Hello to all visitors! Please visit the NEW Net54 board at
www.Net54baseball.com
You can directly contact the moderator here if you have any questions or comments. Enjoy!
Surely I am not the FIRST person in the World to recognize this fact, am I??
After all, I just purchase a TRUE 1887 card of Clarkson (Old Judge) that SHOWS him with CHICAGO... so it HAS to have been issued BEFORE the Allen & Ginters card:
I'm not sure about any of that but I can't believe that there are people out there can get cards that look that nice Anyone need a kidney? I'm selling one of mine for the small price of a Near Mint John Clarkson Old Judge card - or possibly an Allen & Ginter Cap Anson.
I couldn't even imagine if I were going to try and collect first cards for players from the 19th century or even early 20th century. I guess people back then just didn't think there would be such a demand on the cards that they were producing 100 or so years ago.
I can assure you that it wasn't me. However, I am VERY happy about the final price. I thought that I overpaid for the Ewing, but apparently, I got the steal of the century!
I am thinking of making a network 54 HOF rookie card website as an addition to my own. I wanted to put all HOF rookie cards as kind of virtual HOF collection from board members and of course give credit to the owner. Would there be any interest in having this done? If so, it may be nice addition to the links site that people can go check out.
I have to agree with Hal on this one. Lone Jack's are most likely from 1887, not 1886. However, I do believe that the Kalamazoo Bats portrait cards are from 1886 rather than 1887. Wish I owned one
it "peeved" me when someone discovered that the N28 Allen & Ginters may NOT be "rookie cards" since they probably came out in 1888 (AFTER the first Old Judge cards).
And then it REALLY PEEVED me that I was the one who made the discovery and screwed myself!!
Kalamazoo Bats and N167's show Larry Corcoran in a Giants uniform.He played for them in 1885 and the very beginning of 1886 [one game]before being loaned to the Senators. He was never returned to NY and signed with Indianapolis the next year
Couldn’t the Comisky photo go both ways? Maybe it was taken around 1885-1886 and the Lone Jack Company decided to crop the image for artistic reasons. Then the following year to show the 1886 champions, the Old Judge Company used an existing photo for their card of Comisky.
Just a thought, by the way Hal I hope someday to have a “bummer of a day” and find out that my NM card of any 19th player wasn’t the right one.
John: No, it couldn't go the other way. The larger photo of Comiskey had to exist before the cropped version. I know you are saying that maybe the larger "photo" existed but just sat around for a year or two before Old Judge used it to produce a baseball card... but that isn't how the Old Judge cards were made. Old Judge didn't start taking their own photos until 1887, because their 1886 set was a hand-drawn set that was copied straight from a set of 1886 cabinet photos taken of the 1886 NY Giants by J. Wood Company.
A shot in the dark here, but is it not possible that the N28's were produced after the season ended in 1887 but after Clarkson had been sold to Boston and that the image was changed to reflect the new team?
This message has been edited by jkrasner2 on Dec 17, 2004 4:42 PM
Given the Clarkson discovery... does anyone have any reason NOT to think that the N28 Allen & Ginters cards MUST have come out in 1888 and NOT 1887 as previously suggested by Lemke and others???
Edited to respond to Josh: Certainly a possibility Josh... but I just can't see them making a card for a guy who had not yet played a single inning for that team ... when they only made 10 baseball cards in the whole set.
But who knows ... I guess the N28 Allen & Ginters could officially be the very FIRST:
1887 Topps "TRADED" SET
This message has been edited by HalleyGator on Dec 17, 2004 4:46 PM
Being fairly new to this forum, I guess the real issue is not the year the cards were made, but whose collection would you rather own, Leon's or Hal's? Mixing and matching is not allowed.
The first known true tobacco insert premium issued by Thomas Hall Company. Issued between 1880-1892. The cards consist of mostly actors, actress, celebrities and presidential candidates. One of the card backs has the line “The American Tobacco Company Successor” meaning that that series was issued before the company was bought up by ATC.
