1888 Brooklyn Program, REA vs. Hunt...huh??
 

Auctions for two 1888 Brooklyn (AA) programs closed recently. First, an example in good condition sold over the weekend for $350 by REA. Then, yesterday a very similar program in considerably lesser condition hammered down at $1074 by Hunt Auctions. (Prices do not include buyers premium). Pictures of the two programs are below, the example with the tape being the Hunt offering. How do we explain triple-the-price for an item in lesser condition? My thoughts on a possible explanation:

1. Both contain great ads below the scorecard for Goodwin & Co. baseball card product. The REA ad is for N172 Old Judge cards. The Hunt ad is for N173 cabinet cards AND contains a reference to Gypsy Queens. Is it this ad, which contains greater detail, that gives the Hunt example the extra value? The REA ad, however, does pack a wallop graphically.

2. Is it something about the player shown on the cover lithograph of the Hunt example? Is he an identifiable player? Something to do with the catcher's mask?

3. On the REA program, the lineups of both teams are neatly pasted down over the original printed card. Does this devalue an 1888 baseball program? (In my opinion it makes it more interesting).

4. Is it something about the game itself, or a player in the lineup in the Hunt example?

5. The vagaries of auctions?

I'm thinking #5, but I may be missing something obvious. Can someone help me out here?

Excellent question. The program market is pretty thin and prices tend to vary pretty widely. I would guess that the Hunt program sold for a lot more because the buyer had an interest in Cincinnati. The style of the Cincinnati program with the more detailed ad may have also contributed to this. It is interesting that coupons that could be redeemed for N173s were found in Gypsy Queen packs and this style may be scarcer than the other. I have three of the 1888 Brooklyn programs and two are the simple style and one is the more detailed style. Coincidentally, two of my programs are against Cincinnati and the other is against the Athletics, the same two teams as in your examples.

I think it just depends upon who sees it at the time, and who is bidding. As Jay said, the maket for these is thin. So if a prospective bidder or two fail to see it, the price realized can vary quite a bit.

That said... the REA example was a far better deal for the winner.

I I certinly agree that prices for scorecards can vary wildly. Especially for scorecards from the 1880's. And many variables come into play. Attractive covers, Teams loaded with Hall of famers, A specific player Like Ross Barnes ( shout to Gary P) And advertising attached to Baseball card issues.
That said I think the Hunt example sold very well and the Rea example a little soft. But the market for early scorecards has risen considerably in the past 3 years or so. Examples from the 1870's which are very scarce ( especially with preprinted lineups) from both the National Association and the National leauge have increased substantially. And scorecards from the early 1900's that tend to have a variety of very attractive covers have sold very well an example is the Brooklyn 1902 that sold in REA. There is no price guide or vcp for memorabilia just auction results that might not have any relevant comparisons.
But there is enough evidence out there so that we know any baseball scorecard before 1910 is scarce. And examples come up sporadically and all it takes is 2 collectors who want the same scorecard to drive the sale. But for now collectors who a patient can pick up some really nice scorecards at reasonable prices.
I picked up this Giants program in the past year and The 1879 program with a Rookie Pud Galvin 5 years ago here on BST. And reading the scorecards and researching the games, I continue to learn more about Baseball and fans relationship to it almost 150 years ago. And that is part of the fun of collecting scorecards.

I agree with Jay, Mark and Jonathan's posts, but for me, it's all about how well a program is scored.

In this case I also prefer the REA scorecard, but not because of any supposed "condition" issues to the Hunt program.

If the guy who scored the REA program had instead scored the Hunt program, I would prefer the Hunt program, even though it's in seemingly lesser condition.

Doug

I agree with Doug. Unlike the simply scored Hunt scorecard, there are far more details in the REA scorecard that may not exist anywhere else.

