Revisiting the 1910 PC805 Novelty Cutlery Postcard set.

[bcbgcbrcb]

I believe that the reason for such a spirited argument/opinion from "rickalaska" (whom I do not know so have nothing personal against) is quite obvious, and admittedly so by "rickalaska, maybe without even realizing it. Assuming that "rickalaska" owns a major stake in this set as indicated, which I'm sure is the case, there are two reasons why it would be much more beneficial for the perceived issue date to remain at 1907-09 as was catalogued in the Standard Catalogue of Vintage Baseball Cards (the bible to many of us vintage baseball card collectors) over the years and, thus, existed in both PSA's and SGC's database and was used on all of their flips up until this point, as far as I know. First, as has been mentioned here already, there are a few "rookie cards" included in the set, assuming that the 1907-09 dating is correct, which greatly enhances the value of those four cards: Walter Johnson, Tris Speaker, Eddie Collins & Ty Cobb. Secondly, with the earlier issue date of 1907 included, that would make this the earliest catalogued postcard set offering individual images of ballplayers from teams across both the American & National Leagues as opposed to a few earlier issues picturing players from just one city/team. A 1910 issue date for the NC set would completely invalidate both of these benefits and make a very big financial difference to anyone owning the previously mentioned 4 "rookie cards" and possibly impact the value of the set overall as it loses its' appeal as the "first", which may or may not make a huge impact in price but certainly might to some collectors.

The reason that I feel that it is important for me to jump in here, "rickalaska" was "me" ten years ago when I shared many of the same views and did much of the same research and came up with many of the same conclusions based on uniform styles, images used, etc. I had a similar spirited debate, maybe not quite as dramatic, with Kevin regarding the issue date of this set. For those of you that might recall, I was a pretty significant player in the Baseball Hall of Fame "Rookie Card" market at the time and my interest in this set centered solely around the inclusion of WaJo, Speaker and E. Collins as the 1907 catalogued date made these the earliest catalogued individual cards of these three players. Having paid nice premiums to own all three of them, it was very difficult to accept that they might not, in fact, be the earliest cards after all. Again Kevin presented logical findings and reasoning, with the earliest postmark dates being at the forefront, but, I didn't want to believe that the info was correct as it would present a major blow to my collection, even beyond the financial aspect, but even more so, the fact that I would now have to seek out other "rookie cards" for those three players.

A decade later and my entire collection having been already sold a number of years ago, I can look back on this set and am 100% behind Kevin's assertion that the 1910 issue date is correct. Again, much of my belief centers around the postmark dates found, and lack of dates not found. If you go back and look at any important postcard set of the era, you will find at least one example with a postmark matching the perceived date of issue, including all of the 1907 Detroit/Cobb's, Rose Company, etc. I believe that the same would apply here and am comfortable with the TPG's and card catalogues updating the info to 1910.

Again, with no vested interest in this topic any longer, I can step back and look at things objectively. I can sympathize with "rickalaska" but in the end, I think the same thought process will ultimately win out.

[rickalaska]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

I believe that the reason for such a spirited argument/opinion from "rickalaska" (whom I do not know so have nothing personal against) is quite obvious, and admittedly so by "rickalaska, maybe without even realizing it. Assuming that "rickalaska" owns a major stake in this set as indicated, which I'm sure is the case, there are two reasons why it would be much more beneficial for the perceived issue date to remain at 1907-09 as was catalogued in the Standard Catalogue of Vintage Baseball Cards (the bible to many of us vintage baseball card collectors) over the years and, thus, existed in both PSA's and SGC's database and was used on all of their flips up until this point, as far as I know. First, as has been mentioned here already, there are a few "rookie cards" included in the set, assuming that the 1907-09 dating is correct, which greatly enhances the value of those four cards: Walter Johnson, Tris Speaker, Eddie Collins & Ty Cobb. Secondly, with the earlier issue date of 1907 included, that would make this the earliest catalogued postcard set offering individual images of ballplayers from teams across both the American & National Leagues as opposed to a few earlier issues picturing players from just one city/team. A 1910 issue date for the NC set would completely invalidate both of these benefits and make a very big financial difference to anyone owning the previously mentioned 4 "rookie cards" and possibly impact the value of the set overall as it loses its' appeal as the "first", which may or may not make a huge impact in price but certainly might to some collectors.

