Revisiting the 1910 PC805 Novelty Cutlery Postcard set.

[Baseball Rarities]

With the inclusion of some great 1910 PC805 Novelty Cutlery postcards in the REA and Heritage auctions, I have had a number of collectors contact me regarding the dating on this set and specifically the Johnson and Speaker postcards.

To cut to the chase, I think that the PC805 Novelty Cutlery Postcards were issued in 1910.

Both SGC and PSA have always labeled these cards as being from 1907-09, which is wrong. PSA has recently changed their database to reflect 1910. Curiously, they both label the PC796 Sepia postcards as being from 1910, which is correct. The original Beckett Baseball Memorabilia Price Guide from 1982 had both of these issues listed in it and correctly dated them to 1910.

Somewhere down the road SCD added the PC805 Novelty Cutlery set to their publication and erroneously dated it 1907-10, which is what I assume both SGC and PSA used for their data. How they came up with 1907-10 when they correctly dated the PC796 set as 1910 is beyond me. The two sets have the exact same subjects and use the exact same images.

If 1907 was the correct date, then this set would contain the rookie postcards of Hal Chase, Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson and Tris Speaker. As we know, rookie cards have become a big deal in our hobby and collectors are willing to pay a large premium for these issues.

If anyone has any interest in how these postcards are dated to 1910, here is a thread that I started about 10 years ago on the dating:

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...159#post840159

[Bicem]

Great info Kevin, think you meant 1907 in that 2nd to last paragraph.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by Bicem

Great info Kevin, think you meant 1907 in that 2nd to last paragraph.

Thanks Jeff. Correction made.

[Arazi4442]

Appreciate the information, Kevin! You're completely right about the rookie designation becoming "a thing" in the hobby and the 10X or more premium that can be attached to it.
As GI Joe cartoons taught me in the 1980s. "Now we know and knowing is half the battle"

[Bicem]

Are the "expert" grading companies still referencing the 1907 date? Those look like newer SGC holders in REA. This honestly should be pretty common hobby knowledge by now for anyone at all familiar with the set.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Kudos to Kevin for all of his fine efforts, he has played a key role in improving the accuracy of identifying pre-war baseball rookie cards. Kevin did an incredible job over many years with regards to proper dating of the various types of W600's, an issue which contains a plethora of potential rookie cards but only certain "types" are the true rookie version. I know that Scott B and probably several others on this board are also super knowledgeable when it comes to dating the W600's so no slight intended towards anyone at all, just want to point out what a valuable resource that Kevin has been across the board with many early 20th Century issues.

[rickalaska]

COMPLETELY DISAGREE with any assessment that NOVELTY CUTLERY cards were just produced in 1910. First, unless anyone was alive and collecting these cards in 1910 or has definitive proof, how would they know these cards were issued in only that year? I am familiar with these cards and probably have more of them then anyone on this thread, so I have a stake against people putting out erroneous information. My research shows:

Amazingly, seems like ALL the other regional postcard sets of the era went out the same year an image was produced - why should this be the ONLY set that is different?

If all cards were issued the same year, why would some have only "last names" and some have "full names" of the players? Why would some have backgrounds and some not? How do you misspell Walter "Johnston" (Johnson) and "Honas" (Honus) Wagner as late as 1910?

MOST IMPORTANT: The "D" on Cobb and Crawford's cap is from the 1907 season. ENLARGE THE IMAGE - the "D" style on their cap in the photo was worn by the Detroit Tigers from 1904-1907. Look at the middle hook on the outside bar - there is ONE hook in the middle. AFTER the 1907 season (from 1908-1913), there were TWO leftward hooks at the middle. PROOF this photo is from 1907 or earlier. Cobb is also wearing the same uniform as in his 1907 Detroit Seamless Steel Tubes card.

PLANK and COLLINS were both on the Philadelphia A's - Plank is wearing a plain "Philadelphia style" cap that the A's wore to 1908. Collins is wearing the "Pillbox" cap that the A's wore from 1909 to 1914. PLANK is just listed by his last name. COLLINS is listed by his full name EDDIE COLLINS. Same team - Two different uniforms - two different card formats - photos are clearly from two different years.

TRIS SPEAKER is clearly wearing a 1908 uniform - why would they wait until 1910 to print that?

