1869 Cincinnati Red Stockings

[GaryPassamonte]

The recent Cobb vs Trout thread has gotten me thinking about card values. I realize the Trout card is a one of five? and the Cobb is quite rare. However, in my opinion, both pale historically to the 1869 Cincinnati Red Stocking image. I understand the supply and demand aspects, but why does the Red Stocking card not sell for $50-$100K. It is rare yet available enough to acquire. Why don't more people "have to have it"? Is it because of the grading craze and the inability to have a high grade, set registry, etc example?

[ksfarmboy]

I’d take that 1869 all day over any of those.

[bgar3]

Agree, I would prefer the 1869 Red Stockings over the others. However, I value historically important items as opposed to investments, registries, grades etc.

[BeanTown]

Its all a process and education for what's what. Having money to spend on cardboard, does not always mean you have hobby knowledge. If you can afford a five or six figure item, then most buyers are going to buy what they like and know.

With all collectibles, there are the social status items. These items everyone talk about every year and when one comes up for sale, it gets hyped big time. Example T206 Wagner, Superman 1st comic, 1944 Wheat penny, etc... These items not only appeal to collectors but also investors, companies, and gazillionaires who want to show what they have.

i divide the baseball card market into these groups, in order of how myself and most others probably learned.

1. Modern cards started collecting in the 70s.
2. Post War cards (wanted to keep learning and been collecting for ten years)
3. Pre War cards (wanted to keep buying more rare cards and many HOFers)
4. 19th Century (continued education and seemed undervalued always)

So, to address both cards Gary mentioned. The Trout has always been hyped and it appeals to a younger generation and now maybe investors. It's viewed upon as a social status card for at least now, as this Vegas Dave has done a good job doing his spin on social media. Now all Trout collectors have to hold their breath that Trout continues to show great success in baseball, while not being caught up in PEDs, Roids, gambling, etc...

Now the Peck and Snyder trade card you hardly ever hear about. Seems only the advanced collectors know how special it is, and then of the advanced collectors, how many can afford to buy one and how many actually need it for their collection. if one came up for auction or sale, is there a big enough market to drive the price up to social status limit? I always thought YES, since it was considered the first ever basball card. However, that is now in debate.

There are many advanced collectors (which I view myself now), and I agree wih everyone so far, that I would take the 1869 Peck & Snyder card all day long, over a modern player of Mike Trout (who I like a lot).

I wonder what the stats would look like if you polled 100,000 collectors and asked them how long they have been collecting and what area they collect or used to collect (Modern, post war, pre war, 19th century). Myself would say current and all 4.

[drcy]

I think people judge items too much by its $$. It's a bit like judging a movie by its box office sales.

[Jim65]

Some people choose not to collect cards of players they've never seen play. There is zero sentiment attached to those players. I think sometimes its just as simple as that.

[2dueces]

Some don’t consider that a card. More of a RPPC. I myself would take that piece of memorabilia as a slice of history never to be duplicated.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by BeanTown

Its all a process and education for what's what. Having money to spend on cardboard, does not always mean you have hobby knowledge. If you can afford a five or six figure item, then most buyers are going to buy what they like and know.

With all collectibles, there are the social status items. These items everyone talk about every year and when one comes up for sale, it gets hyped big time. Example T206 Wagner, Superman 1st comic, 1944 Wheat penny, etc... These items not only appeal to collectors but also investors, companies, and gazillionaires who want to show what they have.

i divide the baseball card market into these groups, in order of how myself and most others probably learned.

1. Modern cards started collecting in the 70s.
2. Post War cards (wanted to keep learning and been collecting for ten years)
3. Pre War cards (wanted to keep buying more rare cards and many HOFers)
4. 19th Century (continued education and seemed undervalued always)

So, to address both cards Gary mentioned. The Trout has always been hyped and it appeals to a younger generation and now maybe investors. It's viewed upon as a social status card for at least now, as this Vegas Dave has done a good job doing his spin on social media. Now all Trout collectors have to hold their breath that Trout continues to show great success in baseball, while not being caught up in PEDs, Roids, gambling, etc...

Now the Peck and Snyder trade card you hardly ever hear about. Seems only the advanced collectors know how special it is, and then of the advanced collectors, how many can afford to buy one and how many actually need it for their collection. if one came up for auction or sale, is there a big enough market to drive the price up to social status limit? I always thought YES, since it was considered the first ever basball card. However, that is now in debate.

