Revisiting the 1910 PC805 Novelty Cutlery Postcard set.

[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.

[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

[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...

[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.

[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

[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?

[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...

[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.