Well over 500 cards in total in the set. Relax Hal no rookies to be found here unless you like Oarsmen or Pedestrians if so then your screwed.
I would rather have Hal's collection than mine. His is nicer grade but mine probably has a few rarer cards, condition aside.....AND no fair....Hal is a lawyer and makes more bucks than I do.....later
Look at that cardboard fly!!! This is a great string of posts, and ones I really enjoy reading.
Hal, whether its debated ad nausium on the Wagner H. Reccius rookie or not, it is a phenomenal card! Congratulations. I could spend a week browsing your's and Leon's websites, but the drool would end up ruining my keyboard.
We are never going to agree on this, but I believe that a card needs to be from a set to be a true rookie card. That would make the E107 Breisch Williams the true Wagner Rookie, which doesn't make the Reccius Wagner any less desirable. What an awesome card.
Isn't this fun?????
(I've got to keep Hal interested in the Breisch Williams Wagner just in case I ever decide to sell it)
This message has been edited by AndyBaran on Dec 17, 2004 6:27 PM
Awesome card...congrats....I think I might have been the underbidder on it in the Mastro a few years ago. Regardless if it is or isn't his rookie (and it very well could be) it's great. With that being said one of the rifs (?) about the card has always been the question of "why Wagner?" and why no other cards exist, even from entire set (that we know of)? Honus wasn't really as great as he was going to be, relative to others at the time. Other players had much better stats when he was on that team. Some believe that Recius could have made this card after his popularity gained with his hitting so they could captialize on his name, not unlike in today's market. regards
Id rather have Jay Miller's collection personally.....wouldnt it be great if each of them traded their collection to the first person who mentioned theyd rather have their collection
Nice try John. So does this make the Kalamazoo Bats cards of Ward, O'Rourke, Keefe, Ewing and Connor their rookie cards since they were an 1886 issue? They would have been issued the same year as N167s so how do you choose between the two? Personally, I would rather have the photographic card but I was wondering what the rookie card collectors think.
Most of the Kalamazoo Bats cards say "Copyright 1887" on the front...
but apparently SOME of the cards have photos of players on their 1886 teams...
and some have photos of players on their 1888 teams.
BUT...
all of the HOF's in the N167 set played for the New York team in 1886 and 1887.
so even if you found a Kalamazoo Bats card for one of those HOF's that did NOT say "Copyright 1887" on the front so that it possibly "could" be from 1886...
there would NEVER be any way to prove it.
Thus, I think the N167's get the nod as being the true rookie "cards" for those players...
even though the players clearly had J. Wood "cabinets" issued prior to the N167's.
Hal,while technically youre correct by saying most have copyright lines of 1887 its likely that Kalamazoo Bats cards were issued in 2 series.Besides Corcoran,Elmer Forster is also shown on NY whom he only played for in 1886.The NY cards are all portrait cards different from the philadelphia cards and they dont have copyright dates.Since they dont you have to go by the team on which they appeared,when 2 of the players didnt play on the 1887 team then its unlikely that its an 1887 issue as it wouldnt make any sense.Corcoran not appearing on the Giants after May of 86 and Elmer Forster who is with the Mets on the card only played for them in the beginning of the 86 season. Dude Esterbrooke and Chief Roseman were also on different teams in 1887 and are pictured with the Mets.
