"1888" GOODWIN CHAMPIONS (N162) cards are actually an 1889 set

[tedzan]

OK, contrary to the thinking of a number of you guys on this forum....T206's are not my favorite cards. The N162 set is my favorite since I started collecting
these beautiful cards in the late 1980's. It is my opinion, the N162 cards are Sportscard's lithography at its absolute best. In the past 30 years, I have com-
pleted 3.4 sets in the process of upgraded the 50 cards in my #1 set. Now, this doesn't make me an expert on these 19th Century cards; and, I do not claim
to be one. However, I have studied many of the players in this set, and I am convinced that it was printed and issued in 1889. I will spare you all the "nitty-
gritty" that leads me to this conclusion. And, I'll leave you to ponder the following three arguments......


Major stars portrayed in the GOODWIN CHAMPIONS set

.

Although Fred Dunlap helped Detroit win the Championship in 1887, Detroit traded him to Pittsburgh for the 1888 season. He was the highest paid player in Major League BB
in 1887, and it is my understanding that is why he was traded. In 1888, Fred was the regular 2nd baseman for Pittsburgh. In 1889, besides playing 2nd base, in mid-season
Fred replaced Horace Phillips as Pittsburgh's manager. Note that his card identifies him as "DUNLAP, Capt., Pittsburgh".



The Certificates to obtain the GOODWIN CHAMPIONS Album (A36) refer to the Champions of 1888. Which ordinarily would suggest that the printing was in 1889.





The A36 Album from an aesthetic standpoint is the best there is in this hobby. I acquired this one 20+ years ago, and the inscription on it aroused my curiosity. I realize
this is just anecdotal.....but, had it been dated 1888, I would haven't given it a 2nd thought.





I look forward to hearing what your thoughts are regarding the year in which the N162 cards and the Album were issued ?


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[Joe_G.]

Hello Ted,

Always enjoy a 19th century thread. Seems dating sets has become a little more popular, a subject I enjoy.

You are at least partially right in that the A36 album could be ordered in 1889. It did however debut in 1888. There are seven known variations of redemption coupons with 4 issued in 1888 and another three issued in 1889. All of them offer the A36 album with exception of the first 1889 coupon which only touted the cabinets and upcoming round album (A35).

Regarding Dunlap, "Captain" and "Manager" are two different titles and were almost always two different people. The captain was typically a player, manager not. Dunlap became captain on the Pittsburgh team in 1888. Note this 1888 Old Judge as evidence (not mine although it is on my wantlist). I also have some newspaper photocopies that discuss him being named captain but it is easier to hyperlink to this 1888 OJ (this style OJ, Fb, date to 1888).

The real question is whether N162s, like the A36 album, were also distributed into 1889. To that question I do not have an answer although I think not. Goodwin was very careful to update N172s when players moved, accuracy seemed rather important to them. Brouthers would move from Detroit to Boston between 1888 and 1889 but we see no such update to his N162 card. (Yet that didn't stop Goodwin from offering albums that were then inaccurate; perhaps they continued to offer the album until printed supply ran out sometime in 1889. I note that Goodwin dropped the coupon count from 75 to 50 in 1889 to perhaps encourage the supply to be exhausted)

[barrysloate]

If these cards were popular, as they almost surely were, wouldn't it be logical that they would be distributed into a second year? Why give up a good thing. They may have printed more than they could have given out in 1888, so why not keep them coming?

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Joe_G.

Hello Ted,
Always enjoy a 19th century thread. Seems dating sets has become a little more popular, a subject I enjoy.

Regarding Dunlap, "Captain" and "Manager" are two different titles and were almost always two different people. The captain was typically a player, manager not.

Hi Joe

Pardon me for differing with you here......but, it appears to me that the titles "Captain" & "Manager" in that era were interchangeable. For example, SABR's bio on "King" Kelly states:
"Kelly was named captain and manager of the Boston Reds". We know Kelly was a playing-manager in 1890 in Boston. And, if I recall correctly, Kelly's N173 cabinet identifies him as:
Kelly, Capt.
Boston

And, of course this N173 is dated as an 1889 card. Or perhaps, is it possibly an 1890 issue ?