Rob M

Reading the posts from Doug and Rob reminded me of a 1910 Giants vs Cardinals scorecard I picked up about 2 years ago. It came with the newspaper article from next days NY paper about the game. The scorecard told a story about a Giants win where they came back from down 4 to win in the 9th. But the paper told of the fans on a cold September day quite for the first couple of innings then razzing the home team when they gave up some runs and left too many runners on base. It even described the chants and songs they sung. And how when they mounted their comback the chants had changed and the razzing was now directed at the Red Birds. Made some things about NY fans seem eternal while adding sounds to the sights recorded in the scorebook. Thank you to Doug and Rob for reminding me that sometimes the scribbles in a scorebook can be the best part. Example I will use is this 1934 Tigers program where Ruth hit his 701st home run. (The scorecard for his 700th is exactly the same because he hit it the day before) but the writing on the cover is the prize. " Most exciting ball game I ever witnessed...etc." as the Tigers came back to win in the 9th 12 to 11 over the Yankees. You can tell from the handwriting how excited he and I am sure most of the crowd was at the end of that game. (I would have posted the giants Cards but I sold it to the great grandson of a cards player)

Jonathan- I am so grateful to have the scorecards you sold me. Now, you have to find me a few more!

The Hunt program also has the ink writing on it that doesn't look at all period.

That wouldn't necessarily bother me.

My interest in scored programs involves the "lives they have led", which is similar (maybe the same) as what Jonathan mentioned.

I think it's great that these historic Programs and Scorecards appeal to 3 distinctly different collector bases....

A. Those that covet and appreciate the historical aspects, and glean otherwise long-forgotten information from the scoring, notes and text.

B. Those who appreciate the illustration, beauty and artistry from an aesthetic display perspective.

C. Those who are fans of a certain team, for which they want to add something rare and unique to their Team Collection.

I suppose there is some overlap of all three... just a random and innocuous observation that hit me, based on these great posts.

Very true Mark. I found my niche in scorebooks as my biggest interest is in the game content. It doesn’t hurt that there isn’t a great deal of competition for them, unlike scorecards. My only pet peeve is that I prefer the scorebook to be the official team/game scorebook when possible or at least that of a sports writer. I will make an exception, however, depending on age or importance of a game or player.

Rob M

Scorebooks, or grouping of scoresheets from a single scorekeeper, can be amazing.

Just now noticing this thread. I very much enjoy these early scorecards and try to collect all the Detroit examples that surface. I also like the examples that advertise OJ cards and cabinets . . .

1887 Boston & New York
1888 New York & Brooklyn

The 1888 Brooklyn programs transition from merely advertising the photographs of every professional baseball player in each box of OJ Cigs (spring & early summer) to my favorite add in late summer that advertises the N173 redemption with 25 "slips" (coupons) found in boxes of OJ & GQ.

I was bidding on the REA scorecard, surprised there wasn't more competition. I was in lead until right before close and lost it. Would far rather the example found in Hunt, maybe next time. Either of these would have been my first non-Detroit scorecard but I really like the Goodwin adverts.

On a side note, GQ sold extremely well on west coast under west coast agent Mau Sadler & Co which did have their own coupon. These coupons are tough to find but are out there.

Need more clues to understand when and how the N162s were distributed. Perhaps both GQ and OJ distributed the N162s while still offering the N173 redemption in 1888. Could explain why 1888 N172s are so difficult. The theory then continues, that in 1889 Goodwin moved back to photo cards (N172s, easier to update team changes, cheaper than the color cards).

Excellent discourse. Just to add another variable: A second Brooklyn program from the lithographed player cover “series” sold in the same Hunt auction. The scorecard from that lot is below. This example, from 1887, also features a taped spine, no Old Judge ad, Hall of Famer Charlie Comiskey in the lineup for St. Louis, and is likely scored in the same hand as the 1888 Hunt example. It hammered at $202 and is what caused me to gut surmise that the Goodwin ad is what made the 1888 example sell for over $1000. But that does not explain the Hunt v. REA price gap. So Joe G:

...if you’d been aware of the Hunt 1888 example, would you have been in at over a thousand bucks? Or does Hunt have a customer base with deeper pockets? Or are we back to #5: the vagaries of auctions?

Yes.

Hello Joe J., I was aware of all the mentioned scorecards, although I didn't get an early bid in on the Hunt example. Had I been bidding on final night I would have dropped out well in advance of $1,000. Should another one surface I will likely be bidding but not too aggressively, while very neat they are neat core to my collection.

I do not believe Hunt has a customer base with deeper pockets, many examples could be cited that turns this scorecard example upside down. The Hunt example is the first time in a long time that the N173 Goodwin ad has appeared.