So technically its possible the Hall of Famers who were with the team in both years were issued in 1887 its very unlikely they would only issue the non hall of famers in 1886.Theres also no NY players who were only with the team in 1887 or after in the set
I think the only way to be certain you have a rookie Hal is to get that 1885 team cabinet set.I can help with the cost by purchasing one of those non hall of famers
It should also be noted that H812 cards known as Welton Cigarettes use the same players and poses as N167 with no known differences or anything to suggest that they werent also made in 1886.To me,and im not a rookie collector,i have no reason to believe if you wanted a rookie card[not cabinet] of players that appear in all 3 of those sets any one of them would be considered a legit rookie
according to Lew Lipsets book none of the NY players have copyright dates and they are all studio portraits.The philadelphia players are all outdoor shots and have 1887 copyright lines.I have only seen a few of the NY players and none of them had copyright dates at all
In reality if you ask me theres 2 different kalamazoo sets[for players cards that is,not counting cabinets].Its not like the old judges or t206s where they were produced over years and some cards are in more than one series of printing.These cards seem to have been a NY teams set in 1886 and a Philly teams set the following year
1- 1886 players vs 1887 players with their right team
2- studio portraits vs outdoor action poses
3-copyright dates vs no copyright dates
4 no crossover cards or updated player/team changes
This message has been edited by z28jd on Dec 18, 2004 12:35 PM
I don't mind, but if we can use a reverse example to support the "traded"
December 18 2004, 1:30 PM
(Hee!) idea, there are several Old Judges of Kelly with Chicago--and he was out of there in '86.
As far Wagner not being great in his first few years--o yes he was! From the minute he joined the major leagues (I looked it up when we were picking teams by decades, and I wanted to use Wagner for the 1890s).
The players in N28 are as follows
Charles Bennett-same team in 87 and 88
John Ward-same team both years
Tim Keefe-same
Joe Mulvey-same
Cap Anson-same
Jack Glasscock-same
Bob Caruthers-sold to brooklyn on december 13,1887 from st louis
Charles Comiskey-same team
Mike Kelly-same team,joined boston feb 16th,87
John Clarkson- changed to boston on april 3rd of 1888
Since Caruthers is pictured in street clothes with no team designation you would have to go by the latest date possible picturing a guy with a team designation,meaning the Clarkson card was made after 4/3/88 and all the others should fall into this category as well.It could be at the time they didnt have a Caruthers picture with him on Brooklyn so they used street clothes
Several different Brooklyn teams over the years have worn "checked" uniforms like the "street clothes" that you show Carruthers wearing in that card...
so maybe that IS supposed to be him in an 1888 Brooklyn uniform??
I agree with you. The N28's MUST have come out AFTER April 3, 1888.
N167 Old Judge, Kalamazoo Bats Portraits (NY), and Welton Cigars would all qualify as Rookie Cards. I think that Jay and Keith Olberman may be hoarding all of the Kalamazoo Bats cards. I was the underbidder on the trimmed Kalamazoo Bats Keefe in the Mastro Collectors Auction. In hindsight, I wish I had bid higher, knowing how rare they are
If you consider the Henry Reccius Wagner to be Wagner's Rookie Card, then you really can't consider the E107 Breisch Williams Cy Young to be Young's Rookie Card (as you do on your website). The Just So Tobacco Young is every bit as legitimate (and probably more so, since it is from a set) than the Reccius card. The fact that you don't own the Just So Young is not a sufficient enough answer to ignore it. I think you need to continue to search for an E107 Breisch Williams Wagner to hedge your bets. If the E107 Cy Young is a Rookie Card, then so is the E107 Honus Wagner.
The Just So Cy Young card exists, and it is owned by a collector who has no interest in getting it slabbed, so that isn't going to happen. It didn't end up in the Standard Catalog due to speculation. I have an article that talks about it's discovery that I can fax to you if you are interested. It has a picture of the Young card, though what I have is a copy, so it is crude. I have produced a mock of what the Just So Cy Young looks like below. You must realize that this is your lamest excuse yet.
My excuse is "lamer" than a mocked-up Cy Young card you threw together with photo-shop and a laser printer?? HA!
Did I say anything about your excuse for not considering the Reccius Wagner to be a "real" rookie card -- even though your excuse is solely motivated by your desire to protect the importance of your E107 Wagner?
Aren't you the very person who is paying a professional organization to essentially CREATE an entire "Just So" Burkett card by using an Actress card and a portion of a Burkett card?
