OK some answers to follow
 

SUNDAY.
Jeff (the OP) just wrote me. He said someone made him aware of some conspiracy theories coming out of the posting. He is away on vacation and asked if I would post that he will respond on Sunday/Monday. I know nothing beyond that...…..

Thank you for the update, Henry. I'm not sure what he could say to clear it all up with a post or two. I see it more as a mystery as opposed to a conspiracy. A conspiracy is when you question something widely accepted like the BSF.

Even if he brings it to the National and shows it to Jonathan, he has to address all of the concerns about the back and the interior size of the image and all of that.
I assume the McClellan has an ad back? I'm not familiar with the McClellan find, all my books talk about it before it was found. How much did it sell for, who found it, where did they find it. etc...

With this close of a detailed look that RC provided I think it can be ascertained that the Buchner Boy has either Small Pox or Measles. Perhaps Frank, MD. can make the final determination.

Brian

That's basically the three generations of lithography right there.

Buchner - essentially hand done stippling for everything. If there's a dot pattern, it's almost entirely random. Fairly transparent solid colors for mixing.

T206 - A bit of a hybrid. Modern style halftone in black, but with backgrounds that are mostly the same as the earlier style. The modern halftone would have been generated photographically with a screen. Most use more than 6 colors

78 Topps - Nearly all halftone, generated photographically using color filters. Only four colors, CMYK and a finer tighter screen than they used in 1910. A few solid areas, mostly borders etc. But those are done on the same negative as the original screen.

Newer stuff will have screening that's even finer, but it's essentially the same.

There's subtle stuff you can't see well if at all in scans, like how thick/thin the ink lays on the paper, or which layers are over what other layers. Sometimes that's even hard to tell in person.

I originally started this thread to try and figure out what a handful of un-checklisted N284 Buchner (like) cards might be. Yes…there were 3…and I randomly chose the Toole card as the example to share. My focus is non-sports, but I like Buchner cards in general, so when I came across this baseball grouping I was interested in learning more about them especially since the lot may include a few cards (or cut-outs) that nobody has seen before.

The total collection had over 60 cards in it. All cards had evidence of album removal, usual age toning, and as an overall group just looked right to me. All but 5 of the cards were non-sports. The 5 sports cards looked like N284’s; 1 with the standard printed back, 4 with blank backs. 2 of the 5 cards appear on current N284 checklists.

As I mentioned above, my original post was in search of information. I never said that the Toole card was mine. The collection of 60+ cards were a part of a smaller, regional, usually non-card auction house’s “active” offering. I know that others on this board were aware of the active listing status through pm, but I wasn’t going to out this active listing in this thread. I’m sure you get that.

All I had to go by were the same pictures you looked at (plus the others I did not post), some basic size and provenance info passed along by the auction house, and your expert opinions. I did not have a dog in this fight and could have easily opted out of participating in the auction if there was clear, convincing evidence of “fake” work in-play.

I wasn’t convinced of that, and actually think that one poster here may have had ulterior motives, working really hard to convince the Net54 baseball community that the Toole card wasn’t from the late 1880’s. I suspect that he was aware of the active listing.

Below are pictures of all 5 Buchner (or Buchner like) cards or cut-outs that were in the auction. Originally the auction house only posted one backside pic, and that was of the printed back, so I assumed wrong in my original post that the others were the same. I’ve also included a few of the non-sport images.

Jeff

Jeff -

Thanks a lot for clarifying and adding some context here. The ongoing auction obviously makes it clear why you could not respond sooner.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I only see one of the five cards (Peoples) that is cataloged in comparing the cards posted on OC's site here. The Peoples is the lone checklisted card that I see on OC's page and that makes sense given that his is the one with the ad back (assuming that one belongs to him). Which is the second card you believe is currently checklisted?

I did not suspect foul play here before and, as stated, I disagreed with others and believed the Toole was probably legit. Seeing the others here with some better images only reinforces that for me. My guess is that these are among the many poster cuts that have been found to date that I mentioned earlier in this thread. Like I stated then, there are several different types of them and we can't possibly presume to know everything about them. Appreciate you sharing them on the board.

I was wrong. You were able to clear it up with one post. The Smiling Mickey Welch has an "A" series ad back and is unknown. Am I seeing that correctly? It would be worth a lot of money. Did you win the lot? Jonathan? Wish I could have bid. Rob

The catalogued one has the ad back I think now. The Peoples one...

Both Peoples and Phillips appear on the Old Cardboard site checklist. Peoples is the card with backside advertising.

(104) Jimmy Peoples Catcher Brooklyn A
(106) Bill Phillips 1st Base Brooklyn A

Yes...I did win the auction. I'd be happy to let Jay take a look at the group and report back to the forum once I get them in hand.

Jeff

The blank back ones will match up with the McClellan, if it's still around, is my guess. I would guess the McClellan should be checklisted with these as some unknown, semi-related set of their own, as said before, probably ad poster cuts from the period.