I bring up this possibility because of the intriguing story about the George Toffling proof card (page 69 in your OLD JUDGE book). Which raises the question>were some N173's issued
in 1890 ?

I still think the term "Capt." on the N162 card of Dunlap represents "Manager". As, I have not seen anything indicating he was the Pittsburgh team Captain in 1888.

N172, N173, etc., etc. cards of Anson identify him as "Capt."...... although he was a playing-manager from 1879 - 1898.


Take care my friend,


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[Joe_G.]

A little more background . . . captain does not = manager although a playing manager can be both.

It was an honor to be named team captain, typically a player with good skills, deep knowledge of the game, and well liked by players. If the manager happens to also be a player than you could have someone like Anson who was both captain and manager (manager has say in naming the captain).

In 1887, Detroit had Watkins as manager and Hanlon as captain (& center fielder), Dunlap was merely 2nd baseman. Dunlap was heavily recruited by Pittsburgh as the 1887 season came to a close. Dunlap would be signed by Pittsburgh one week after this late 1887 entry from the Pittsburgh Post with indications that they wanted him as captain.

Here is another entry before start of 1888 season in which he is referred to as captain. He would be known as Captain Dunlap his whole time with Pittsburgh. He would manage 17 games near the end of his stay but that had nothing to do with his title as Captain.

Dunlap would have 9 different N172 poses issued by Goodwin & Co. in 1888, all with "Capt. Dunlap" at nameplate.

[1880nonsports]

especially after they realized how much they were spending on promotional items -and redemptions as time went on - way more than the cost of the smokes and often exceeding 40% of operating budget. Think presidential heads base ball card series and many other advertising pieces of the 1880's and 1890's. Same thing with the T206 promotional ERA - generally extended deadlines and enhanced offerings were employed until they utilized and distributed what they had. Too bad there was no Job Lots or...…

Albums were expensive to produce. I can really only think of one time replacements were made - the Ginter Indian Chief album - although more likely it was something they fixed by a subsequent printing. Of course there could be others. Quite a few coupons were needed to secure

"Yet that didn't stop Goodwin from offering albums that were then inaccurate; perhaps they continued to offer the album until printed supply ran out sometime in 1889. I note that Goodwin dropped the coupon count from 75 to 50 in 1889 to perhaps encourage the supply to be exhausted) "

no guarantees whether written or implied

[tedzan]

Hi Joe

Thanks for that info regarding Fred Dunlap....very interesting.

So, I will delve back into my research and see what other bits of info I have that may prove my contention that the N162 cards and Album
may have been printed and issued in 1889.

Thanks again,


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[oldjudge]

[QUOTE=tedzan;1789223]

I bring up this possibility because of the intriguing story about the George Toffling proof card (page 69 in your OLD JUDGE book). Which raises the question>were some N173's issued
in 1890 ?


Ted-I saw your question about Toffling and I had to jump in. A Toffling N173 could have theoretically only been issued in 1889 (none was) because that was the only year he was slated to play in the Western Association. Goodwin issued cards for players who played in the Western Association, even if they had no prior Old Judge card. However, in 1890 Toffling played in the Central Interstate League. First, in 1890 Goodwin issued only NL and PL cards. Second, even if Goodwin employed the card issuance protocol that it did in 1889, Toffling could not have had a card since players in lower minor leagues only had team change cards issued, ie cards previously issued modified to reflect the new team. Toffling had no prior card.

[Joe_G.]

Ted, I appreciate the discussion. It may be surprising to some that the A36 album (based on N162s) was available in 1889 and on this point we agree . . . the album could be redeemed in 1889. I am however quite certain that the N162 cards and A36 album debuted in 1888. The only unknown to me is whether the N162 cards, like the album, were also issued in 1889. We may never know for sure but I keep looking for clues.

[SetBuilder]

While we're on the subject of OJ's (sorry if I'm hijacking your thread)...

Old Judge cards aren't albumen prints either.

They're much more primitive salt prints.

The price of eggs in 1887 was something like 20 or 30 cents per dozen, while the price of salt had fallen precipitously by 1887-88 to less than $1.00 a barrel.