You can't possibly think that those same experts couldn't have used the SAME METHOD to CREATE a bogus "Just So" Cy Young card.
After all ... they could have used ANY image of Young that they wanted, since NO OTHER SUCH CARDS existed for comparison sake.
Remember ... making a counterfeit card is a LOT easier when there is NOTHING that has to be copied.
I'm not questioning the importance of the Reccius Wagner or the importance of the E107 Wagner. The importance of the E107 Wagner is not affected by whether or not you or others consider it to be a Rookie Card. It's significance is that it is the most important player from what many consider to be the most important post 1900 set.
Both of the Wagner cards can be considered Rookie Cards, depending on one's own definition. I stated earlier that this is subjective. My only point was that if someone considers the Reccius Wagner to be a Rookie Card (which it very well may be), then the Just So Cy Young (which is definitely real) has to also be considered a Rookie Card. If you choose to consider the E107 Young to be a Rookie Card, then the E107 Wagner is as well. I just don't see a grey area here. It is black & white.
someone takes an old image of Cy Young and a real Old Judge card and sends them to the professional restorers to CREATE an 1890 Old Judge rookie card of Cy Young.
I am just VERY skeptical of a lot of these "mystery" collectors who have some fabulous items but don't want them slabbed and authenticated.
It just sounds pretty "hokey" that someone can own a baseball card that is worth $100,000...
which means that it is probably INSURED...
and I don't think insurance companies are real keen on insuring pieces of cardboard for $100,000 without having them AUTHENTICATED.
There are LOTS of collectors who were around before the grading companies, who just don't believe in them. It took me several years to come around.
I can almost guarantee you that the owner of the Just So Young (and 4BH Kelly, P&S Atlantics, P&S Creighton, etc. - what a collection) has insurance on his collection.
I will post a jpeg of the Just So article when my free space clears up.
I agree that the N28 set was not issued until 1888. It is amazing that the 1887 date was used for so long. My eary Sports Collector Bibles list 1888 as the date for the N29 set, but does not list a date for the N28 set. Instead it just labels the N28 set as being the "first series" from which people probably assumed it was issued a year before the "second series" N29 set.
I remember seeing a picture of the Just So Cy Young in either SCD or the Trader Speaks. (If my mind is not failing me) I believe that it was discovered in the same group that included many of the other nice examples that are known today. I think that several of these were one of a kind (like the Young), but the find also included several players (Boyd, Childs, McKean?) that were already known. The examples of these players matched up perfectly with the known examples, which makes the chance of them being counterfeit very remote.
Also, if the Just So of Cy Young is in the collection that I think that it may be in, it will never come up for sale. Also, if I am right on my assumption of where the card is, its owner is much more knowledgable than any grader at either PSA or SGC.
Lstly, congratulations on the Reccius Wagner. It is an important card.
there are a lot of oldtime collections which contain many key cards and/or unique items that have not and never will see a grading company slab for a variety of reasons, 1st and foremost these collectors do not intend to sell, EVER! 2nd they could care less what some grading company put on a sticker, they enjoy them as they are and i will tell you some are not very well displayed or protected(direct sun, PVC, etc).
now i know that as some point this material may see the markets and get slabbed, but i think you'll find 99.9% of it is totally original. i would not let the keeler cabinet or andy's restoration lead you to believe that old time collectors drawers are breaming with put together rarities.
and to answer your last part, most of these old time collections are not insured(not a wise idea) as they were not valuable when collected 20-40 years ago and even to this day some of the collectors have no real idea of their holdings.
to wit: the oregon find of old judges. think they would have sought out lloyds of london before they sold these, hell! they almost threw them away.
most of the just so's were in a group that came into a show in ohio, it may have been the old stongsville? show. i know a collector/dealer that was there and did not have the cash or forsight to buy them and is still kicking himself to this day.