I have not received the Slocum book, I assume there is not a picture of the back of the McClellan in it. This board would be hoppin' if they were T206 like the ones Olbermann or Charlie Sheen or whomever has...Rob

Congratulations.

Hi Jeff - you are correct that Phillips is checklisted as a player. But the pose on yours is different from the one in the set with the ad back. See below for the pic from the OC website.

I would suspect that, like the others, these were poster cuts that were not issued. Thus, you've got four new poses. Really great stuff.

And Rob - based on what the other thread said about the McClellan, you may very well be right. Would be great if the owner of that card pictured found this thread and mentioned it.

Buchner like cards
 

These cards use the same pose as the "spats" players in the set, as follows:
Welch is Keefe's pose
Clark is Kelly's pose
Phillips is Anson's pose
This is far out, but maybe someone from New York and some how connected with Buchner was not happy that star pitcher Welch was left out of the set and disappointed that there were only 3 Brooklyn players were in the set; and no I don't believe in Bigfoot. :)
Anyway, very interesting cards

First I did not know the cards were offered in an auction and I did not bid on them. Second As Buchner said they do not appear to have a direct relationship to Gold coins. I dont believe in bigfoot either but do agree that a New York based firm might have used these in some sort of ad or perhaps were pictures in a periodical or booklet. And given that all the players they used were not in the Buchner set might have given them the license to produce them. Again all guesses.
The Smiling Mickey would have significant value if it were a gold coin but again it dose not look to have a direct connection to the set.
Can you post a high res scan of the Welch and the card from the OP?

One last question are the 4 cards that are not Gold ch coins all the same size?

Jonathan, I believe your motives have always been pure. When you pointed out that the Toole did not fit the set, I took a 2nd look and pointed to the McClellan, which I now believe to be not part of the N284 set. I think the OP is still waiting on the cards and plans to show them to JayM. At least it didn't end like the movie "Shane". Rob (The Toole still is an unknown pose.)

I will wait until the high res scans are posted to point out that these 4 cards have as many differences as similarities to the poses of the Gold coins. But anyone can bring up the Keefe and the Welch side by side and see that the Welch lacks the detail of the Keefe.
Since the Auction house stated that the group came from the same book are there any pictures of this group from the original album showing then still attached.

Buchner Gold Coin
 

I've learned a lot from this thread, one of my biggest takeaways is.. when it says "This set is not popular with collectors." in the SCD, they ain't joking. This thread will race a locked tpg discussion thread to page 2. I think I'm the only semi-pro to chime in about any of it. Can you imagine if someone discovered a handful of blank-backed t207's with new subjects? People don't even collect T207's and people would sign up on here to chime in. Rob

Yeah, it's definitely not for everyone, Rob. I enjoy any 19th century lithographic stuff of major leaguers so I'm a big fan of it. As you suggest, there would be more interest if this was T205 or T206. Think back to the T206 proofs that were known not to have been issued. I wouldn't call these proofs and think they are poster or advertising cuts like any number of the blank backs out there. But even in that case, there would be a ton of interest if they were from a more popular issue.

I found these two scans last night. Look at the trimmed Keefe it has a blank back and I don't believe it is in a holder. Compare it to the Gold Coin Keefe. And then these two to the Smiling Mickey Welch. I will say imho all three were drawn by different hands. And yet the second blank backed Keefe was sold as a Gold Coin. By guess Who...PWCC. It is easy to say that any blank backed card that is similar to a Gold coin is "from an Ad" but this thread is asking the question is this card an uncataloged Buchner. When there are solid examples of Buchner Ad's and they use the same images as the card.
The Welch and the trio that accompany it are interesting cards. But they are not Buchners.

Yeah, we can agree to disagree, Jonathan. All of these were found in the same album with other period items. Assuming the racing cards are legit, the Buchner Peoples is legit, and the others are legit, the idea that these are just some random drawn fantasy cards out of the blue to throw buyers off just seems like a big stretch.

I'll respect the opinions of others here but I don't see it. I'd have gladly bid on that album.

hmmmm
 

real and not contrived items but possibly not specific to Gold Coin. I have a couple of examples of non-sports "N" cards that are replicated on unattributed advertisements for a clothing line and another for racing silks....Just like going to a jobber today - the lithographer would have many generic plates and images available for use - "stock images".
A poster cut (or a cut from any medium) is just that at least to me. If it comes from a Gold Coin poster it's a GC poster cut. If it comes from a Duke tobacco album it's a Duke album cut. Not proven to be represented by something specifically Gold Coin makes these just pieces of paper cut from something with a base ball player on it. I have a few different renditions and iterations of the Old Planter (Ginter icon) from the company and some unrelated (including an 1800 sterling and enamel matchsafe with the image - it's from a painting). I still want them as part of my collection but they are only what they are and nothing more. I suppose the next step would be the "what is a card" discussion.