It would've made no sense from an economic perspective to print cheapo giveaway cards using expensive albumen, which was used by high end photographers to make glossy high-resolution CDVs (think Matthew Brady...) instead of the much cheaper mixture of salt and water. Separating the egg whites from the yolk would have also added an extra step in the manufacturing process (unnecessary labor costs).

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by tedzan

I bring up this possibility because of the intriguing story about the George Toffling proof card (page 69 in your OLD JUDGE book). Which raises the question>were some N173's issued
in 1890 ?

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Ted-I saw your question about Toffling and I had to jump in. A Toffling N173 could have theoretically only been issued in 1889 (none was) because that was the only year he was slated to play in the Western Association. Goodwin issued cards for players who played in the Western Association, even if they had no prior Old Judge card. However, in 1890 Toffling played in the Central Interstate League. First, in 1890 Goodwin issued only NL and PL cards. Second, even if Goodwin employed the card issuance protocol that it did in 1889, Toffling could not have had a card since players in lower minor leagues only had team change cards issued, ie cards previously issued modified to reflect the new team. Toffling had no prior card.

Jay

I was fascinated by the George Toffling / N173 proof story.

Thanks for further elaborating on it.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by SetBuilder

While we're on the subject of OJ's (sorry if I'm hijacking your thread)...

Old Judge cards aren't albumen prints either.

They're much more primitive salt prints.

The price of eggs in 1887 was something like 20 or 30 cents per dozen, while the price of salt had fallen precipitously by 1887-88 to less than $1.00 a barrel.

It would've made no sense from an economic perspective to print cheapo giveaway cards using expensive albumen, which was used by high end photographers to make glossy high-resolution CDVs (think Matthew Brady...) instead of the much cheaper mixture of salt and water. Separating the egg whites from the yolk would have also added an extra step in the manufacturing process (unnecessary labor costs).

Not sure where you are getting your information, but Old Judges are albumen prints.

[SetBuilder]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Not sure where you are getting your information, but Old Judges are albumen prints.

How do you know?

[oldjudge]

Well I’ve handled a few albumen photographs over the years.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Jay

I was fascinated by the George Toffling / N173 proof story.

Thanks for further elaborating on it.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

It’s a fascinating card. I’m glad someone actually read what we wrote.

[SetBuilder]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Well I’ve handled a few albumen photographs over the years.

No way they used eggs.

Sorry, but they're not albumen.

[oaks1912]

Ted and Joe, I think that you're both right...Hear me out... The previous year (1887), Gypsy Queen cigarettes were introduced to the San Francisco / Northern California market. I' have an advertisement from the September 24, 1887 CITY ARGUS (San Francisco). This FRONT PAGE ad promotes Gypsy Queen Cigarettes being "The Latest and Best" and that they contain photographs of all the leading pugilists, baseball players and actresses. While issued as one series, modern collectors break it down into three series.... N-171 Actresses, N-174 Boxing, and N-175 Baseball.


Taking it a step further, most baseball ONLY sets (T-206, 1933 Goudey, etc ) were primarily distributed during baseball season (Early April to late September) . However this series, much like the N-162 Champions set issued a year later, contained subjects from multiple sports / activities. It wouldn't necessarily have to be issued exclusively during baseball season

Would it make sense that a multi-sport / subject set could run from September to perhaps April or May of the following year. This would address the issue of coupons have two different years on them, and the handwritten date written on Ted's example (Which obviously was not done at the factory) when a gift was presented to a family member or friend.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by SetBuilder

No way they used eggs.

Sorry, but they're not albumen.

BTW, what is your photographic background? Are your conclusions based on your examination of Old Judge cards or is yours solely an economic analysis?

[oldjudge]

BTW, if, based on your extensive experience, you don't believe me, here is the description from the Metropolitan Museum of Art Burdick Collection for one of the cards. I don't know for certain, but my guess is that they also know more about the topic than you.