There are many advanced collectors (which I view myself now), and I agree wih everyone so far, that I would take the 1869 Peck & Snyder card all day long, over a modern player of Mike Trout (who I like a lot).

I wonder what the stats would look like if you polled 100,000 collectors and asked them how long they have been collecting and what area they collect or used to collect (Modern, post war, pre war, 19th century). Myself would say current and all 4.

Very good post. I don't necessarily see it as P&S vs. Trout, but also P&S vs. iconic prewar and postwar cards. People buy modern cards with the hopes of watching that player's career and card values grow.

In 1989 I bought a Jordan RC for 50.00. Another advanced collector made fun of my purchase. You have 520 t206s, why would you want that new card? I am a big basketball fan and liked MJ, so why not? Today after grading it is worth about 28k.

When Trout first got hot, I thought about buying a Trout RC. In the end I didn't as I am not interested in modern cards anymore. It takes a lot of work. The P&S is a card that I am interested in. At this point the question is when one comes up for sale, is it in my budget and is there another vintage card available that I want more?

[Rucc_31]

Originally Posted by BeanTown

Its all a process and education for what's what. Having money to spend on cardboard, does not always mean you have hobby knowledge. If you can afford a five or six figure item, then most buyers are going to buy what they like and know.

With all collectibles, there are the social status items. These items everyone talk about every year and when one comes up for sale, it gets hyped big time. Example T206 Wagner, Superman 1st comic, 1944 Wheat penny, etc... These items not only appeal to collectors but also investors, companies, and gazillionaires who want to show what they have.

i divide the baseball card market into these groups, in order of how myself and most others probably learned.

1. Modern cards started collecting in the 70s.
2. Post War cards (wanted to keep learning and been collecting for ten years)
3. Pre War cards (wanted to keep buying more rare cards and many HOFers)
4. 19th Century (continued education and seemed undervalued always)

So, to address both cards Gary mentioned. The Trout has always been hyped and it appeals to a younger generation and now maybe investors. It's viewed upon as a social status card for at least now, as this Vegas Dave has done a good job doing his spin on social media. Now all Trout collectors have to hold their breath that Trout continues to show great success in baseball, while not being caught up in PEDs, Roids, gambling, etc...

Now the Peck and Snyder trade card you hardly ever hear about. Seems only the advanced collectors know how special it is, and then of the advanced collectors, how many can afford to buy one and how many actually need it for their collection. if one came up for auction or sale, is there a big enough market to drive the price up to social status limit? I always thought YES, since it was considered the first ever basball card. However, that is now in debate.

There are many advanced collectors (which I view myself now), and I agree wih everyone so far, that I would take the 1869 Peck & Snyder card all day long, over a modern player of Mike Trout (who I like a lot).

I wonder what the stats would look like if you polled 100,000 collectors and asked them how long they have been collecting and what area they collect or used to collect (Modern, post war, pre war, 19th century). Myself would say current and all 4.

I agree with JayCee, to some extent. We have dumb money in the hobby now. We have different branches of marketing hitting the card market today. SI, yahoo finance, documentaries, which are helping drive market. The Trout outsold the Cobb for a few reason but I touched on in the Cobb vs trout post, which is what I feel is the main reason is, Vintage is a collectors world. Modern is an investors world.

Being 23 and dabbling in pre war post cards and stuff from the late 1800s for a few years of my collecting/investing career, it makes sense to why a card like Trout is “more valuable” than the Cobb or the Peck and Snyder. That old of vintage is such a niche. Add the fact that it’s a post card, that makes it even more of a niche item.

Also, my generation is coming into more money now. Hence why I think the 80s and 90s surge is kind of here to stay. I’m not saying there won’t be dips in prices but I do think PSA 9 Henderson’s for $350 is gone forever. And Upper deck Griffey’s for $550 is gone forever. These are both over printed cards, especially the griffey.

Being history driven I’d much rather have the Peck and Snyder but I also don’t want a post card I spent thousands on, and in 10 years it’s still worth the same amount.

My favorite part about these conversations is the fact that new cards like the 2020 project are taking off. Which is another niche. These cards in my opinion are not great purchases but they are for collectors. Well guess what...I was wrong, some versions of the trout are outselling BGS 9.5 trout update rookies. These are just like the topps living set that was released in 2018 I believe. Why is this happening?