The reason that I feel that it is important for me to jump in here, "rickalaska" was "me" ten years ago when I shared many of the same views and did much of the same research and came up with many of the same conclusions based on uniform styles, images used, etc. I had a similar spirited debate, maybe not quite as dramatic, with Kevin regarding the issue date of this set. For those of you that might recall, I was a pretty significant player in the Baseball Hall of Fame "Rookie Card" market at the time and my interest in this set centered solely around the inclusion of WaJo, Speaker and E. Collins as the 1907 catalogued date made these the earliest catalogued individual cards of these three players. Having paid nice premiums to own all three of them, it was very difficult to accept that they might not, in fact, be the earliest cards after all. Again Kevin presented logical findings and reasoning, with the earliest postmark dates being at the forefront, but, I didn't want to believe that the info was correct as it would present a major blow to my collection, even beyond the financial aspect, but even more so, the fact that I would now have to seek out other "rookie cards" for those three players.

A decade later and my entire collection having been already sold a number of years ago, I can look back on this set and am 100% behind Kevin's assertion that the 1910 issue date is correct. Again, much of my belief centers around the postmark dates found, and lack of dates not found. If you go back and look at any important postcard set of the era, you will find at least one example with a postmark matching the perceived date of issue, including all of the 1907 Detroit/Cobb's, Rose Company, etc. I believe that the same would apply here and am comfortable with the TPG's and card catalogues updating the info to 1910.

Again, with no vested interest in this topic any longer, I can step back and look at things objectively. I can sympathize with "rickalaska" but in the end, I think the same thought process will ultimately win out.

You are somewhat right, I do have a vested interest (as do many other people), but as far as anyone knows, there are ONLY 4 or 5 of 186 graded cards that actually have postmarks (about 2%) - "Baseball Rarities" can tell you that is a FACT. If that number was 20 or 30 postmarked cards, that would be more conclusive. Would also be interesting to know the initial determination for the 1907-09 dating to begin with - I hear theories, but see no facts. Reminds me of the WOKE mob tearing down statues without anyone knowing why they were put in place to begin with...

Me not arguing this case would probably be more beneficial to myself, because I could grab key cards as the values fall - I am not like that. Someone has to stand up.

I had no part in PSA, SGC, BGS, SCD or anyone else who had determined this set should be dated 1907-09 for decades...

The guy who started this thread,"Baseball Rarities" himself even states: "How they came up with 1907-09 when they correctly dated the PC796 set as 1910 is beyond me." If he doesn't know, he should find out before he leads everyone off the cliff with simple guess work.

You may be right, but just 4 or 5 postmarked cards out of nearly 200 graded cards, are proof of nothing - show us 20, 30 postmarked cards and you have a case.

[Vintageclout]

FYI, “the guy that started this thread”, Baseball Rarities, just may be the most respected & knowledgeable vintage collector in this entire hobby. He commands the utmost respect and his rightfully earned this distinction via his unparalleled insight to a seemingly infinite number of baseball card issues. In a nutshell, what “Baseball Rarities” has forgotten about this hobby, you will never know!

[Casey2296]

If one is to believe the 07-09 dates as correct then the NC set would have had to been released in series over 3 years, which doesn't seem plausible to me. Is there another set before 1952T that was released in series? Maybe a member here knows the answer.

[rickalaska]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

If one is to believe the 07-09 dates as correct then the NC set would have had to been released in series over 3 years, which doesn't seem plausible to me. Is there another set before 1952T that was released in series? Maybe a member here knows the answer.

1907,1908,1909 Dietsch postcards
1926-1929 Exhibit postcards
1934, 1935, 1936 National Chicle Diamond Stars

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

If one is to believe the 07-09 dates as correct then the NC set would have had to been released in series over 3 years, which doesn't seem plausible to me. Is there another set before 1952T that was released in series? Maybe a member here knows the answer.

Would you consider N172 Old Judges (1887-90) to have been released in series? T206s? Certainly Diamond Stars...

[Casey2296]

I don't know enough about OJ's to comment on that. For me, there is a difference in the case of Diamond Stars which were released over a 3 year period but were the same front images every year only the backs changed. That can't be the case with the NC set since some photos were taken later. If we take the AC Dietsche example and extrapolate to the Novelty Cutlery set there would have been a base issue in 07 with additions in 08 and 09 based on the dating of the NC photos. Maybe, but the story of Dietsche is pretty specifically attached to the 07 World Series and the later changes were dropping the Cubs and only adding a few Tigers since Dietsche was based in Detroit. I just don't see that with the Cutlery Set but I could be wrong. Fun stuff to talk about anyway.