From the series Old Judge Cigarettes

Publisher:Issued by Goodwin & Company
Date:1888
Medium:Albumen print photograph, cabinet card
Dimensions:sheet: 6 1/2 x 4 3/8 in. (16.5 x 11.1 cm)
Classifications:Photographs, Ephemera
Credit Line:The Jefferson R. Burdick Collection, Gift of Jefferson R. Burdick
Accession Number:63.350.214.173.152

[SetBuilder]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

BTW, if, based on your extensive experience, you don't believe me, here is the description from the Metropolitan Museum of Art Burdick Collection for one of the cards. I don't know for certain, but my guess is that they also know more about the topic than you.

From the series Old Judge Cigarettes

Publisher:Issued by Goodwin & Company
Date:1888
Medium:Albumen print photograph, cabinet card
Dimensions:sheet: 6 1/2 x 4 3/8 in. (16.5 x 11.1 cm)
Classifications:Photographs, Ephemera
Credit Line:The Jefferson R. Burdick Collection, Gift of Jefferson R. Burdick
Accession Number:63.350.214.173.152

Originally Posted by oldjudge

BTW, what is your photographic background? Are your conclusions based on your examination of Old Judge cards or is yours solely an economic analysis?

They're just guessing. Everything is an albumen print until proven otherwise too at the LOC. They're not going to pay for lab testing to find out.

There is very little visual difference between a salt print with gelatin and an albumen print. You can sometimes, however, pick out subtle differences.

Do you see a difference in sharpness and quality between the OJ cabinets and the OJ cards? I'm sure most people will, because the OJ cabinets were made with higher quality materials, and cheap giveaway OJs were made with the cheapest.

What about differences in quality between a stereoview card and an OJ? Stereoview cards were albumen. Why? Because they were sold to people. Quality mattered. OJ cards? Not so much. They were given away, for free.

[Joe_G.]

Mark, so nice to see you post. Your GQ advertisement from the 1887 City Argus is among my favorite advertising pieces. Let me know if you ever locate a second one.

Manny, I'm following your responses with interest.

Originally Posted by SetBuilder

They're just guessing. Everything is an albumen print until proven otherwise too at the LOC. They're not going to pay for lab testing to find out.

There is very little visual difference between a salt print with gelatin and an albumen print. You can sometimes, however, pick out subtle differences.

Do you see a difference in sharpness and quality between the OJ cabinets and the OJ cards? I'm sure most people will, because the OJ cabinets were made with higher quality materials, and cheap giveaway OJs were made with the cheapest.

What about differences in quality between a stereoview card and an OJ? Stereoview cards were albumen. Why? Because they were sold to people. Quality mattered. OJ cards? Not so much. They were given away, for free.

Do you know how much it costs to analyze a card and is it destructive in any way? Jay, myself, and others have noted a decline in quality for the 1890 OJs vs earlier years. It would be interesting to have a couple cards from each year tested. The earlier cards, especially the 1887 Brooklyn players, have held up well over the years. In 1889, many of the cards have varying levels of pink tinting. It would be interesting to verify salt vs albumen print. It would surprise a lot of people if some of our 19th century photographic cards were found to be salt prints.

[SetBuilder]

Originally Posted by Joe_G.

Mark, so nice to see you post. Your GQ advertisement from the 1887 City Argus is among my favorite advertising pieces. Let me know if you ever locate a second one.

Manny, I'm following your responses with interest.



Do you know how much it costs to analyze a card and is it destructive in any way? Jay, myself, and others have noted a decline in quality for the 1890 OJs vs earlier years. It would be interesting to have a couple cards from each year tested. The earlier cards, especially the 1887 Brooklyn players, have held up well over the years. In 1889, many of the cards have varying levels of pink tinting. It would be interesting to verify salt vs albumen print. It would surprise a lot of people if some of our 19th century photographic cards were found to be salt prints.

It's always possible they changed production at some point. Perhaps they started as albumen prints and then changed to a cheaper method. The difference in sepia tones, sharpness, and contrast between OJ's is too varied, and is indicative of a shift in printing method.

[oldjudge]

Old Judge cabinets can appear higher quality because they were first generation prints. N172s were second generation. We explain this in the Old Judge book.
BTW, you never answered my question. How many Old Judges have you examined such that you are qualified to opine on the photographs and make you think your knowledge is superior to that of the MET and the LOC?