The social stigma attached to cards that JayCee mentioned are there, I agree, but are they that important or price driven?? I don’t think so. I think it has to do more with recognition. I mean if cards have a social stigma there are tons of cards that carry the stigma more than the Cobb (in the vast card community) and especially the Peck and Snyder. To name a few, the 54 topps Aaron, 52 topps mantle, 89 UD Griffey, Update trout.

I’d bet that atleast 80% of “card collectors/enthusiasts” don’t even know the Peck and Snyder even exists.

[GaryPassamonte]

The 1869 Cincinnati photograph would be a trade card or a carte de visite. It is not a postcard.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by GaryPassamonte

The recent Cobb vs Trout thread has gotten me thinking about card values. I realize the Trout card is a one of five? and the Cobb is quite rare. However, in my opinion, both pale historically to the 1869 Cincinnati Red Stocking image. I understand the supply and demand aspects, but why does the Red Stocking card not sell for $50-$100K. It is rare yet available enough to acquire. Why don't more people "have to have it"? Is it because of the grading craze and the inability to have a high grade, set registry, etc example?

Gary-It is an iconic image, but the vast majority of collectors don’t collect 19th century material. Personally, I prefer the much rarer trade card to the CdV. There are very few graded ones out there, and one of those is a copy that needs to be returned to the NYPL. Should a nice graded one of those come to market it would probably yield $100k or more.

[Bicem]

Short answer is because historic significance is only one factor of something's "collectability" / value. And the importance of this factor varies greatly from collector to collector.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Rucc_31

Also, my generation is coming into more money now. Hence why I think the 80s and 90s surge is kind of here to stay. I’m not saying there won’t be dips in prices but I do think PSA 9 Henderson’s for $350 is gone forever. And Upper deck Griffey’s for $550 is gone forever. These are both over printed cards, especially the griffey.

I remember when Michael Jordan retired, his RC dropped hard. I remember buying a PSA 8 and selling it for $500 because I already had 5 of them. The Griffey has already dropped from 150 to 20, it can happen again. Many of those coming back left the hobby when it was no longer cool. Are they going to stick around or is this a phase? I hope you are right because that is more buyers that will be around when I am gone. If they stick around, many will buy vintage too.

[2dueces]

Originally Posted by GaryPassamonte

The 1869 Cincinnati photograph would be a trade card or a carte de visite. It is not a postcard.

Yeah that’s the description I was looking for. Thanks.

[slightlyrounded]

Hobby importance isn't always rewarded with sky-high valuations considering:

• The N162 Goodwin Beecher (first football card) can be bought in decent grade for ~$2,000-$5,000
  
• The T51 Murad Williams Number on Front (first basketball card) can be bought in decent grade for ~$200
  
• The first generic hockey trade cards pre-dating 1900 can be had for $100-500, depending on grade and issue. C55/C66 individual cards for a few hundred dollars in good grade.

As investments all of the above would seem to be a good value cache; they are all relatively rare and have great significance to their sports. That said, short of any of them becoming 'iconic' via a string of high-profile transactions, quite sure that appeal will never come close to matching the star power of Cobb or Trout. In this sense, Peck and Snyder has far outpaced its 'first-produced' brethren.

[robertsmithnocure]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Gary-It is an iconic image, but the vast majority of collectors don’t collect 19th century material. Personally, I prefer the much rarer trade card to the CdV. There are very few graded ones out there, and one of those is a copy that needs to be returned to the NYPL. Should a nice graded one of those come to market it would probably yield $100k or more.

I also think that the 1869 Reds Stockings card is undervalued. It is such a great image featuring the Hall Of Fame Wright brothers and their teammates during their undefeated season.

If I could choose one version, I would take the Trade Card that can be dated to 1869. I believe that it has a unique address? Maybe the same for the CDV? The 1869 CDV would do just fine also.

[GaryPassamonte]

Jay- We've discussed this before, but the grading population reports have about the same number of trade cards graded as they do cdvs. Auction results also have a similar population distribution. Nonetheless, it has total population graded or ungraded of only about 50 examples of both formats. I do agree that a nice example would sell for a decent price. I don't believe there is one graded higher than a 4, with most examples graded authentic.

[bgar3]

FYI, in a prior thread here, Kevin Struss laid out a very convincing argument for the order of appearance of this image.
While I agree a high grade example would sell for a lot, I personally do not care about or value grades and would rather have my Altered (graded prior to my acquiring it), copy of Kevin’s earliest appearance with the alteration being an added date, than a high grade example of a later release without a date. Yes, I know, I am not in the mainstream.