[RCMcKenzie]

There were 25 cards in the Novelty PC set. 25 was a common number for sets of the era, i.e.- "set of 25". Most sets that are released over a number of years are not comprised of a round number, or standardized number. Old Judges, from 1886-1890, are still being found, the number of cards is vast and irregular. T206 are found in all sorts of random numbers no matter how you group and subdivide them. Given that 1910 was Frock's only significant major league season, plus the known postmarks in 1910, to me, the 25 cards were all made together in 1910. Just a guess.

[PhillyFan1883]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

FYI, “the guy that started this thread”, Baseball Rarities, just may be the most respected & knowledgeable vintage collector in this entire hobby. He commands the utmost respect and his rightfully earned this distinction via his unparalleled insight to a seemingly infinite number of baseball card issues. In a nutshell, what “Baseball Rarities” has forgotten about this hobby, you will never know!

+1

[rickalaska]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

FYI, “the guy that started this thread”, Baseball Rarities, just may be the most respected & knowledgeable vintage collector in this entire hobby. He commands the utmost respect and his rightfully earned this distinction via his unparalleled insight to a seemingly infinite number of baseball card issues. In a nutshell, what “Baseball Rarities” has forgotten about this hobby, you will never know!

I've been collecting for 51 years - how about you?

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by rickalaska

I've been collecting for 51 years - how about you?

I wasn’t talking about myself.....stick to the FACTS!!!!

[rhettyeakley]

We have seen threads like this in the past about different issues and their dating.

Here is one I started years ago and was met with similar pushback...

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=125883

I think this type of thread is what Phil was referring to with his post he made here.

At the end of the day with this set the most simple explanation is the best. It seems unless new information comes to light that there is NO indication that this is a multi-year issue. Why wouldn’t they have just all been made at the same time? Again, could it be a multi-year issue? Yes, but that is never the way you start dating a set, the most simple explanation is they made the set at one time, more evidence could change that but you need to prove a multi-year issue (not the other way around).

Based on that and the fact that some players are pictured in 1909 uniforms that seems like the most logical starting point. You can never date earlier because of potentially outdated information, but you CAN base a date off of when the earliest something could have happened... ie the first year a player was with a team, the appearance of a particular uniform being used no earlier than a known year.

In the case of NC Postcards Kevin makes a strong argument that the earliest this set could be is 1909, which may the right date. That being said the earliest postmark is 1910, which may be the right date. If you can find an indication of a much earlier PM on a card that could change everything bUt until then the cards should be dated “possibly 1909, but known to have been in distribution in 1910”

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

We have seen threads like this in the past about different issues and their dating.

Here is one I started years ago and was met with similar pushback...

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=125883

I think this type of thread is what Phil was referring to with his post he made here.

At the end of the day with this set the most simple explanation is the best. It seems unless new information comes to light that there is NO indication that this is a multi-year issue. Why wouldn’t they have just all been made at the same time? Again, could it be a multi-year issue? Yes, but that is never the way you start dating a set, the most simple explanation is they made the set at one time, more evidence could change that but you need to prove a multi-year issue (not the other way around).

Based on that and the fact that some players are pictured in 1909 uniforms that seems like the most logical starting point. You can never date earlier because of potentially outdated information, but you CAN base a date off of when the earliest something could have happened... ie the first year a player was with a team, the appearance of a particular uniform being used no earlier than a known year.

In the case of NC Postcards Kevin makes a strong argument that the earliest this set could be is 1909, which may the right date. That being said the earliest postmark is 1910, which may be the right date. If you can find an indication of a much earlier PM on a card that could change everything bUt until then the cards should be dated “possibly 1909, but known to have been in distribution in 1910”

Stop making sense...

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

We have seen threads like this in the past about different issues and their dating.

Here is one I started years ago and was met with similar pushback...

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=125883At the end of the day with this set the most simple explanation is the best. It seems unless new information comes to light that there is NO indication that this is a multi-year issue. Why wouldn’t they have just all been made at the same time? Again, could it be a multi-year issue? Yes, but that is never the way you start dating a set, the most simple explanation is they made the set at one time, more evidence could change that but you need to prove a multi-year issue (not the other way around).

