Frederick Photo Cards

[Leon]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

LOL, since you traded for the Frederick's Foto Ruth, how often will you post about it?

LOL, I am glad your "comment" didn't ruin a great thread. Nice try though.

And it looks like JLange (hey Jlange) might need to add 3 more cards to his Mails want list?

[prewarsports]

Just for discussion sake, what makes these "cards". The issuer was the photographer which essentially just makes them photographs. They were not issued in conjunction with products (like 19th century card/photos) from anything I have seen and other sets of photographs do not get the same respect and classification. If they were 5x7 or 8X10 they would certainly just be a set of photos yet other series of photographs like those from the American League Service Bureau (which are actually numbered like cards) would fall into this same category. I know they are small and look like traditional baseball cards, but they clearly were developed on a full sheet with essentially no borders and trimmed down by the photographer.

At their base root, these are tiny "type 3" photographs developed in composite form and trimmed then given away by a photo studio in Sacramento. I have no skin in the game and am not trying to be controversial at all, just curious why these are "cards" and other sets of superior photographs (off their original negatives) from studios are not? I would be interested in others thoughts and I am in NO WAY downplaying anyone's cards or collections.

Rhys

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

Just for discussion sake, what makes these "cards". The issuer was the photographer which essentially just makes them photographs. They were not issued in conjunction with products (like 19th century card/photos) from anything I have seen and other sets of photographs do not get the same respect and classification. If they were 5x7 or 8X10 they would certainly just be a set of photos yet other series of photographs like those from the American League Service Bureau (which are actually numbered like cards) would fall into this same category. I know they are small and look like traditional baseball cards, but they clearly were developed on a full sheet with essentially no borders and trimmed down by the photographer.

At their base root, these are tiny "type 3" photographs developed in composite form and trimmed then given away by a photo studio in Sacramento. I have no skin in the game and am not trying to be controversial at all, just curious why these are "cards" and other sets of superior photographs (off their original negatives) from studios are not? I would be interested in others thoughts and I am in NO WAY downplaying anyone's cards or collections.

Rhys

I was thinking the same thing this morning, esp after seeing all the diff mails poses

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

I was thinking the same thing this morning, esp after seeing all the diff mails poses

No opinion on the photo/card issue, but it does make sense that there are multiple poses of Mails, because he played and had a good season for the Sacramento PCL team in 1920, and then made a big splash for the Cleveland Indians late in the 1920 season, going 7-0 and winning a World Series game. Note that all the cards designate him as a Cleveland Indian.

Brian

[brianp-beme]

And for a long time collector it is always a pleasure to see images of cards I have never seen before...thanks everyone!

Brian

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

Just for discussion sake, what makes these "cards". The issuer was the photographer which essentially just makes them photographs. They were not issued in conjunction with products (like 19th century card/photos) from anything I have seen and other sets of photographs do not get the same respect and classification. If they were 5x7 or 8X10 they would certainly just be a set of photos yet other series of photographs like those from the American League Service Bureau (which are actually numbered like cards) would fall into this same category. I know they are small and look like traditional baseball cards, but they clearly were developed on a full sheet with essentially no borders and trimmed down by the photographer.

At their base root, these are tiny "type 3" photographs developed in composite form and trimmed then given away by a photo studio in Sacramento. I have no skin in the game and am not trying to be controversial at all, just curious why these are "cards" and other sets of superior photographs (off their original negatives) from studios are not? I would be interested in others thoughts and I am in NO WAY downplaying anyone's cards or collections.

Rhys

Rhys, although I have no evidence to say for sure but the size and nature of the cards would circumstantially indicate these were inserted in some sort of candy or gum product in California. The fact that they say Frederick Foto on front is just the photographer marking their images. Not all cards have the Frederick Foto on front (see Shore and Alexander in this thread). Those images may very well have been from a different source. The fact that we know these as Frederick Foto cards is only due to the fact we don’t know who actually “inserted” the cards into their product (that info is likely lost to time), had we been around in California in 1921 and seen who inserted them we would likely know them by a different name.

This isn’t unprecedented in the card world, for example we don’t 100% know who issued the 1913 Oakland Oaks team issue cards but the limited circumstantial evidence seems to indicate them being a Cardinet Candy Co issue, they likely faced pushback from the Zeenut makers (Collins Candy Co) as they had exclusive rights to PCL players images and the following season instead of making cards of hometown Oakland Oaks they made their more famous Texas Tommy issue featuring Major Leaguers from much further away from home.