I may not have a huge important collection like yourself with lots of one-of-a-kind items. But I have to disagree with you. I’ve been collecting for years and by the time I was 14 I had over half of the T206 set along with a host of other harder to find pre-war items. Up until getting back into the hobby about 2 yrs ago I never owned a graded card. In fact the only graded cards I own are the ones I have bought in the past few years. I’m sure there are many huge old time collections with very rare items that reside in them. I started in the 80’s as a kid with no budget and I was able to put together a sizable collection (with some luck) imagine what the people who started 20yrs before me managed to put together. I’m on the lower end of the scale but if little old me with no money could put together a sizeable collection why cant you believe the older collectors out there could have some amazing stuff.
I’ve been to your website many times and love your collection I’m not sure who’s life I fantasize more about living your no budget card collecting or Hugh Heffner. You have some statements on your cards about them being the highest graded, or the finest example in the world. I’m sure if many of these collectors who you don’t believe exists went to grading companies you would have to redo your site.
By the way you can get insurance without having your cards graded I did.
I guess that I am one of the "lucky few" who know the identity of the mystery collector. However, I have never spoken to him (I'd love to someday), nor have I had the priviledge (sp) of viewing his collection (also hope to someday).
Just So Tobacco Cy Young:
- The owner of the card is far more knowledgable about scarce vintage cards than anyone at any of the grading companies. Also, I believe that several hobby heavyweights (Barry Sloate?, etc) have viewed the Just So Young in person, so it does exist.
G&B Spaulding:
- The owner of this card has more G&B's in his collection than all of the grading companies have seen, COMBINED. He has to be the expert on this set. I also know that one of the most respected "dealers/collectors" in the hobby handled this card once. This person also knows MUCH MORE about vintage cards than everyone at the grading companies. I believe that the deal was private, so I will refrain from using his name here.
One Last Point:
- Don't put too much stake in the Grading Companies. They serve a useful purpose, but there are MANY Collectors (and many who post on this board) who have far more vintage card knowledge than the grading companies will ever have.
I also collected old cards back in the years before grading companies existed...
and a lot of them turned out to be "trimmed" or "restored" when they were sent in for grading a few decades later.
Wouldn't it be incredibly naive to think that people were not TRIMMING cards to make them look better even as far back as 1909??
How about in 1929? 1959? Of course they did.
I'm just saying that SOME percentage of ungraded cards out there have GOT to have "problems" that would keep them from being slabbed and which would reduce their values significantly.
THIS DOES NOT mean that I wouldn't LOVE to have some of those cards (like Andy's trimmed "Just So" Burkett)... but it does explain why some valuable cards will NEVER get slabbed and therefore authenticated.
I agree with you about many vintage collections containing trimmed cards in them. Lew Lipset sold a collection of vintage cards a couple of years ago where the cards were trimmed decades ago in order to fit into display pages.
I do not think that there are many outright counterfeit cards in these collections. In fact, I do not think that there are that many counterfeit cards in the hobby other than the reprint that were made by TCMA, Dover, Fritsch, etc. Generally, these are pretty easy for an advanced collector to spot.
I have heard many horror stories where an advanced collector had their cards graded only to find that their T205 Cobb had its corner colored in. I am not aware of any instances where an knowledgable collector had a fake card in their collection, though I am sure that it has happened.
My point is, I can see your concern about the condition of some of these legendary hobby rarities, but I would bet that the amount of outright fakes is extremel small.
The simple fact of the matter is that 99% of the people who visit my website have NEVER seen a baseball card older than 1952...
and all think that my Sammy Sosa or A-Rod cards are the most valuable.
They have absolutely no idea what the little black-and-white "photo thingies" of old people in funny outfits are....
so I have to make the vintage cards interesting and exciting to them.
After visiting my site, they have a newfound appreciation for VINTAGE baseball card collecting and they finally understand how grown men (and Julie) can be so wrapped up in it!!
Just visited your web site for the first time. A very impressive collection. My favorites have to be the Shoeless Joe bat, and the Wagner card.
