1913 Lajoie game card.

[Brian Van Horn]

I guess I am just the kid in the crowd who says the King has no clothes, but has anyone else doubted that the 1913 Lajoie game card is actually from 1913? Just curious. Also, a little bemused by the fact the following guy has 39 of them listed on eBay and why so many of them have "survived" in such good shape:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1913-Lajoie-...item3d039fc788

Please note nothing against the dealer, just doubt the date of origin of the card.

[Jay Wolt]

When Parker Brothers made the set in 1913, all 50 cards showed Lajoie on the front w/ different game configurations on the back.
So since every card front is the same (w/ the exception of the Blue tinted ones), there's a ton of these out there.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by Jay Wolt

When Parker Brothers made the set in 1913, all 50 cards showed Lajoie on the front w/ different game configurations on the back.
So since every card front is the same (w/ the exception of the Blue tinted ones), there's a ton of these out there.

Jay,

Isn't it odd that, if they are from 1913, so many have survived in such good shape?

[Jay Wolt]

Brian I think that has more to do w/ the game cards manufactured rounded corners.
There's a bunch of National Game & Tom Barkers in high grade too but since each card is different it makes them seem scarce.
What year or era do you think the Lajoie set is from?

[Brian Van Horn]

I know a lot of people are going to laugh, but I would say the 1960s given the print on the back and type of paper. I am not a paper expert, but the print and the texture of the paper I do not associate with the early 1900s.

[darwinbulldog]

I used to own a set of (48? of) them, along with the original packaging. The box was in poor condition, but the cards were probably all in the ex-nm range. I've never doubted the date of origin. If each of the original owners had 48 or more of them, and they had rounded corners to begin with (the cards, not the owners), and the game was even moderately popular, it's unsurprising to me that it would be easy to find nice copies 100 years later.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

I know a lot of people are going to laugh, but I would say the 1960s given the print on the back and type of paper. I am not a paper expert, but the print and the texture of the paper I do not associate with the early 1900s.

Perhaps someone on the board can attest to having seen one before 1960.

[Paul S]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Perhaps someone on the board can attest to having seen one before 1960.

Is 1966 close enough? I was given 2 Blues (no Reds) by a close, and much older, relative.

[Jay Wolt]

I won a set w/ the original box a decade or so ago from Lelands
Had 50 cards enclosed.
Here's a scan of a box w/ instructions, it looks period to me.
This scan has the blue tinted version, mine was the red tinted version.
W/ most of the cards being in high grade. Had them graded by PSA and I got grades from 4's to 10's.
W/ the lower graded ones having wrinkles in them.

[Brian Van Horn]

Jay,

I appreciate the picture, but the print and the paper on the back for me weigh heavier than the box.

As for 1966, Paul, that would be good if for no other reason that was the year I was born.

[Jay Wolt]

Just checked the PSA pops of the three 1913 game sets, Lajoie, National Game & Tom Barker.
Seems that the Lajoie set has fewer graded than the other two.
Not sure if SGC's pop is in line.

Lajoie has 308 graded w/ 163 PSA-9's & 10's

National Game - 2279 w/ 602 9's &10's

Tom Barker - 1113 w/ 270 9's & 10's

[Brian Van Horn]

Jay,

Maybe the one way to get a definitive answer would be to contact Parker Brothers who is now owned by Hasbro.

[Jay Wolt]

Just checked the SGC pops

Lajoie 253 graded w/ 113 SGC-96/98's

Nat'l Game 602 w/ 115 SGC-96/98's

Tom Barker 440 w/ 64 SGC-96's (No 98's)

Based on the pops of PSA & SGC for these three 1913 game sets, the Lajoie set has the fewer graded examples by far

[Brian Van Horn]

Jay,

My concern is not about population reports, but why so many survived in so good of shape. Now, I see on the rules for the "game" it says copyright 1913. I also have to wonder if the cards and the rules are from one and the same game. I am not an expert on games. My worry is about the print on the back, the paper and the high number of high quality cards from the set. Admittedly, the ones you have in the picture exhibit some wear, but the ones generally offered are in high quality. This doesn't usually happen with 102 year old cards.