[SetBuilder]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Old Judge cabinets can appear higher quality because they were first generation prints. N172s were second generation. We explain this in the Old Judge book.
BTW, you never answered my question. How many Old Judges have you examined such that you are qualified to opine on the photographs and make you think your knowledge is superior to that of the MET and the LOC?

Just some basic knowledge of history and a bit of common sense goes a long way.

What makes more sense to Goodwin, from an economic point of view?

To use either, pre-sensitized albumen paper (more expensive; think of it like buying premium photo paper today), or a group of workers to separate egg whites all day to make photo-grade albumen (more expensive);

Instead of,

Salt and water (cheap, readily available in large barrels), and gelatin (cheap, widely used by paper mills to size paper and add/or to add a semi-gloss surface)?

[SetBuilder]

Originally Posted by Joe_G.

Do you know how much it costs to analyze a card and is it destructive in any way?

In regards to this question, the answer is no. You just need a XRF (X-Ray flourescence) analyzer and/or a ATR-FTIR spectrometer, among other tools and methods. I think you can probably rent one somewhere for several hundred dollars per day/week.

You might enjoy this article from the Getty Museum. It goes into a lot of detail:

https://www.getty.edu/conservation/p...as_albumen.pdf.

And this one too.

https://www.getty.edu/conservation/p..._saltprint.pdf

[tedzan]

Double post.

[ramram]

I have seen a large number of early images and I don’t think I have ever seen a salt print outside of the 1850’s/1860’s. They were a difficult process that gave way to the more economical albumens. Salt prints are quite rare and hard to find for a reason.

Rob M

[SetBuilder]

Originally Posted by ramram

I have seen a large number of early images and I don’t think I have ever seen a salt print outside of the 1850’s/1860’s. They were a difficult process that gave way to the more economical albumens. Salt prints are quite rare and hard to find for a reason.

Rob M

Were they really easier and more economical? I have my doubts.

Goodwin was based in New York. They could have easily sent an employee or two to retrieve a wagon load of ocean water every week, which would have been basically free.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by SetBuilder

Were they really easier and more economical? I have my doubts.

Goodwin was based in New York. They could have easily sent an employee or two to retrieve a wagon load of ocean water every week, which would have been basically free.

I have to wonder. You came on like an expert, then I do minimal research and I find things like this:

The salt print was the dominant paper-based photographic process for producing positive prints during the period from 1839 through approximately 1860.

He made what he called "sensitive paper" for "photogenic drawing" by wetting a sheet of writing paper with a weak solution of ordinary table salt (sodium chloride), blotting and drying it, then brushing one side with a strong solution of silver nitrate.

So it was obsolete by the time the cards in question were produced AND it was nowhere near the, grab some ocean water and you're good to go process that you seem to think it was, but rather a measured solution of salt water. While that may be inexpensive it's not brainless.

[SetBuilder]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I have to wonder. You came on like an expert, then I do minimal research and I find things like this:

The salt print was the dominant paper-based photographic process for producing positive prints during the period from 1839 through approximately 1860.

He made what he called "sensitive paper" for "photogenic drawing" by wetting a sheet of writing paper with a weak solution of ordinary table salt (sodium chloride), blotting and drying it, then brushing one side with a strong solution of silver nitrate.

So it was obsolete by the time the cards in question were produced AND it was nowhere near the, grab some ocean water and you're good to go process that you seem to think it was, but rather a measured solution of salt water. While that may be inexpensive it's not brainless.

How can salt water and silver nitrate be obsolete?

It would have been perfectly fine to use salt water and silver nitrate (or very diluted albumen and salt) instead of albumen and silver nitrate.

[ramram]

Originally Posted by SetBuilder

Were they really easier and more economical? I have my doubts.

Goodwin was based in New York. They could have easily sent an employee or two to retrieve a wagon load of ocean water every week, which would have been basically free.

Dang, so every photographer in history was a fool and decided to switch over to albumen prints despite the fact that, according to you, they were a more difficult process and more expensive to make. Interesting.