If you find another cabinet card with Spalding and Wright on it wiull you keep it and this way have separate rookie cards for them? (Outside of getting the G&B Spalding).
Once again, a mighty collection; thanks for sharing it with everyone.
No ... that's Elmer FOSTER ... who played for "New York" in 1886, took 1887 off apparently ... then played agains for New York in 1888 and 1889.
What John was saying earlier in this thread is that Elmer only played for the NY METS in 1886 ... and then returned with the NY GIANTS in 1888 (on the Hess card)
It was Tom FORSTER (with an extra "R") who ONLY played for the New York Mets in 1886 and then NEVER played for ANY team from New York ever again.
This message has been edited by HalleyGator on Dec 18, 2004 10:53 PM This message has been edited by HalleyGator on Dec 18, 2004 10:49 PM
Since the n172 Old Judge set was issued over a few years -- 1887-90, I believe -- and different versions of players were issued of players during that time (some with team changes as well) it stands to reason that certain Old Judge's might be Rookies while others are effectively the first ever "traded/update" cards.
For example, HOFers Clarkson, Kelly*, Thompson and McCarthy all switched teams during this time and I believe are pictured with both the earlier and later team in the Old Judge set: Clarkson and Kelly are shown with both Chicago and Boston; Thompson with Detroit and Philadelphia; and McCarthy with both Philadelphia and St. Louis. In each case, assuming the Old Judge is deemed the players Rookie card only the card showing the player on the first team would really be the "Rookie card". It would also be the case that any Player's League card would not be a Rookie if there is another card of that player in the set that does not indidcate a Players League affiliation since the Players League only came into existence following the 1889 season.
______________________________________________________________________
* Kelly cards with Chicago but identifying him as "$10,000 Kelly" must have been issued after Chicago sold him to Boston for $10,000. Otherwise, the "$10,000" is meaningless and would not have been printed on the card. (As a lawyer I am required to have a footnote).
Hal--Let me put one of the discussions to rest. I know who has, and have seen, the Just So Cy Young. It is undoctored and beautiful. I also believe that Giant/Met K-Bats were a different issue than the Phillies/Athletics K-Bats.
No, what you saw was the "D. T. Young" card that came in the "Just So" set.
Everyone knows that "Down Town Young" was just a journeyman second-sacker who hit a buck-forty-eight and got send down from Cleveland to Toledo at the end of the 1893 season.
I don't really think of Hanlon's Old Judge (or Sparky Anderson's 1959 Topps card for that matter) as his "Rookie Card", because he plainly wasn't a Hall of Fame player. He was a Hall of Fame manager who had a fair playing career before Managing. The same would hold for, among others, Connie Mack, Tommy Lasorda and Casey Stengel.
Obviously, as with all things Rookie card related great minds may reasonably differ...
You have to give Hanlon a little credit, he may be in the HOF for his managing accomplishments, but he was a solid player as well. Over his 13 year career he managed to finish top 5 in the League at least once for walks, stolen bases, & home runs. He was a solid player / team captain during his playing days. Give him a little love, certainly a better player than the other HOF managers you've listed.
"The Old Perfesser" wasn't a great player (certainly not HOF caliber), but he was more than serviceable. He was a good fielder (he personally taught Mickey Mantle how to play the outfield wall caroms in Ebbetts Field before the Yakns played the Dodgers there in the World Series) and he was a great World Series performer himself.
Plus, how can you not love a guy who comes up with quotes like:
"Being with a woman all night never hurt no professional baseball player. It's staying up all night looking for a woman that does him in."
Should the 1914 Baltimore News Babe Ruth card be considered his rookie? Although it shows him on his minor league team, he spent more than half the year in the Big Leagues.
Hey guys- let me yet again clear up some of the mysteries of the endlessly debated Cy Young Just So. Yes, it does exist, I have both held it and have a photocopy of it. The hoard of Just So's that it came with ( a total of seven) was purchased by this "mystery" collector after he read an article about them in SCD and hounded the family for years until they finally agreed to sell him all seven. Since he is a good friend of mine he consigned the other six to one of my 1998 auctions and five of them ended up in one collection; it would have been part of the "Southern Gentleman" collection that Mastro had in 2000 but they were sold privately by the owner before the auction. They are now dispersed around the hobby.