[Paul S]

My two were kept raw for decades - I sold them just a few years ago in that same state. They were nearly identical except one had a corner crease, just as I originally received it. Otherwise, the would both had graded quite high.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by Paul S

My two were kept raw for decades - I sold them just a few years ago in that same state. They were nearly identical except one had a corner crease, just as I originally received it. Otherwise, the would both had graded quite high.

Paul,

I appreciate it. Your guess of 1966 may be right, but only time and Hasbro's records of Parker Brothers toys may tell and that may not even have the answer.

[Paul S]

Brian, No problem. All my cards are/were raw. I can tell you that the Lajoies were never handled, by me, nearly as much as my T205-6s, caramels, '33 Goudeys or '39 Play Balls - that factor may translate to how other people treated their cards and why the Lajoies held up so well....plus the playing cards are so much more sturdy.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by Paul S

Brian, No problem. All my cards are/were raw. I can tell you that the Lajoies were never handled, by me, nearly as much as my T205-6s, caramels, '33 Goudeys or '39 Play Balls - that factor may translate to how other people treated their cards and why the Lajoies held up so well....plus the playing cards are so much more sturdy.

I love hearing from a fellow raw card collector. The cards are harder to sell a lot of times, but I just do not submit them for grading. Any graded cards you see in my listings someone else submitted.

[clydepepper]

Does this discussion call into question the authenticity of any other playing cards sets?

Since the third-party grading companies are a fairly recent development, we know that any of the playing cards from 1884's Lawson to the 1968 Topps game set would have been in raw state for a number of years. The cards in every set have rounded corners - which is a clear advantage to avoiding dings and thus at least somewhat results in less obvious wear.

I have several cards from several different playing card sets and have always used them as an economical way to collect Hall-of-Famers 'active' cards. Almost all of mine are graded including the three I won in Leon's August Auction and my most recent addition, a 1968 Mantle.

Heck, is even the Allegeheny in question?

[Butch7999]

The National-American Base Ball Game, known in some of its forms as"the Nap Lajoie game," was actually the title
of several different games, produced -- under both identical and varying titles, employing both identical and varying
graphics -- by Parker Brothers starting in 1913.

We just did a whole thing this past spring on the whole family of related cardgames at our own site, if you want to visit there
for the full story. We also corresponded at some length several years ago with former Parker Brothers vice-president and
historian Phil Orbanes (now running Winning Moves Games -- http://www.winning-moves.com/ ), who helped greatly with
our games research. In hands-on checking of actual Parker in-house catalogues and inventories, Orbanes confirmed that
National-American first appeared in 1913 and remained in production through at least 1925. Good luck, by the way, getting
any assistance from Hasbro, who are about as willing to give out information as the CIA.

The card typography was relatively "modern" at the time but is completely consistent with a 1913 date of origin.

Tony Fatseas did repro sets of the 1906 WG2 and WG3 Fan Craze games about ten years ago, "Card Memorabilia Associates"
produced a repro set of the 1913 WG6 Tom Barker Baseball Card Game in 1973, and Larry Fritsch Cards has done a repro
of that set and many others, but we're not aware of any repro editions of "the Lajoie game." That's not to say with absolute
certainty there aren't any out there; we can't prove a negative. But it was a very popular game, produced in large quantities,
for several years (the image of Lajoie was replaced by that of a generic batter in later editions), and the explanations
provided above by other guys here cover, to our satisfaction, most of the reasons that sharp examples are still available
in abundance. Bear in mind as well, the cards were sold as a set, not individually, to be used for game play, not for flipping
or being put in bicycle spokes, so they were inevitably handled less frequently and more gently.

[scooter729]

I think the fact that games like the Lajoie game and the 1884 Lawson's game and others came in their own storage boxes greatly helped their condition.