ART DEVLIN was with NY Giants from 1904-1911. The "NY" logo was added to their sleeve from 1908 and beyond. This image DOES NOT have any logo. His best season was 1906. HAL CHASE was also with the Giants and HAS THE LOGO on his left sleeve. Two players from the same NY GIANTS team - different uniforms - obviously different years

EVERS and SHAEFER card - Pictured together - they are both wearing uniforms from the 1908 season. They played against each other (Tigers vs Cubs) in the 1907 and 1908 World Series. Why would anyone take that photo in 1908 and wait to print it into a 1910 set - they were not immortals like Cobb and Wagner. NOTE the "double-hook" "D" on Shaefer's uniform - that dates this card to the 1908 season.

CHRISTY MATHEWSON's jersey with the "NY" on the chest dates from 1904 to 1907.

CHARLEY STREET was in Washington from 1908-11. He was better known as "Gabby Street" further into his career. This is likely closer to 1908.

NAP LAJOIE is wearing the same uniform he is wearing in the 1908 American Pub. Co. card.

HONUS WAGNER's batting card - sleeve logo was used 1908-1909 - could be either season

ARTIE HOFFMAN is wearing a uniform from the 1906 season - he would have been better known as "Solly" later in his career

ED WALSH's uniform "C" appears to be from the 1906-07 season

Not having an early postmark doesn't mean anything - these cards were regionally produced in CANTON, OHIO and obviously scarce, or there would be a lot more of them out there right now.

There is evidence that several cards in the set were from the 1909 season, but there is NO EVIDENCE that every card was produced only in 1910. My research shows the original 1907-09 date frame is far more correct then 1910. And if the Sepia images from the other set are "anonymous" - how does anyone know that they were just printed in 1910?

REA made the wrong call in changing the dates to 1910 in their recent auction - if I was the consigner, I would have yanked the cards immediately. Someone is spreading a lot of bad information - I see it has reached PSA.

Below is TY COBB on the NOVELTY CUTLERY card - Note that the left outside portion of the "D" on his cap has a single hook in the middle, that matches up with the logo used by the Detroit Tigers from 1904-1907. In 1908-1913, the Tigers wore a completely different two-hook type "D" that DOES NOT match what is on COBB's cap. This image is clearly 1907 or earlier. As noted earlier - look at the "D" on Shaefer's uniform and you will clearly see his logo is a "double hook" 1908 logo.

[rickalaska]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

With the inclusion of some great 1910 PC805 Novelty Cutlery postcards in the REA and Heritage auctions, I have had a number of collectors contact me regarding the dating on this set and specifically the Johnson and Speaker postcards.

To cut to the chase, the PC805 Novelty Cutlery Postcards were issued in 1910.

Both SGC and PSA have always labeled these cards as being from 1907-09, which is wrong. PSA has recently changed their database to reflect 1910. Curiously, they both label*the PC796 Sepia postcards as being from 1910, which is correct. The original Beckett Baseball Memorabilia Price Guide from 1982 had both of these issues listed in it and correctly dated them to 1910.

Somewhere down the road SCD added the PC805 Novelty Cutlery set to their publication and erroneously dated it 1907-09, which is what I assume both SGC and PSA used for their data. How they came up with 1907-09 when they correctly dated the PC796 set as 1910 is beyond me. The two sets have the exact same subjects and use the exact same images.

If 1907 was the correct date, then this set would contain the rookie postcards of Hal Chase, Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson and Tris Speaker. As we know, rookie cards have become a big deal in our hobby and collectors are willing to pay a large premium for these issues.

If anyone has any interest in how these postcards are dated to 1910, here is a thread that I started about 10 years ago on the dating:

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...159#post840159

The two set are not exactly alike. The Sepia cards have spelling corrections and they also have backgrounds on their cards - not all Novelty Cutlery cards have a background. The name plates are also different. Completely disagree with the 1910 date - I have posted research and a few photos on this thread. If the Sepia set is "anonymous" - how do they know when it was produced? The people that dated the set 1907-09 originally, probably did research and reached the same conclusion as I did, 1907-09.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by rickalaska

TRIS SPEAKER is clearly wearing a 1908 uniform - why would they wait until 1910 to print that?

ART DEVLIN was with NY Giants from 1904-1911. The "NY" logo was added to their sleeve from 1908 and beyond. This image DOES NOT have any logo. His best season was 1906. HAL CHASE was also with the Giants and HAS THE LOGO on his left sleeve. Two players from the same NY GIANTS team - different uniforms - obviously different years.

