's name/team not being on this card.

As much as I would like to think that it's a joke, because I love the story of it being a joke, that does suggest that, once again, I may be mistaken that the card is a joke. Definitely the OJ book got it in my mind that the card was a joke, but staring the cold reality in the face, this could very well just be perhaps the oldest and rarest error card.

Since White's name wasn't enscrolled on the cabinet, that does suggest to me a case of mistaken identity. Couple that with the very small print run (one card in existence) and that is another characteristic of an error card. Even modern error cards often have very low print runs, so the McGreachery does fit in that category of an error card just in the behavior of the card.

So I would say that, in the plain light of day, Rob must be correct that this was not intended as a joke. That said, as wild as my theories were, they did at the very least created the conversation needed to observe certain things about the card that could help us come to a logical conclusion, such as the spelling of the name and characteristics of the cabinet.

I really would have liked the card to have been a joke. But I am afraid that in spite of my logic above, the card may not have been a joke after all. But it is still truly a spectacular card, and the mother of all error cards.

[cyseymour]

Okay, I didn't see Joe's post #116 before I made my post #117. Let me just say that we'll probably never know. I guess that's the best way to put it.

As far as White's religious beliefs go, from what I've read, White believed the world was flat, and tried to convince any who would listen that the world was flat. This was a very strange belief for 1887. Per the OJ book, White was one of the first catchers to stand directly behind home plate, and since it was the 1870's, that was almost certainly without any headgear. It is likely that because of this, he was suffering from dementia, as was sadly common with many 19th century catchers.

This doesn't mean he wasn't respected as a human being and player, but his religious beliefs were way outside the norm. It was a time period where people thought religion was dead - that science was going to shed light on the world and that rational, scientific perspective would assume dominance over the world. We know now that, for better or worse, than never fully happened.

[cyseymour]

Let me also say that, another factor is that every team seems to have a photo of their manager, and Indy didn't have a manager. Since the White card was unmarked, perhaps someone assumed that it was the manager card for Indy since their was no Indy manager card, not realizing that Indy didn't have a manager, and assuming White was the manager since he is old and is wearing formal clothing in the photo. Then the mistake was quickly realized and the card was pulled. That doesn't fully explain how the name McGreachery got on there, but it may have been associated with McGeachy, just a corruption. If the person didn't recognize who Deacon White was, then clearly they could have screwed up the spelling of McGeachy as well. It may have been done by an individual in the studio who was not that knowledgeable of baseball. The person may have asked the name of the Indy manager, been told it was McGeachy, mispelled it as McGeachery and thought White was McGeachy. Then the mistake was found and the card was quickly pulled. That might be the most logical explanation for the entire thing.

[cyseymour]

Another problem with the "Dear Son of God" theory is that all these names, McGeachy, McKee, McGee, McGreachery, McGraw, McCray... that are all variant spellings and corruptions of the same name, which was "crea" which meant God in Gaelic. The word stems from the Greek "Gaia" (pronounced Gay-ah). Gaia also have variant spellings such as Graia, Gaea, etc. The trouble is that these spellings are transliterations. So if someone were to misspell the name McGeachy, it will almost invariably still mean Son of God since that is spelled in so many different ways.

As far as the part of whether White as the mgr. of Indy is a joke, as I was writing earlier, it must have been a case of mistaken identity. That the cabinet doesn't have White's name inscribed is very strong evidence, along with the very short print run, that this card is the mother of all error cards. Someone must have thought he was Jack McGeachy. I believe that McGeachy was the player/manager of Indy for a tad. Someone must have assumed that McGeachy was old and that the White photo was McGeachy.

Another reason for this is that in spite of the fact that we view these players faces all the time, media wasn't so prevalent back then. A players face may have been published in the newspaper once a year. It's not like modern times where we are bombarded with images.

So, in retrospect, I am pretty sure I was wrong in my theory in just about every way imaginable, and the card is an error card. I know that I have changed my mind a few times now, but as new information arises, it must be integrated. Thank you for everyone who participated in this thread, and in fact I think the story of this card is only enhanced by this thread and that this card is the mother of all error cards.

[steve B]

Interesting stuff whichever way it seems.

A couple points.

Spelling, at least in English was not consistent right into the early 1800's, maybe later. It's not unusual to see things written by even the well educated that have the same word spelled different ways on the same page. Printers probably corrected for books but written letters often were a bit sloppy.
So I'd expect spelling of words in languages without Latin roots to be even less consistent.

The classics were taught rather solidly, most advanced education included Latin. Especially in catholic schools since the Mass was in Latin.

I'm not sure about the flat earth thing being religious. I thought the religious one was a earth centric instead of Copernican heliocentric model of the planets?

It's hard to tell if the people who made up the negatives and did the photo printing would have been well educated or catholic, but since photography was a developing technology(Unintended pun, but I'll go with it ) It's likely they were more than simply trained workers.

Steve B