Educate Me On The 1869 Red Stockings Card

[barrysloate]

As Jay mentioned, some of the subsequent printings could have been as late as the early 1870's, as the team retained its popularity for quite some time. We just don't know. We also don't know who the photographer was. Most CdV's do have the photographer's name imprinted on the mount, not so with the Red Stockings. Has anyone ever come across any information regarding who took that famous shot?

[kllrbee]

Not exactly about the card, but some fun info.

George Wright is said to have played in 52 of the 57 games played that year hitting .518 with 339 runs scored of which 59 were homeruns.

Sure, it was a different game then....but how bout those numbers!

[GaryPassamonte]

Barry- I think we all can agree that both the trade cards and the CdVs were issued within a small time frame. Let's say this time frame was a few years. The fact still remains that the population of all Cincinnati cards is small. Almost definitely less than the the T206 Wagner and, as we know, T206s were issued over a span of a few years generally, also. Back to my original premise: Rarity, historical significance, relatively low value. I guess the card just lacks a great story or legend behind it to increase its popularity and its value.

[barrysloate]

Gary- something to consider when assessing the value of it is to keep in mind that up until several years ago, nobody even thought of calling it a baseball card. As long as I've been active in 19th century memorabilia, going back to the 1980's, it was always referred to as a photographic trade card, or advertising piece. It was more a team photograph and certainly never a baseball card.

Now, because of the advent of TPG, and because everything is worth more if it is called a baseball card, collectors now view it differently. Once it got put into a slab, its value increased dramatically. So yes, it does have upside potential in the future, no doubt about it.

[GaryPassamonte]

I think the fact that it's a team card hurts, also. 19th century collectors prize teams. Team Cdvs, tintypes, etc. are usually more valuable than individual subjects. Later Kalamazoo Bats and Joseph Hall cabinets came along and teams still could hold their own in value. Fast forward to the 20th century. For example, Fatimas and later Topps teams sure weren't the favorites of collectors. Individual subjects became king, in terms of desirability and value. Who would rather pull a team card over a Mantle out of a card pack? Almost no one. Also, many 19th century baseball collectors that have the means may have a T206 Wagner or a 1952 Topps Mantle in their collection along with the 1869 Cincinnatis. I don't think the same is true of most well heeled 20th century collectors. They may have the Wagner and Mantle, but the 1869 Cincinnatis are not there. Maybe some 20th century collectors could chime in on this one.

[FrankWakefield]

25.... or 50

I think Leon's supposition of there being as many as 50 of these is more likely. I've seen 4 in person, and I think 3 of those have seldom been seen by other collectors. And I agree with the 100k thinking. It's not there yet, but will be in most of our lifetimes'.

[oldjudge]

Where prices will be in the future is anyone's guess. All we know is the supply side of the equation; there are not a lot of these. It is not inconceiveable that twenty years from now there is very little demand for baseball cards. When I was a kid everyone collected stamps. How many people do you know who collect stamps now? The only point I am making is to collect things you like, not because you think they will be worth more in the future. And, with all due respect to Leon and Frank, ignore any forecast which has prices doubling in the future. It may happen, but then again sometimes the roulette ball lands on the color you didn't call.