Mastro -Doyle Natl. ?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim Rivera

According to Mastro this is the rarest T206 card.
Even more rare than the Wagner and the Cobb reverse.

Right in the description it states a PSA2(Doyle Natl.) sold for $178k
Enough said.
So WHY would this card bring $55k for a PSA3??
Am I missing something? Are there only 6 of these cards known?
Do the members on the board agree with Mastro-Is this the rarest T206?

[Archive]

Posted By: halleygator

Some guys can afford to pay WHATEVER it takes to buy a card ... and their ego won't let them lose.

So ... let's assume logically that there were 2 such guys bidding on the LAST Doylce card auction ... and they obviously drove the price WAY UP before one finally gave up.

Well, that means that the loser of that auction is still out there, bidding on THIS Doyle card.

BUT ... if there is NOT another "rich and proud" guy out there bidding against him this time ... then he may get this card for a LOT LESS than the last one sold for, thereby getting the last laugh.

Then again ... look for the price of this card to increase as the night goes on.

[Archive]

Posted By: Marc S.

Jim:

The card is simply a variation card -- much different than say a Wagner card which is rare in its own right. The only thing that makes the Doyle variation rare is the NY Nat'l after his name. Many advances collectors do not get caught up in the variation game. And, honestly, at $60,000+, would you?

Also -- two of the main afficianados of the set who have the cash and desire to own this card already do.

Yes -- it may very well be one of the rarest variations from the T-206 set. But some will eventually argue what exactly constitutes a variation. What of the Murr'y "variation" that also sold in Mastro, for significantly less money.

Also -- remember that a card's value often has little to do with rarity. The game, story and prominence of the card often is just as important as its rarity. There are many E* and N* series cards that are often significantly rarer -- and sometimes to this day only know of a handful, if not one or two known examples. Rarity can often be but a small part of the equation.

Finally -- remember that this hobby can be exceptionally thinly traded after certain levels. We are all collectors and love the hobby, right? Well, we represent a small portion of the country (or the world...). Now, what percentage of collectors do you know that will spend $100 on a card? Most? Sure -- but that alienates a number of younger collectors. What about $1,000? How about $10,000? How many collectors do you personally know that will spend over $50,000 on a card -- a card that is "only" Very Good to boot?

Once you get into that upper echelon of collectors -- money and ego drive the game more than anything. Yes, a lower grade Doyle sold for three times more a few years back. But where was the third bidder on that auction? That is the key information in most circumstances.

I in no way want to take away from the importance of the card or its history (or lack thereof). I would say, however, that had I $60,000 to spend in the hobby, this would not be where I would spend it. Not even in my top 25 choices....

MS

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Two words--Keith Olbermann

[Archive]

Posted By: halleygator

So Jay ...

Who drove Olberman up on THAT card???

I presume he will be the winner of this much nicer card for less money ...

so do you know who it was??

Obviously someone with coin.

Or maybe just a run-of-the-mill shill.

[Archive]

Posted By: runningandhidingscott

This one is more interesting to some because it is a legitimate variation, not simply a card that is missing a letter or two. ...but I prefer printer scrap.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Hal--Although I don't know Keith very well my sense is that he will not buy a better copy of a card once he has a copy. So I would be willing to bet that he did not bid on this card. I would guess the underbidder in the prior auction was one of the bidders; I don't have any idea who the underbidder here was. Larry Fritsch already has two copies so maybe he was just supporting the market a little. Who knows.
BTW--Congrats on getting the 1873 Boston "cabinet". Let me know how it compares to the one you already have. Next card you have to pick up is the 1882 Chicago Photographic Studio cabinet of the Chicago Nationals with Anson and an extremely young King Kelly. 1882 was the year that the National League experimented with different uniforms for every position. The team photo looks really neat with no one wearing the same outfit.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rich Jacobs

Jay: Can you post a photo of the 1882 cabinet with Anson and Kelly? I'd enjoy seeing it.

[Archive]

Posted By: HalleyGator

Do you have one for sale??

PS - I hope you didn't JINX me ... I have not yet won the 1873 Cabinet.

What I picked up last week was the 1894 Baltimore cabinet.

[Archive]

Posted By: halleygator

Or, as someone pointed out...

The 1894 Baltimore "Victoria Card"

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Hal--Amazingly, I do have a copy of the cabinet(why do I think this does not surprise you). If I get to the bank tomorrow I'll take it home and post a scan.
It could be an ugly bidding war between you and Rich. I think he still is holding a grudge from when you sniped him.
I too hope I didn't jinx you. I didn't realize that this lot was still open. I bid on two lots in the auction, one which I won last night(the Dogs Head cabinet of Cooney) and one which is still open. When I looked this morning I had forgotten that some lots ran through tonight and I thought I had won both since I was still high on the second. I was disappointed to find that I still had to weather another night and since I am high, but at my limit, it will be tough to hang on.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rich Jacobs

Jay: I know better than to get in a p****** match with the Alpha dog. And, all's fair when it comes to bidding: no grudges there. I just email Hal afterwards and buy his castoffs. I've got more than a couple. His prior Mickey Welch is now mine.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

1882 Chicago...

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob M.

Curious....do you remember what it went for and how long ago was the auction?

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

I don't know the actual prices.
It was lot #846, estimated to go for $20-30K
lot#808 was an 1873 Boston team cabinet, estimated at $8-10K. The 1873 cabinet is not the one currently in Mastro.