[RedsFan1941]

i hope this doesn't ruin thanksgiving

[prewarsports]

All good. We already fight at Thanksgiving over football game anyways

I guarantee these were printed 8 to a full 8x10 double weight sheet of photo paper. The rough sizes of the cards, their composition as well as knowing how photos of the era were produced absolutely points to this. The photographer cut them up into equal sections as good as he could and that is how they were made and why they look the way they do. The thin side borders were because he laid them out to squeeze 4 images side by side to run length-wise across an 8x10 piece of photo paper and cut them after adding the name etc. The fact that only a few have the logo in the corner also helps this theory as those were almost certainly the corner images on the sheet before being cut up wheer photographers would put their marks. If they were issued with some type of product that would make sense to call them baseball cards, but all evidence including the back stamps indicate the photographer himself was a self promoter plugging his studio.

I dont care either way, I dont collect these, but absent evidence these were put into a product of some type, these are just as much "cards" as several other photo issues with finite checklists. My hunch is that IF the Frederick Photos were bigger and less baseball card looking, they would not be considered baseball cards, but to each his own.

What is and is not a baseball card will never have a definite answer, I am just speaking plainly as a photo guy here, and regardless of how these were issued, these are chopped up 8x10's used to promote a photo studio.

[LincolnVT]

Just about every "card" is chopped from a larger sheet.

[prewarsports]

Originally Posted by LincolnVT

Just about every "card" is chopped from a larger sheet.

Wow, ok. I have a red plastic car in my driveway that my kids cruise around on but if I take that to the DMV they wont call it car just because my kids do.

I will state a couple of observations from several decades as both a collector of cards and photography.

1. There is not one single other set of cards in the Standard Catalog that I am aware of that is a hand chopped piece of photography that has not one shred of evidence that it was issued in any product or was part of any promotion that is considered a baseball card.

2. There are numerous issues of photography that fit every parameter used to distinguish the Frederick Foto cards as "cards" (except for the cute card like size) that would never in a million years pass as baseball cards.

My question was all in the name of trying to get opinions from other educated collectors about the nuances of a popular and VERY valuable set of baseball cards, but it does not look like people really care so I will walk away and wish everyone a nice holiday weekend.

[Leon]

The reason I consider them to be cards is highlighted.

Having handled a good amount of them they just have the feel and look of baseball cards. They are printed on thicker stock than a photo (from what I remember), have their names and or teams and there are multiple cards known of most players. Their cuts aren't much worse then E220!!

Originally Posted by prewarsports

All good. We already fight at Thanksgiving over football game anyways

I guarantee these were printed 8 to a full 8x10 double weight sheet of photo paper. The rough sizes of the cards, their composition as well as knowing how photos of the era were produced absolutely points to this. The photographer cut them up into equal sections as good as he could and that is how they were made and why they look the way they do. The thin side borders were because he laid them out to squeeze 4 images side by side to run length-wise across an 8x10 piece of photo paper and cut them after adding the name etc. The fact that only a few have the logo in the corner also helps this theory as those were almost certainly the corner images on the sheet before being cut up wheer photographers would put their marks. If they were issued with some type of product that would make sense to call them baseball cards, but all evidence including the back stamps indicate the photographer himself was a self promoter plugging his studio.

I dont care either way, I dont collect these, but absent evidence these were put into a product of some type, these are just as much "cards" as several other photo issues with finite checklists. My hunch is that IF the Frederick Photos were bigger and less baseball card looking, they would not be considered baseball cards, but to each his own.

What is and is not a baseball card will never have a definite answer, I am just speaking plainly as a photo guy here, and regardless of how these were issued, these are chopped up 8x10's used to promote a photo studio.

[LincolnVT]

Do people have thoughts on what the "going rate" for one of the Sacramento player cards might be in let's say VG condition? Was trying to look around at recent auction sales on line, but I'm not seeing much.

Thanks.

Ethan

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by RedsFan1941

i hope this doesn't ruin thanksgiving

Lol, we are all good, we fight less than most sets of brothers do, but we certainly have our moments!

The only ones that have the stamp on back are the larger “proofs”, none of the small “cards” have been found with the studio stamp on back.

[JLange]

And it looks like JLange (hey Jlange) might need to add 3 more cards to his Mails want list?

Very cool cards. Want list updated accordingly!