Also, disparaging the validity of the cards in my friend's great collection because they have not been slabbed is a silly and fallacious statement. He has been both a sophisticated and knowledgable collector for his entire life and believes that he can make his own determination about whether his cards are both authentic and untampered. I know them well and can trace most of them back to their previous owners. I can tell you they are all real and those with obvious and visible flaws- he knows that the Creighton and Brooklyn Atlantics are trimmed- are no secret to anyone. They don't need slabs that read "authentic." THEY ARE AUTHENTIC, no more need be said. And interestingly, cards are not even the focus of this great collection- they might be just the tip of the iceberg of perhaps the greatest historical collection ever assembled.
I hope those who are doubting the authenticity of the Cy Young are doing so tongue in cheek, because take it from me- and I've been around the baseball card block a few times- it's real and it's spectacular (I know at least a few Seinfeld fans get my drift).
Barry, those are the cruelest words in the English language. For those of you who are not Seinfeld fans, "they're real and they're spectacular" translates roughly to "they'll never be yours, you can't touch, and you can't even look."
You are correct. It refers equally to both the Cy Young Just So and to Teri Hatcher; they are both unattainable. But at least you can see her in all her glory in "Desperate Housewives" (not a very good show, but she is as beautiful as ever).
I would post pictures of the N. Y. Giant HOFers from the K-Bat set(Ewing, Keefe, Ward, O'Rourke and Connor) but they live in the bank. There are pictures of several in the Copeland catalog, including the unique Ewing and Ward. Most of the N. Y. Giant cards came from an amazing find by Ron Oser. BTW, there is no known Welch although there was a Jos Wood image from which a card could have been made. Perhaps one will someday be found.
As I remember it, it was they are real, they are spectacular, and they could have been yours if you had just believed, but now you will never see or touch them.
This message has been edited by PeterWThomas on Dec 19, 2004 7:25 PM
Hal,
Visited your web site again and couldn't find the 1932 U.S Caramel Lindy Lindstrom card. Looks like someone hacked your site and replaced his rookie card with a measly PSA 7 1933 Goudey. Thought since you are a lawyer, you can investigate and have charges brought against the cur that did this. LOL
This message has been edited by otherstuff on Dec 19, 2004 11:27 PM
Consider, also, the N162 Set is Really issued in1889
August 21 2005, 9:45 AM
KEVIN CUMMINGS
Casey hit the very 1st and 2nd HRs in Yankee Stadium in
World Series play (1923). Also, Stengel has the highest career World Series
batting average = .393 of any major leaguer.
LEON and HAL
I might add, my research in writing an article on the GOODWIN CHAMPIONS
(N162) in VCBC (Issue #27), May-June 2001, leads me to believe this set
was really issued in 1889 (not 1888). The key to this theory is the Fred
Dunlap card that states he is the Pittsburg Captain. Dunlap was traded to
Pittsburg (from Detroit) during the 1888 season.
These beautiful cards must of been produced very late in 1888.
Also, I have the Album (ACC A36) that depicts all 50 of these cards, and
it is dated 1889.
Hal--Welcome back. I can't speak for others but I missed your posts. Two points to note about the dates of vintage sets:
1-N Y Kalamazoo Bats are 1886 cards and thus may be contemporaneous with N167s
2-N172s were first issued in late 1886. Their issue was after N167s but still prior to all the "new" 1887 material. I have outlined the reasons why I believe this in a prior post.
Current Topic - N28 Allen & Ginters NOT from 1887 ??
Anyone need a kidney? I'm selling one of mine for the small price of a Near Mint John Clarkson Old Judge card - or possibly an Allen & Ginter Cap Anson.