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

One of these 1882 Chicago cabinets sold in 2000 or 2001, in either a Lipset Auction or About Time Auction for about $1,500. There was also an 1881 Chicago Imperial Team Photo that sold in a 2002 About Time Auction for about $2,300.

[Archive]

Posted By: halleygator

Jay, what are the dimensions??

Which HOF'ers are on the card??

.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob

Wow! Was Sotheby's way out to lunch on their estimate or what? Obviously not their cup of tea. By the way...anybody out their got one of these cabinets for sale???????? I'd love to pick one up for my collection...but not at Sotheby's price! (Jay - hint, hint).

[Archive]

Posted By: halleygator

Jay: E-Mail me

hal.lewis@att.net

Rich: I don't have another 1882 Chicago team card to castoff to you...

but I can probably dig up a 1982 Chicago team card for you!!

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob

Hey Andy...Do you happen to have a scan of that imperial cabinet from the catalog? Would love to see it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Mckee

The doyle is without a doubt the rarest T206, Mastro is correct. A variation?? Why is it just another variation? It is a legit card just like the wagner. There are Doyle NY Nat'l in other poses. I do not consider this a variation, it is a legit card. If this is a variation, so is the 4 poses of Cobb in the set.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jimmy Leiderman

Both lots failed to reach the reserve on the Copeland auction.
Prices shown below were last bids.

#808 1873 BOS - $3750 pass
#846 1882 CHI - $12000 pass

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

Sorry

[Archive]

Posted By: Jimmy Leiderman

About Time Auctions
June 06, 2002
$2297 (Including buyer's premium)

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Talk about a downside to that transaction.....I would sort of hate it if I paid $175k'ish for something and then a few years later a better one was sold for 1/3 of that....kind of like McGuire's home run ball....ouch !!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: John(z28jd)

Whoever wrote the description for that about time auction really did themselves a disservice by not mentioning Larry Corcoran is in the photo.Who knows where the price wouldve went to if they did!

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob

I stand a little perplexed. There is mention in this thread that Sotheby's once estimated the 1882 Chicago cabinet at $20-$30k, that at Copeland's a similar cabinet did not sell but bids went to $12k and that at an About Time or Lipset it went for $1500. Is there truly this much of a range????

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

I beleive that 1882 image is the same image used to make a Harper's Woodcut

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

Within 19th century photographs, pricing is fairly stable. The new collector of these types of items should consider the Sotheby's and Hal's prices as extremes and not as standards.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

Relevant notes on the two photos.

The 1882 cabinet has a stunning image in all ways-- superstars, fantastic pose, FANTASTIC uniforms, equipment. As the image was (I think) used to make a Harper's Woodcut, that will only enhance it's value and desirability. Though there is nothing special about the size/overall style, the image is as good as they come, and deserves a good sell price.

The 1882 Imperial Cabinet (8x11 or so cabinet-style cards are called 'Imperial Cabinets') is rare due to its large size. Imperials from before 1895 are rare and because of that and its display value usually receive a big premium in price. If the photo was even larger, it would receive and even larger and larger price (Maximum possible size is a bit over 20 by 20 inches). Realize that it was difficult and expensive to make large photographs in the 19th century, so especially large ones were reserved for special occasions or people who could afford them. Though I'm not in love with the 1881 image (as opposed to the 1882 cabinet), it would have been a steal at $1,500.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

One last point concering collecting photographs. Photographs are photographs, and one should not be so enamored by the famous subject, large size, unusual mount and famous photographer that one fogets to look at the image. Quality of image, from clarity, focus and artistic quality, is an essential part of both the photograph and its value. Buying photographs is buying works of art. Beautiful, unique images are easy to resell, while rougher images are tougher to sell especially at higher prices.

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

Lot #53 was in fact an 1882 Chicago White Stockings Cabinet, listed in Good Condition, that had a final bid of $1,415. It is not the same card as the scan that Scott supplied. This one was mounted in the opposite direction, if that makes any sense (The printing is on the right of the photo).

[Archive]

Posted By: Jimmy Leiderman

Andy, some of the Chicago Photographic Studios cabinets came with the printing on either the right or left side of the mount.

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

Jimmy,

You are correct. My message was unclear. The actual photo's are the same, just the mount is reversed. I was just trying to say that the actual card that was auctioned was a different example than the scan that Scott supplied. Sorry for the confusion.

[Archive]

Posted By: BcD

Good luck with school and the soon to be new addition bud!

all the best!

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

Dan, the Doyle is a variation. Particularly with variations but also with other definitions, collectors commonly confuse a value judgement with an objective judgement. Fame or value or the stigma attached to a term or how the variation came be (design versus printing boo boo) are irrelevant when determining whether or not something is a variation.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Mckee

ok after thinking about this, I will agree - variation. I can't think of another T206 with the exact same pose and picture and a different team at the bottom. But if you look at it the other way, is the bender trees and no trees variations? lettering is the same at bottom but pictures are different. I guess I do not see the difference there. The Doyle is a lettering variation and the bender is a picture variation? Maybe I am all wet or that my intellect is so pathatic that I am not using variation in the proper context. I am easily humbled. Dan.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

...but image changes are more likely to be due to personal taste. I suspect the "no trees" version came out later, and was an "enhancement". Both Benders were created from a photo where Bender is actually bent over, so the pose on the t206 is very unnatural. The "no trees" version has him aligned a little bit more correctly, and has replaced the right elbow in the "trees" version with fingers. The Matty "white cap" and "black cap" t206 cards were also made from the same photograph, the "black cap" being the later, and more aesthetically pleasing card...I think