Show me one card with a postmark before 1910. Novelty Cutlery postcards are not that rare to where a single example should not exist. Same goes for the PC796 Sepia series.

What year do you think that the PC796 Series (which has the exact same subjects and exact same images) was issued?

It would make no sense for Novelty Cutlery to make a card of Speaker in 1908. He was not even on the team until the end of the year, played in only 31 games and hit a paltry .224.

When did Hal Chase and Art Devlin play together? Hal Chase only played one year for the New York Giants - 1919.

How do you explain the inclusion of pitcher Sam Frock? He played in 5 games in 1907, none in 1908 and eight in 1909. 1910 was his big year - he pitched in 46 games.

Some of the images used for the cards are from 1907 or maybe even earlier, but I do not think that they were produced until 1910.

[Casey2296]

Fascinating research. Any theories on how the licensing of the images themselves worked circa 1910? Clearly they were taken over a period of a few years prior to 1910 and not by the same photographer. Does the Vignos & Hurford photography business which was owned by and adjacent to the Novelty Cutlery factory have any connection to the set? It seems possible that the design/mock up of the NC set may have been done there. And lastly, what do you think the relationship between the NC set and the PC 796 set is? Both produced by NC in 1910? A dressed up version and a poor mans version? Hard to imagine the same set of images would be licensed and produced by two different outfits in the same year but It also seems odd the PC796 wouldn't have been branded.

Thanks for all the great research and information on these two sets.

[rickalaska]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

Show me one card with a postmark before 1910. Novelty Cutlery postcards are not that rare to where a single example should not exist. Same goes for the PC796 Sepia series.

What year do you think that the PC796 Series (which has the exact same subjects and exact same images) was issued?

It would make no sense for Novelty Cutlery to make a card of Speaker in 1908. He was not even on the team until the end of the year, played in only 31 games and hit a paltry .224.

When did Hal Chase and Art Devlin play together? Hal Chase only played one year for the New York Giants - 1919.

How do you explain the inclusion of pitcher Sam Frock? He played in 5 games in 1907, none in 1908 and eight in 1909. 1910 was his big year - he pitched in 46 games.

Some of the images used for the cards are from 1907 or maybe even earlier, but I do not think that they were produced until 1910.

The set is rare - PSA and SGC have graded a total of 186 Novelty Cutlery postcards(93 cards each), many of those were likely crossovers, so the total number would be smaller. There are only a handful of each player known. The most cards graded of any one player by PSA is 7 and the most by SGC is 6, so the populations are very low.

I have only seen three or four examples with postmarks - 1911 is the earliest. I own one dated 1923, so, not everyone mailed the card as soon as they got it - they were collectibles. It's now 110 years later and I still haven't mailed my cards.

If this 25-card set was all produced in the same year (1910), why would the printer use just "last names" on some cards and "full names" on other, backgrounds on some cards and no backgrounds on others? Again, how does Walter "Johnston" (Johnson) and "Honas" (Honus) Wagner get misspelled in 1910? ** Why did the printer choose to represent both the 1908 and the 1909 World Series on different cards (the dual player cards)? **

TRIS SPEAKER - he may have only played 31 games in 1908, but then why would the printer choose SAM FROCK who only pitched 2 innings for Pittsburg in 1910 - was then traded to the Boston Doves and had a losing record? FROCK's best years were in the minors in 1907-08 when he won 23 and 24 games respectively. Sometimes reputation precedes a player and the card printers take a chance on a Rookie - as I recall, SPEAKER turned out to be pretty good.

You are right - Hal Chase was with the NY Highlanders during the time Devlin was with the NY Giants.

The images were clearly taken before 1910 (e.g., 1907 Cobb, 1908 Speaker), so how can anyone conclusively say that the set was printed and distributed in 1910...? The only argument seems to be that there are no early postmarks - this may just tell you how collectible the set was and still is. The 1907-09 designation is clearly the better choice.

[Bicem]

The argument the set was produced over multiple years because of background changes, name misspellings & using older source photographs is a really weak argument. Baseball card and postcard issues used older photography all the time.

[Casey2296]

Follow up question: Do you think the NC postcards were distributed in series over a 3 year period as the photographs were taken?