Rob M

[SetBuilder]

Originally Posted by ramram

Dang, so every photographer in history was a fool and decided to switch over to albumen prints despite the fact that, according to you, they were a more difficult process and more expensive to make. Interesting.

Rob M

You're forgetting that these were cheap cards inserted in cigarette packs?

This is like saying that DVDs are obsolete, because we have blu-ray now.

Would you rather give away blu-rays, or DVDs for free?

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by SetBuilder

How can salt water and silver nitrate be obsolete?

It would have been perfectly fine to use salt water and silver nitrate (or very diluted albumen and salt) instead of albumen and silver nitrate.

Definition of obsolete
1 a : no longer in use or no longer useful

[ramram]

Originally Posted by SetBuilder

You're forgetting that these were cheap cards inserted in cigarette packs?

This is like saying that DVDs are obsolete, because we have blu-ray now.

Would you rather give away blu-rays, or DVDs for free?

Umm, no, more like Blu-ray compared to 8-track tapes. Old Judge cards were produced 30 years after salt prints faded away.

Rob M

[SetBuilder]

Originally Posted by ramram

Umm, no, more like Blu-ray compared to 8-track tapes. Old Judge cards were produced 30 years after salt prints faded away.

Rob M

So you're telling me that the blurred, faded, matte OJ on the left was made exactly the same way as the albumen print on the right?

.

The OJ on the left looks like a very primitive salt print to me.

[tedzan]

Hey "Set Builder"

Thanks, for detouring this thread.....24 of the 34 posts here dwell on your freaken "salt" discussion, which is totally inconsequential to this thread's topic.

Why couldn't you have the common decency to start your own damn thread on your controversial subject matter ? ?


TED Z
.

[SetBuilder]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Hey "Set Builder"

Thanks, for detouring this thread.....24 of the 34 posts here dwell on your freaken "salt" discussion, which is totally inconsequential to this thread's topic.

Why couldn't you have the common decency to start your own damn thread on your controversial subject matter ? ?


TED Z
.

Sorry again, Ted. They keep responding to my posts and I can't resist answering!

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by SetBuilder

Sorry again, Ted. They keep responding to my posts and I can't resist answering!

STOP right here and post your own thread, then you can continue your discussion till the moon turns blue.

[tedzan]

Double post.

[tedzan]

OK, hopefully this "N162 train" is switching back onto the mainline.

Thanks guys,


TED Z
.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

If these cards were popular, as they almost surely were, wouldn't it be logical that they would be distributed into a second year? Why give up a good thing. They may have printed more than they could have given out in 1888, so why not keep them coming?

Originally Posted by oaks1912

Ted and Joe, I think that you're both right...Hear me out... The previous year (1887), Gypsy Queen cigarettes were introduced to the San Francisco / Northern California market. I' have an advertisement from the September 24, 1887 CITY ARGUS (San Francisco). This FRONT PAGE ad promotes Gypsy Queen Cigarettes being "The Latest and Best" and that they contain photographs of all the leading pugilists, baseball players and actresses. While issued as one series, modern collectors break it down into three series.... N-171 Actresses, N-174 Boxing, and N-175 Baseball.


Taking it a step further, most baseball ONLY sets (T-206, 1933 Goudey, etc ) were primarily distributed during baseball season (Early April to late September) . However this series, much like the N-162 Champions set issued a year later, contained subjects from multiple sports / activities. It wouldn't necessarily have to be issued exclusively during baseball season

Would it make sense that a multi-sport / subject set could run from September to perhaps April or May of the following year. This would address the issue of coupons have two different years on them, and the handwritten date written on Ted's example (Which obviously was not done at the factory) when a gift was presented to a family member or friend.

Hello Barry and Mark

Both of you make some really great points here in your posts. Thanks to both of you for chiming in.

Most sportscards issues enjoy a one (or less) year run. But, I can personally account for one issue that spanned two years.

The very first color sportscards I collected as a kid were the 1948 LEAF Boxing issue, started in 1948. This set of cards were so popular, that LEAF had a 2nd major press run in 1949.
Distribution of these LEAF cards was throughout the country well into the Summer of 1949.






TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by SetBuilder

So you're telling me that the blurred, faded, matte OJ on the left was made exactly the same way as the albumen print on the right?