KNEW Jeff might have posted the wrong back :D

OK Jon. Now at least we are getting to the reasonable discussion. Hard to accept your argument that there were made for some illicit purpose by someone will evil in their heart or whatever conspiracy might be in your mind. It's obvious whatever they are that they are contemporaneous to the other things found in the book in style and substance. Sometimes like with the 1880's Between the Acts cards and contemporaries - MULTIPLE LITHOGRAPHERS were used -0 In cigar boxes and cigarette packs (and other printed ephemeral situations) SIMULTANEOUS requests may go out to different companies for their take on a given campaign (therefore different "hands"). This makes the most sense to me. To suggest they are anything but old and original lacks any real basis for me as I expressed much earlier. I DO appreciate that you are looking out for "us" - the collectors...…..Whether here or at an airport we should always point out something we feel is suspicious :-)

The devil is in the details. The OP said they were in a group of 66 cards. All had back damage. He never said they were all in an album together I asked specifically if there were pictures of all the cards in an album together so far he has not replied. BUT He stated clearly that was an assumption on his part that they came from the same source. Even if they are period that dose not make them Buchners. You keep drawing a clear line saying they are Gold Coins cut from a Buchner Ad. That is the same mistake PWCC made with their Keefe. But there is Hard evidence that the Ads used the same cards and drawings as the known checklisted cards. If you cannot see the differences in the cards you can say we agree to disagree.
But when I bring up clear documented Facts and you bring up opinion that is something different.
The question was raised is are these cards uncataloged N284'S And I dont see any evidence that they are.
And given that they are all NY area players and the Keefe again a NYC player but from different source and drawn differently says that in the NYC area cards similar to Gold Coins were produced When ? By Who?

not sure who specifically said this??
 

"Even if they are period that dose not make them Buchners. You keep drawing a clear line saying they are Gold Coins cut from a Buchner Ad."

Maybe someone else - I'm not going back again. I feel that they are old and original representations of a base ball player in similar design to the Gold Coin issues. I'm sorry if I ever gave any other impression. My smoker's heads from Goodwin/Old Judge had two different lithographers. THERE ARE SUBTLE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THEM but they ostensibly look the same.

Whether they were found together or not only adds a tiny bit of "provenance" or reliability to the equation of real or contrived. For me an actual connection for that player to a Gold Coin product would be necessary to call it a Gold Coin anything.....

Thanks for the on-going feedback guys. I will verify size and post high definition scans of the requested cards once I have them in-hand. I have no pictures of the original album that the collection was in.

Anson – nice write-up about the subtle differences in the supposed “generic” N284 poses. The examples you show clearly document that the artistic details (or lack thereof) change significantly from player to player, as did the foreground and background features. I like the with or without mustache, and even mustache type variations. Page link below for anyone interested.

https://prewarcards.com/2018/03/13/1...tobacco-cards/

Also, don’t be disheartened by the lack of main thread responses. I have had received direct pm inquiries about the cards.

Jeff

Thanks for the kind words, Jeff - I have no doubt you've received inquiries on them. As stated, I would have been glad to win them as they are no doubt legitimate in my book. Congrats -

124 responses are a heck of a lot more than when I posted a detailed re-examining of the E91 American Caramel sets, another group that really lacks popularity among collectors, so I think this thread has done quite well in stirring up at least a little bit of interest in this set.

I know I appreciate it...carry on.

Brian

Agreed Brian,

I've thoroughly enjoyed this thread, both sides arguments and opinions. I wish all the details were known at this time but it seems we will all need to be patient as more is unveiled. When Jeff gets the cards in hand, posts better scans, hopefully gets them in front of Jay to examine in person. These things will come in time, but it's fascinating to follow all the debate so far.

Keefe
 

I'm confused (which isn't hard to do), are you saying that the larger blank back card of Keefe is not a Buchner? If its thick its from a ad poster, if thin not sure, but the thick and thin one are the same drawing. The poster "spats" were done by a different artist than the regular issued "spats."

Cards Arrived in Today's Mail
 

Hi. The cards arrived in today's mail. Very pleased! Hi resolution (600 DPI) of Welch and Toole attached. Also included is a side by side of all 4 to show any size variations. If Net54 restricts the size of the scans, feel free to pm me your email address and I will send pics direct.

Jay - please pm regarding your schedule to meet.

Jeff

Call me crazy but I'm just not seeing what I expect to see in a Buchner. The Peoples card you posted above looks like a Buchner to me. It's got what I call the "cream" you usually see in the coloration. I suppose these cards could be faded or dirty, but they look off to me still.

That printing does look old.

So the question would be if they are Buchners, or something that was done at the time that was nearly the same.

1887 Buchner N284-3 Gold Coin Jockey Set Lawrence Ural #29
 

A bit off topic here. Does anyone here have or know where I could get a Lawrence Ural card? Last year I learned he's my great great grandfather and I've been trying to acquire his trading card.

Thanks,
Michael Ural

1887 Buchner N284-3 Gold Coin Jockey Set Lawrence Ural #29