I also find it interesting that the Collins and Crawford photos were taken at the same time but where? I would think it was during an A's Tigers game but that background is neither Bennett Park, Shibe Park, or Columbia Park. Where would those two Teams have gotten together outside of their respective fields?

Also the background of the NC Lajoie card vs the PC796 card is air brushed out in the NC version, can that be an indicator of which came first? I don't know, just some conjecture.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Follow up question: Do you think the NC postcards were distributed in series over a 3 year period as the photographs were taken?

I also find it interesting that the Collins and Crawford photos were taken at the same time but where? I would think it was during an A's Tigers game but that background is neither Bennett Park, Shibe Park, or Columbia Park. Where would those two Teams have gotten together outside of their respective fields?

Also the background of the NC Lajoie card vs the PC796 card is air brushed out in the NC version, can that be an indicator of which came first? I don't know, just some conjecture.

I do not think that they were issued over a 3 year period. The fact that not a single PC796 or PC805 postcard is known with a postmark before 1910 does not make sense.

IMHO, postmarks are the best way to prove the latest date that a postcard was made. The earliest postmark that I know of is a PC796 from October of 1910. Given this, we know that the PC796 postcards were in circulation by the end of 1910. The earliest postmark that I know of for a PC805 is Sep 27, 1911, so we know that these were definitely in circulation by the end of 1911

Conversely, dated photographs are the best way to prove the earliest that a postcard was made. Obviously, it could have been made at any time after the photo was taken. The latest dated photograph that I am aware of from the set is from the 1909 World Series which began on October 8. Therefore, the earliest that that postcard could have been produced was on that date.

Given these two facts, I feel that the PC796 and PC805 postcards were issued between October, 1909 and October, 1910. Hopefully we can dig up some more facts that help us narrow down those dates.

If the postcards were so successful to have been issued over a three year period then I think that there would be more examples known, with some having postmarks from 1907, 1908 or 1909.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by rickalaska

Again, how does Walter "Johnston" (Johnson) and "Honas" (Honus) Wagner get misspelled in 1910? **

What does misspelling a person's name have to do with what year a postcard was produced? What year do you think that the postcard of Ty Cobb and "Honas" Wagner was produced?

It could not have been produced before the 1909 World Series. It would not make sense for them to issue it after the conclusion of the 1909 World Series. Instead, it would make much more sense to issue it in 1910 during the actual baseball season. Most postcard sets were distributed either right before the World Series or at the beginning of the regular season - not during the off-season when interest was the lowest.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

I do not think that they were issued over a 3 year period. The fact that not a single PC796 or PC805 postcard is known a postmark before 1910 does not make sense.

IMHO, postmarks are the best way to prove the latest date that a postcard was made. The earliest date that I know of is from 1910.

Conversely, dated photographs are the best way to prove the earliest that a postcard was made. Obviously, it could be made at any time after the photo was taken. The latest dated photograph that was used in the set was from 1909 World Series which started on October 8.

If the postcards were that successful to have been issued over a three year period then I think that there would be more examples know with some having postmarks from 1907, 1908 or 1909.

Yes, the three year series release just doesn't make sense to me either.

[robertsmithnocure]

The year that a photo was taken does not date a card except to determine the earliest that it could have been produced. Cards use old photos all of the time, sometime a decade old. The Wagner / Cobb photo from the 1909 World Series makes me agree that the set was produced either at the very end of 1909 or sometime in 1910.

[rickalaska]

Originally Posted by Bicem

The argument the set was produced over multiple years because of background changes, name misspellings & using older source photographs is a really weak argument. Baseball card and postcard issues used older photography all the time.

The argument that one of four postmarked postcards out of 186 graded, doesn't have a postmark prior to 1911 is an even weaker argument.

Why don't we just say they were all produced in 1911

[rickalaska]

Originally Posted by robertsmithnocure

The year that a photo was taken does not date a card except to determine the earliest that it could have been produced. Cards use old photos all of the time, sometime a decade old. The Wagner / Cobb photo from the 1909 World Series makes me agree that the set was produced either at the very end of 1909 or sometime in 1910.

And what does the Evers/Schaefer card from the 1908 World Series make you think - 1910 again?

[Bicem]

Originally Posted by rickalaska

The argument that one of four postmarked postcards out of 186 graded, doesn't have a postmark prior to 1911 is an even weaker argument.