.

The OJ on the left looks like a very primitive salt print to me.

I can post an image where the N172 is much clearer than the N173, that is just selective analysis. The bottom line is that N173s were first generation, the N172s second generation. They are both, however, albumin prints and BTW N172s all have a glossy finish to start with. If you subject the card to enough wear and tear it will look bad. If you actually handled an Old Judge small card instead of pulling theories out of the air you would already know this. As for cost, the cards in the Old Judge packs cost more than the cigarettes. Elimination of these premium's costs was one reason for the formation of the ATC.

[tedzan]

Just giving this thread a friendly bump. Perhaps, we can continue on with the original topic intended here.
If you have some meaningful information to add to this subject, please by all means chime in.

Here is my favorite page in the A36 album. I'm an avid tennis fan. I've been playing tennis since 1960.



TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[S_GERACE]

Ted,
I have a world of respect for your vast knowledge on cards, but I disagree with you on the release date of these cards. I think that the Beecher card is a key to dating the set. Beecher played varsity football for Yale from 1884-1887. It is likely that the set was produced showing the champions from the prior year (as you stated earlier). Since 1887 was Beecher’s last year, it would be unlikely that he would have been chosen for inlusion for a set to be released in 1889. I’m not saying that the cards couldn’t have been issued in 1889 as well, just that they probably issued initially in 1888. Just my two cents.

[S_GERACE]

Actually not sure he was varsity as a freshman

[tedzan]

Scott

Yes, Harry Beecher played Football for Yale from 1884 - 1887. And, he graduated from Yale University in 1888. Which most likely means he did not play in 1888.

But then, there are some sports figures featured in the N162 set whose careers ended before 1887. Therefore, featuring Beecher in an 1889 issue is not unusual.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[Joe_G.]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Scott

Yes, Harry Beecher played Football for Yale from 1884 - 1887. And, he graduated from Yale University in 1888. Which most likely means he did not play in 1888.

But then, there are some sports figures featured in the N162 set whose careers ended before 1887. Therefore, featuring Beecher in an 1889 issue is not unusual.

Hello Ted,

Nearly everyone is consenting that N162 cards could have been distributed into 1889 (myself, Henry, Mark, etc.). It doesn't appear anyone is debating this point. The point of contention is that you indicate N162s are to be considered an 1889 set, i.e. production began in 1889 whereas the rest of us believe, and in some cases have provided evidence, that the set began in 1888. The four 1888 redemption coupons that mention availability of the album is pretty concrete in my mind to dating the card's initial release to 1888 (cards precede the album). Personally, I'm 99.9% certain the cards were first offered in 1888 and about 50/50 on whether the cards extended into 1889. On the album side, 99.9% sure it was offered in both 1888 and 1889.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Joe_G.

Hello Ted,

Nearly everyone is consenting that N162 cards could have been distributed into 1889 (myself, Henry, Mark, etc.). It doesn't appear anyone is debating this point. The point of contention is that you indicate N162s are to be considered an 1889 set, i.e. production began in 1889 whereas the rest of us believe, and in some cases have provided evidence, that the set began in 1888. The four 1888 redemption coupons that mention availability of the album is pretty concrete in my mind to dating the card's initial release to 1888 (cards precede the album). Personally, I'm 99.9% certain the cards were first offered in 1888 and about 50/50 on whether the cards extended into 1889. On the album side, 99.9% sure it was offered in both 1888 and 1889.

Hi Joe

I guess at times, I can be a stubborn ole Greek. Anyhow, you have summarized this entire matter quite well here. Therefore, I defer to your judgement.
Don't mind me, at times I like to prompt some thought-provoking discussions (as I have in this thread). Well ole friend I'm satisfied. This case is closed.

Perhaps we will meet again at the National in 5 weeks.


.



TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[Joe_G.]

Thank you Ted for this thread, there are many assumptions in the hobby that should be challenged. Sharing evidence, proposing new theories and defended positions furthers our understanding.

If I were to make the National this year I'd certainly track you down but I will likely not make it. I'll return for 2019.

Time to kick back, enjoy a salt print and a cold one