1869 vs 1870 Red Stocking CdVs

[barrysloate]

Agree with Corey. I have to think these tarde cards were very popular, and would have been offered for several years. In the case of the 1868 Brooklyn Atlantics, there was likely only a single print run. But with a team like Cincinnati, there were probably several. The key is to figure out which one was first, something we haven't done yet.

[barrysloate]

Here's something interesting: lot #20 in the REA Auction is a photographic trade card of the 1870 White Stockings. The ad on the back is new to me, and as the catalogue states it may or may not have been issued by Peck and Snyder. So who else was distributing these cards?

[WillowGrove]

Thanks guys - yep. read the old threads before after and since I acquired my P&S. (trade card/b&w Peck caricature back/black type).

You all have provided many vital pieces of info and hypotheses.

So interesting. barry, I actually purchased a reprint of that Roff book - it does mention the cards 'found a ready sale'. even that nugget is so interesting to me.

I did see this morning that the red legs season began on May 3 and they were presented with that huge bat after going, I believe 23-0.

Forgive me if I rehash areas that have aleady been discussed - i shall try not to, but if that game with the presentation bat was played in Cinci, the fanfair created the impetus for the photo? Of course the photo could have been taken
- once all the players arrived in Cinci before the season began.
- by a NYC or other major city photographer who paid them/Wright for their photo
-after the end of their 57-0 season (or has past research ruled this out?)
-at anytime during the season or beginning of 1870.

I look forward to finding out information like:
-when was the first time all the players were together
-what photographers were in Cinci who could have shot the photo
-when did the hoopla over this team really begin (vague ques but it would give a feel for when the photo could have been shot)
-was the photo created to be sold or for team momento?
-what was their schedule so we can see when they played in specific cities

and more I am sure.

for now I gotta get to work or else I'll be a full time researcher (which would be great).

thanks for any guidance.

peter

[oldjudge]

Barry-I believe that the only Cincinnati CdV that we can date conclusively is the one with the 1869 Chadwick book ad back. That we know has to be 1869. The Peck & Snyder ad back with the Ann St address should also be 1869 or 1870. However, the others could have been later and, I guess, could have been issued by anyone. I would think that other entities besides P&S could have acquired the rights to use this photo (or used it without acquiring the rights).

BTW, what P&S address is on the back of the Atlantics trade card?

[barrysloate]

Jay- I used to think that the P & S of Cincinnati was the first one out of the gate, but I agree with you that it now seems like the CdV's were issued first. Regarding the Atlantics, no street address is visible. But the ubiquitous ballplayer/equipment ad is on the reverse. The Atlantics were champions in 1868, so that would be the year the team would have been most popular. By 1869 the Red Stockings were the toast of the town. Not sure how popular the 1868 Brooklyn club would have been at that point.

[GaryPassamonte]

Jay- The Chadwick book could have been advertised post-1869 also. I don't think there is absolute certainty about any back being 1869, 1870, etc.

[oldjudge]

Gary-I disagree. I would think that there would be no sense advertising the 1869 book in 1870--there was probably a new book then,

[GaryPassamonte]

After reading the back of your CdV Jay, I have to agree.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Gary-I disagree. I would think that there would be no sense advertising the 1869 book in 1870--there was probably a new book then,

Certainly a good point but a leap of faith, to me, nonetheless. Maybe the book came out in 1869 and it flopped....so they decided to advertise it in 1870. Maybe there was a new book in 1870 maybe not. Until we see more proof it's all conjecture....,but good points.