Why don't we just say they were all produced in 1911

So your theory is they produced 5-7 cards a year starting in 1907 for the next 4 years because they used photos from 1907? We'll have to agree to disagree.

[robertsmithnocure]

Originally Posted by rickalaska

And what does the Evers/Schaefer card from the 1908 World Series make you think - 1910 again?

Sure. Why not? The card says nothing about the World Series. It just shows two stars of the day. Just like the Wagner and Cobb card. Card sets used old photos all of the time.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by rickalaska

The argument that one of four postmarked postcards out of 186 graded, doesn't have a postmark prior to 1911 is an even weaker argument.

Why don't we just say they were all produced in 1911

Because an example is known with a 1910 postmark.

[BRoberts]

Heh heh.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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?

[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

[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...

[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...

[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.

[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.

[rainier2004]

I just love all the info Rick and Kevin bring into this, they're great to chat with.

But IDK, I have rearranged this set quite a few ways to find any correlation with the 796s. The 796s uses quite a few fonts, even change fonts on the same cards like the Evers/Schaefer card. 796s place names on the top and bottom of the card, some first names. For some reason the Speaker has an asterisk in front of his name on the 796 that isn't there on the 805. 796s seem so random as why some things are the way they are.

Then the 805s have all the names on the bottom, same fonts, asterisk is gone on the Speaker. They seem way more uniform and formal with the border applied vs the 796s. To me, it looks like the 796s were the rough draft to the 805s as in they were produced before the 805s. I mean would they be produced at the exact same time? Why would they be? IDK, but we have a 1910 postmark on the NCs so my theory doesn't add up either.

And the Frock card...talking to both Kevin and Rick on this one. Seems like it is most likely a spring 1910 card, although I cannot match the uniform straight up to a Pittsburgh uni but its close. But if its 1910 that would eliminate anything was produced in 1909 as this would be the latest image used in the set. So although a small chance they came out late 1909 seems unlikely if this is a 1910 image. I do not think that is a minor league uniform either as it looks too nice to me for that, I'm wrong a lot though.

I wonder if the 796s came out in spring 1910 while the 805s came out in the fall...I just think the 796s very well could have been produced before the 805s...again, I'm wrong a lot though.

Also, congrats Ben on finishing the set dude!

[Baseball Rarities]

Steve - They are definitely confusing sets. I have scoured period periodicals for any hints on when they were issued, but have not come up with anything unlike the newspaper accounts that exist for the the PC760 Rose Co. set dating it to August of 1908 and for the PC765 AC Dietsche offering dating it to October of 1907.

It is not surprising that numerous postmarks exist for the both these sets from these exact months. Outside of printed visual evidence, I think that postmarks are a good way to date a set. They at least give you a definitive date as to when the cards were available to the public. Unfortunately, in the case of both the PC796 and PC805 sets, there are not a lot of examples known with postmarks. The earliest postmark that I have in my files for a PC796 Sepia postcard is October 14, 1910 for a PC805 Novelty Cutlery is September 27, 1911.

The images used in the postcards also have clues, such as the Cobb/Wagner image used in the PC796 and PC805 sets. It is from the 1909 World Series, so we know that that specific postcard was not issued until after that date. It is doubtful that any company would have issued the set after the World Series since interest in baseball would have been waning. Instead, it would make more sense that they would wait until the following baseball season to release them - possible waiting until the times of the 1910 World Series and 1911 World Series, which coincide with the earliest postmarks that we currently know of.

There are other images in the sets that picture players with uniforms that seem to be unique to the 1909 season, so again, these cards would have had to have been produced after those dates. I forget which ones they are, but I think that many of the Cubs players are pictured in their 1909 uniforms.

Yes, there are some images in the set that are dated earlier, but, as we know, card manufacturers were always using old photos for their sets. For example, the 1908 Rose Co. postcard of Honus Wagner uses a Horner image taken in 1903.

It is very frustrating that nothing more definitive has come up for the PC796 Anonymous Sepia or the PC805 Novelty Cutlery sets.

[rainier2004]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

Steve - They are definitely confusing sets. I have scoured period newspapers for any hints on when they were issued, but have not come up with anything.

Newspaper accounts exist for the The Rose Co. set dating it to August of 1908 and for the AC Dietsche offering dating it to October of 1907.

It is very frustrating that nothing more definitive has come up for the PC805 Novelty Cutlery or the PC796 Anonymous Sepia sets.

