Goodwin Auction is open + Peck & Snyder Discussion

[Joe_G.]

I have nothing to add but want to thank Corey, Jay, Barry, and Gary for discussing P&S history. Sounds like the theory has evolved a bit since the 1995 VCBC article. This would make for a magnificent OC article especially if you can include some color images. I love this stuff even though it's out of my scope.

[barrysloate]

While the front of the Creighton has been published several times, I don't believe the back ever has. And since it is unique, containing both a biography of the fallen star as well as an unfamiliar P & S ad, it would be worthwhile to see. Maybe there is a clue there.

[barrysloate]

Well here's some interesting information. I just received a phone call from someone who has a photocopy of the back of the Creighton (not the current owner). He says that while there is a short bio on the back, there is no advertising whatsoever. If that is true, then we can't even say with certainty that this is part of the Peck & Snyder set, although it still could be.

Mark Rucker was the original owner and he first published a picture of it in his book Baseball Cartes. I went back to the text earlier today and he does call it a Peck & Snyder. So at this point there seems to be a whole lot of errors, among them those included by me in my VCBC article.

The simple solution would be for the current owner to take a look at it and confirm one way or the other. And a scan would be even nicer.

[benjulmag]

I will post a scan of the verso on Monday. In the interim, I can tell you that the verso does in fact reference Peck & Snyder as publishers of the card and and lists their address as 120 or 126 (the last number is partially missing and therefore cannot be definitively made out) Nassau Street. As to when Peck & Snyder began publishing together, perhaps that information is on record at the New York Historical Society. I know one time when I was researching a photograph (the (in)famous "Creighton" tintype), the studio that published that image was on record at the Memphis Historical Society. The caveat (which was told to me after Barry and I published an article about the tintype) is that records at historical societies can be very incomplete. Therefore, just because it shows the first reference to a business as being a particular year, that does mean the business could not have been in existence prior to that date. So such a date should be regarded as the latest the business could have formed, not the earliest.


EDITED to add that I continue to doubt very much the card postdates 1867. If in fact it was produced during the 1868-1870 run of P&S trade cards, it makes sense it would still be available for purchase in the early 1870's when P&S was advertising the availability of its other cards. In addition, given the complete lack of advertising on the verso, it is possible the Peck and Snyder association when the card was released was different than it subsequently became.

[barrysloate]

Thanks Corey. I think it would be interesting to see the back, and it would clear up this mystery.