Based on that and the fact that some players are pictured in 1909 uniforms that seems like the most logical starting point. You can never date earlier because of potentially outdated information, but you CAN base a date off of when the earliest something could have happened... ie the first year a player was with a team, the appearance of a particular uniform being used no earlier than a known year.

In the case of NC Postcards Kevin makes a strong argument that the earliest this set could be is 1909, which may the right date. That being said the earliest postmark is 1910, which may be the right date. If you can find an indication of a much earlier PM on a card that could change everything bUt until then the cards should be dated “possibly 1909, but known to have been in distribution in 1910”

Rhett - Thanks for the concise post. Totally agree.

[Baseball Rarities]

Fair warning - this is extremely boring stuff, so unless you really have interest in the PC796 Sepia and PC805 Novelty Cutlery sets, then you should just scroll on.

First of all, I do not mean any of this to be personal. I have no ulterior motives for misrepresenting the date of issue of these postcards. I have done some research on these and other sets that I have collected over the years (W600s, PC760 Rose Company postcards, etc.) and am just sharing what I have found.

I will try and be as straight forward as possible with the history of the dating for these two sets and where I think the confusion began.

First of all, is there any reason to think that they PC796 Sepia set and PC805 Novelty Cutlery sets were not issued in the exact same year? They both contain the exact same subjects and used the same images for the basis of their sets. If you are dating the PC805 set by the photos that were used, then I would assume that you would date the PC796 set as being from the same year.

The 1960 Edition of the American Card Catalog (ACC) is the first publication that I know of that included a listing for the PC796 Sepia Postcards. AFAIK, none of the earlier ACCs included them. It listed them as being from c. 1910. The Novelty Cutlery set was not included in the publication. It was assigned its ACC number at a later date.

The Sports Collectors Bible came out in 1975. It also included the PC796 set and also dated it at c. 1910. The Novelty Cutlery set was not listed in this publication either.

The 3rd edition of The Sports Collectors Bible came out in 1979. It again listed the PC796 set as being from c. 1910 and for the first time included the Novelty Cutlery set, assigned in an ACC number of PC805 and dated it as being specifically from 1907. Not 1907-09. This is where the dating error originated.

We obviously know that the 1907 date is absolutely wrong due to the inclusion of many postcards that used photographs from after 1907, most notably that of Cobb and Wagner from the 1909 World Series.

The 4th and final edition of The Sports Collectors Bible came out in 1983 and listed the same information as they did in in the 3rd edition.

Beckett came out with their 1st edition of their Baseball Memorabilia Price Guide in 1982. It listed the PC796 Sepia set as being from 1910. It also listed the Novelty Cutlery set from being from 1910.

JL Mashburn's 1998 Sports Postcard Price Guide also lists both the PC796 Sepia set and the PC805 Novelty Cutlery sets as being from 1910.

SCD's Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards came out in 1988 and did not list either of the sets. I am not sure when they added them.

The 5th edition of their Standard Catalog of Vintage Baseball Cards came out in 2015 and included bothe sets. They listed the PC796 set as being from 1910 and the PC805 Novelty Cutlery set from being from 1907-10. I think that the standard catalog took the two dates (1907 from The Sports Collectors Bible and 1910 from Beckett) and made a range out of them. The Standard Catalog took a lot of their information straight from The Sports Collectors Bible. I think that they were astute enough to know that the set could not be from solely 1907, so they assigned a range of 1907-10 - a four year span.

So, there you have it. The PC796 Sepia set has been dated to 1910 since 1960. I have never seen a quality source use another date for it.

The PC805 set was first catalogued in 1979. It was erroneously given a date of 1907, which we unequivocally know is wrong. Beckett correctly dated the set as being from 1910 in their 1982 Guide. The Standard Catalog combined the two dates and came up with 1907-10 which has confused a lot of collectors over the years.

The grading companies have used The Standard Catalog for dating their sets since their inception since it the most comprehensive guide in our hobby. There are lots of dating mistakes in the Standard Catalog that the grading services copied - 1948 Leaf, 1947 Bond Bread, 1888 N29 Allen & Ginter, etc.

The bottom line is that I think that both of these sets were most likely issued in 1910 - possibly late 1909 after the World Series. If you disagree, that is fine and we can just agree to disagree.