What do you think about the theory the 796s were produced first, even if just by a few months possibly?

I looked for articles a few years ago in hopes to find something like those sets you mentioned...yup, frustrating.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by rainier2004

What do you think about the theory the 796s were produced first, even if just by a few months possibly?

I looked for articles a few years ago in hopes to find something like those sets you mentioned...yup, frustrating.

It is really hard to say. They definitely do not have as a finished look as the PC805s.

[Baseball Rarities]

Here are the 1909 Chicago Cubs postcard images of Brown, Chance and Overall that date to 1909.

I believe that the uniforms that Chase, Dooin, Johnson and Street all date from 1909 as well.

These beautiful cards are not mine. I stole the images from the interweb.

[Casey2296]

Kevin's knowledge and expertise on these and the RPC sets is incredible and I would consider him one of the leading authorities. Just a theory but it seems to me the 796 preceded the 805. I do think both sets are connected in some way, one thought is Novelty produced both sets, 796 in 1910, 805 in 11. The problem with that argument is why would Novelty do anything without putting their name on it. Another is that Novelty produced the set for someone else in 10 and produced a refined one for themselves in 11. I think the key is who controlled and licensed those images at the time.

[rainier2004]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Kevin's knowledge and expertise on these and the RPC sets is incredible and I would consider him one of the leading authorities. Just a theory but it seems to me the 796 preceded the 805. I do think both sets are connected in some way, one thought is Novelty produced both sets, 796 in 1910, 805 in 11. The problem with that argument is why would Novelty do anything without putting their name on it. Another is that Novelty produced the set for someone else in 10 and produced a refined one for themselves in 11. I think the key is who controlled and licensed those images at the time.

Yup, the 796s are lacking the refinement on that end too as the 805s clearly state the NC Canton O in them.

Kevin can correct me here, but the earliest cancelled NC is 1911 while the earliest 796 is 1910...maybe the NC is a 1911 issue while the 796s were issued late 1910 post Frock image and distributed that fall...

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by rainier2004

Kevin can correct me here, but the earliest cancelled NC is 1911 while the earliest 796 is 1910...

Yes, those are the earliest postmarks that I know of. But, like Rick mentioned, there are not many PC796 and PC805 postcards known with postmarks which is also kind of weird.

Rick quotes 2% of the known postcards have postmarks, which seems to be in the ballpark with me. Other postcards sets have a much higher percentage - usually in the 10 to 20% range.

[Casey2296]

I also think it's significant that the Novelty Cutlery company was located at their new factory at 67 Barr St in 1910 with an adjacent photo studio/gallery depicted in the lower left of the postcard Leon just acquired.

[rainier2004]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

Yes, those are the earliest postmarks that I know of. But, like Rick mentioned, there are not many PC796 and PC805 postcards known with postmarks which is also kind of weird.

Rick quotes 2% of the known postcards have postmarks, which seems to be in the ballpark with me. Other postcards sets have a much higher percentage - usually in the 10 to 20% range.

Yeah, super low numbers. Maybe if they were give aways with a purchase that has been proposed, the people that bought the product didnt really want the PCs, they wanted the product and hence there are low pops and way lower cancelled cards.

Its all just a guess...the 1910 and 1911 theory does seem to fit though. I mean what are the odds the 805s preceded the 796s? Just seems low to me, nothing is consistent in the 796 production while nearly everything is uniform in the 805s. Some of the names on the 805s are off set to the left, while others are centered. The 805s continued the first name theme only have the same few the 796s had.

Why does Speaker have that symbol next to his name on the 796? Why is Frock even in this set? Rick has a good theory of rep preceding him, just seems like they could have picked someone else, someone they had an image of already if his was from 1910 as theorized.

[rainier2004]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

I also think it's significant that the Novelty Cutlery company was located at their new factory at 67 Barr St in 1910 with an adjacent photo studio/gallery depicted in the lower left of the postcard Leon just acquired.

Great card, should have snagged it.

What does the print say in the bottom right? Would be nice to have a date on that move into the new building. PC image looks like summer...

[Casey2296]

Lower right:
1st line looks like RUMD/illegible
2nd line: Martin & Co
3rd line: Detroit

We know they were located at Bar St. in 1910, we also know that the sets were probably not produced prior to that thanks to Kevin's research.