Some of these boxes likely were never opened, and even games which were opened and played with were likely stored back in the box when not in use, which (along with the already rounded corners) would help to account for the large number of high grade cards now.

T and E cards had no built-in storage unit, and were more prone to be stored loosely, accounting for more wear.

I have no doubts regarding the 1913 production date on these.

[glynparson]

You can't discount their age because you can find many nice examples. Especially when their is a 1913 date in the game informaToon. That is just silly reasoning. Especially when they are no easier than other period pieces. I believe the box helped protect the cards along with their overall sturdiness and round corners same with national game or Tom barkers or pologrounds or Lawson's all are simillar cards and very easy to find in high grade for a period issue. It's not too difficult to figure out why it's easy to find a high grade example.

[bgar3]

I have no doubt of the 1913 date. In the 70's and 80's these were collected as decks of cards with box etc as previousy shown. I did not know anyone who would have considered breaking up a complete deck to sell an indivual card and certainly no one cared about grades. Collectors did want as complete a set as possible. I know playing cards are cards, but they were not viewed as "cards" like t206's etc until relatively recently.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by glynparson

You can't discount their age because you can find many nice examples. Especially when their is a 1913 date in the game informaToon. That is just silly reasoning. Especially when they are no easier than other period pieces. I believe the box helped protect the cards along with their overall sturdiness and round corners same with national game or Tom barkers or pologrounds or Lawson's all are simillar cards and very easy to find in high grade for a period issue. It's not too difficult to figure out why it's easy to find a high grade example.

Glyn,

I appreciate it, but even with the box, my point is that the cards kind of defy a hobby "gravitational" rule. Yes, the cards are rounded, but cards were produced with children in mind. This was a game. Kids would gravitate toward the cards. What cards made for children in a game survive in such good shape for 102 years? I also don't buy the graphics or the type of paper on the back dating back to 1913.

[Paul S]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

Glyn,

I appreciate it, but even with the box, my point is that the cards kind of defy a hobby "gravitational" rule. Yes, the cards are rounded, but cards were produced with children in mind. This was a game. Kids would gravitate toward the cards. What cards made for children in a game survive in such good shape for 102 years? I also don't buy the graphics or the type of paper on the back dating back to 1913.

And don't forget - as playing cards they were meant to be shuffled Defies all reasoning.

[Jay Wolt]

Brian if the game was made for children who handled it, played it & shuffled it.
Perhaps it wasn't a fun game
or too complex and thus wasn't played with all that much.

You're initial post stated an eBay seller w/ 39 SGC high graded cards, probably all from one set.
As stated in an earlier post I had a 50 card set w/ box & instructions of which 2/3rds graded 8's or higher.
With that said, PSA & SGC has graded collectively 561 cards which isn't all that much considering 50 cards
featuring Lajoie's image on each card.
As my pop #'s indicate the National Game set from the same year has over 700 cards graded 9's or higher by PSA & SGC as comparison to the Lajoies 276 in 9/10's.

[Brian Van Horn]

Jay,

I appreciate the population reports, but that is not my point. You have cards that are 102 years old and have somehow with a box survived the grasp of children. The have graphics and paper on the back that are nowhere near what was offered by other games of the time including other games from Parker Brothers.

[Jay Wolt]

Brian I understand your point regarding the high grade Lajoie game cards.
My point by bringing up the pop reports for PSA & SGC is other 1913 game cards also have a multitude of high grade examples.
They too went through the rigors of childrens hands when they handled & played w/ the cards.

[slidekellyslide]

I sometimes think that Brian enjoys trolling the group...this is one of those times.

[JustinD]

While I think this is a bit of a silly argument and I feel like I am being tricked into a 9/11 conspiracy conversation, I have only one thing to add -

It is accepted and documented this game was produced from 1913 to around the early 30s. It was made by a huge game company so the production numbers were likely large meaning good examples if it was not really a fun game in great shape are logical.

What is illogical is that a marketing or production exec in the 60's, in a time of mega baseball stars like Mantle. Could somehow get the green light to produce a game and hope to sell to kids with Nap Lajoie as it's subject.

That's all I got, other than the feeling I just got "punked".

[Butch7999]

The assumption that the game was marketed for kids is also off base. Many simple tabletop baseball games were indeed meant
for children, but period advertisements for numbers like National-American were placed not in child-oriented publications
but in Baseball Magazine, The Sporting News, and other periodicals aimed at adults, and often showed the game being played
by well-dressed adult men as if at some gentlemen's club.

[Rob D.]

eBay must be down.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by rob d.

ebay must be down.

LOL.

No conspiracy theory either. Just enjoying the conversation.

[scooter729]

Must be a slow day on eBay for horrible reprints to post about here...

Edit - dammit, had the window open for a bit and Rob beat me to the punch on the joke...

[Paul S]

I could almost buy into it.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by scooter729

Must be a slow day on eBay for horrible reprints to post about here...

Edit - dammit, had the window open for a bit and Rob beat me to the punch on the joke...

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by Butch7999

The assumption that the game was marketed for kids is also off base. Many simple tabletop baseball games were indeed meant
for children, but period advertisements for numbers like National-American were placed not in child-oriented publications
but in Baseball Magazine, The Sporting News, and other periodicals aimed at adults, and often showed the game being played
by well-dressed adult men as if at some gentlemen's club.

I think those advertisements were what those men told their wives happened at the gentlemen's club.

If it wasn't actually drink and complain about wives it wouldn't really be a gentleman's club, lol.

[brianp-beme]

This thread has been helped me gain a little knowledge about the game cards, especially with Butch7999 information about when these game cards were being produced. 1913 was the only year I have ever seen associated with them, probably because of the copyright date on the instructions. It is also interesting to find out there was a generic player pictured instead on the later runs. Anyone have an example of the generic version?

A multi year run starting in 1913 with Lajoie makes sense. Thanks Butch

I think the game was not universally popular, so it makes sense that a lot of sets of cards ended up not getting abused. My set (a full set purchased from a seller who indicated he found them dumpster diving(!) about 25 years ago), would also lead one to believe that some (definitely not the person who trashed them) found the game interesting, as they have a lot of wear on the sides as well as creases, missing corners, etc.

Brian

[brianp-beme]

A scan of some of mine.

Brian

[Butch7999]

Just some of the box - card back - card front variations / combinations:



The National-American Base Ball Game, eight-result game: Lajoie blue, Lajoie red



The National-American Base Ball Game, single-result game: lefty batter blue, lefty batter red, righty batter blue




New Base Ball Card Game / Base Ball Cards: Lajoie red




World's Champion Base Ball Card Game (The Champion Amusement Co): lefty batter blue

We hope that's of some help. Some details as to dates of production for the above examples and other closely-related games
are verified, others are still lacking. Again, there's a fuller discussion of these sets in an April message thread at our forum.

Justin -- -- tru dat!

[Brian Van Horn]

Justin,

Thank you. Now, could you just kindly compare the paper on the backs of the Lajoies to the paper from the other sets?

Thank you,

Brian

[pokerplyr80]

I'm more amazed that the same seller has a 53 Topps Terwilliger PSA 9 listed for $40k. That seems excessive to me since one sold last year for 3k. Even the 3k is a lot higher than I would have thought.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1953-Topps-1...item3aadb25939

[JustinD]

I think I will just defer to some kid somewhere looking for a idea for a doctoral thesis on paper age and composition. I bet he's out there somewhere dying to start tomorrow.

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

I sometimes think that Brian enjoys trolling the group...this is one of those times.

What? Not Brian, he would never...

http://net54baseball.com/showthread....herpolsheimers

[GregMitch34]

The bigger mystery after 100 years remains--how the hell do you pronounce Lajoie? Reaching a consensus here on that would be far more valuable.

Also: Nap or Larry?

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

what? Not brian, he would never...

http://net54baseball.com/showthread....herpolsheimers

LOL. I was actually waiting for that one.