I might be remembering this wrong, but I think the winning bidder stated that he knew nothing about this sort of item. To me, if you put that together with the lower final value predictions, and his stated reason for purchasing it, and you have kind of a questionable expenditure of money that would invite what you are calling "ridicule" (I wouldn't call it that). That's just my opinion - again, thanks to the moderators for allowing me to express it without....being ridiculed.

I don't see how its questionable though. It's one of a kind with the prestige of the only other copy being in the Library of Congress. Plus the cdv got a ton of press before the auction went live too, just like that Peck and Snyder that surfaced a few years ago. Even if a guy didn't know much about sports memorabilia, he'd still purchase a Wagner if it came around and he had the money. In my opinion this piece is a lot more special than a Wagner.

The 92+ K wasn't "pocket change" to him. In one of the news articles, he said that if it was went for much more, he would not have been able to afford it.

If you followed it 'live' via the Youtube thing they had set up, there were some long pauses where the bidders were apparently giving their next bid some serious consideration. Don could probably tell us how many bidders there were, but when this item hit something like $40K, 'fair warning' was issued several times.

My speculation is that if the eventual winner hadn't been bidding, it would have gone for an amount much closer to the predictions given by board members. But if there were three bidders at the end, then it's a different story.

The guys here who gave their estimates (yesterday and previously), include some serious collectors and historians who know their stuff - I would not just toss their opinions aside. As I've mentioned previously, but it got lost in the wash - we've seen rare pieces go for huge amounts before, despite board member opinions. We've seen the same pieces sell for much less later on, indicating that perhaps we knew what we were talking about, and the winning bidder was indeed overzealous (or whatever).

Dan/Packs--price, as you know, is a function of supply and demand. This is a rare piece, but there are countless one to five of a kind 19th century items. Virtually no one, including members of this board, knew the name of one player on this team before the CdV was found. The world record for a CdV price was a LOT less than this prior to this sale. I would contend that the demand for an item like this above a price of say $20,000 is negligible. This guy, who knows virtually nothing about 19th century material, paid more than any knowledgeable 19th century collector, with the means to easily purchase this item, was willing to pay. If you don't think this is a crazy transaction, or at least one that deserves more scrutiny, then I would suggest that you need to rethink the facts.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Is there something subversive about his winning the card? What kind of scrutiny or questions do you think should be raised? If its a question of whether or not he paid too much, I don't think it can be answered since this is a one-of-a-kind piece and this sale is the baseline for its "value."

He may have paid too much. But don't forget there was also a under bidder.

The article said seven bidders. Would be interesting to know who bid above certain floors.......$40K....$50K.....etc.

I wouldn't be surprised if 1-2 of the bidders at or above those floors were in our midst...

Jay, looks like he is not taking a chance of losing money with an EBAY auction. Just put a higher buy it now price.

Joe

Atlantics card
 

Joking aside, The buyer looked to be genuinely glad to have won the card at auction, and the purchase is certainly a better investment than say, a new 7 series BMW sedan for the same money. For a better investment, I would think Exxon stock or municipal bonds, but those are not as much fun to own.

He said he was buying it for his sick son. If he is selling it in the near future, which some people have indicated, then this would not be an investment. If he was planning to sell it in the distant future then it most likely wouldn't be for his sick son. Some questions still remain unanswered.

If he was buying for investment purposes then I would have bought one of the Planks recently sold at auction.

From one of the four threads posted on this today.

I get the feeling that if you don't say "Yes sir" a lot to Nash, that he's going to do his best to destroy you. Sorry Troy had to go through that experience. My phone conversations with Troy were always enjoyable.

I wonder how much investigation Peter Nash did on Peter Nash? And when do you suppose we get to read about it on Haulsofshame? :cool:

Jay, I know there are very few people with as much knowledge of the 19th century issues as you and a few other guys here, and I appreciate that, but when it comes to one of a kind items, an auction setting and a widely publicized item I don't think anyone can predict what that items sells for. Is it worth less than what he paid for it? Possibly...does the sale deserve more scrutiny? Not in my opinion...clearly there was a lot of hype here.

Mr. Olbermann weighs in on the issue.

http://keitholbermann.mlblogs.com/20...baseball-card/

Olberman argues that this item does not feature advertising, so it is not the same type of 'baseball card' cdv as the Peck & Snyder cards. By default, this makes it 'something else', which means it falls into the 'calling card' category of cdv (an ancient business card), and therefore, not a 'baseball card'.

Does Olberman really believe that members of the Brooklyn Atlantics were handing out this cdv at soirees as personal identifiers? It's more likely that if team photos were made for the players, they would have been created in a much larger format - this is borne out by team cabinet cards that were created in very limited quantities. Teams still have team photos ordered in sufficient quantities to satisfy the needs of their players;e.g-your ten year old child's soccer team. Nothing's really changed in that regard.

In my opinion team cdvs such as this one were probably used for advertising, even though there isn't a commercial business name on them. Perhaps they were offered to the public by Williamson (the photographer) to advertise his skills, or maybe they were used to advertise the team...by the team. If the team commissioned Williamson to produce a pile of these, and then handed them out to people, wouldn't that be advertisement, and thus qualify them for 'baseball card' status?

But there's only one of these (the loc version is a different animal). Assuming it's not an albumen photo removed from something else and affixed to an old mount (and that might be a big assumption), another possibility is that it's a prototype that Williamson created for a team representative, with the idea that if approved, such items could be produced in larger quantities, for advertising.

Another possible use: it wasn't uncommon for teams to have a pile of postcards created, and then use those to advertise their team, handing them out at games (Western Bloomers and other bloomer teams come to mind). Were these 'baseball cards'? I don't know that this ever occurred, but I can imagine a team selling cdv's of the team, at games. It was expensive to have photos made, and gate receipts weren't generally that big, so I doubt they gave them away, but I suppose it's possible.

Peter Nash is a horror - I wouldn't wish a conversation with him on anyone. But it was impressive how he culled bits and pieces from our thread to use as if he thought it up himself. He 'forged' us :)

He quotes Net54 all the time...I guarantee he's reading this thread.

LOL

-Al

He did a pretty good job of organizing items from our thread into something he could use to build his case. It's a lazy way of doing things, but for those who don't choose to read his thread, he created his argument, then got opinions of 'experts' to verify what we had stated (e.g-presented my argument regarding the re-use of the Williamson mount, but through the mouth of someone else with a title) and re-wrote it.

Nash basically writes his blogs the way lazy high-schoolers wrote term papers - you take a good paper, reorganize it, then replace bits and pieces with other sources that say the exact same thing. That way you build up your reference list big enough for the teacher to accept it.

We don't know if or how the photo was distributed, so we don't know whether or not it can be considered a trading card.

In the 1860s, some studio CDVs of famous subjects (Abe Lincoln, Queen Victoria) were sold to and collected by the public, and these can reasonably be considered trading cards. I would call them trading cards. But we simply don't know how/why this CDV was made or distributed.

I'm not of the opinion that something has to be a trading card for it to be worthwhile, but I wouldn't categorize it as a trading card-- not because it isn't, but because I don't know that it is. And I've never been much of a 'leap of faith' person.

I think that's what I said, but maybe I was so long-winded that the message was lost.

I didn't read all the posts. I just zoomed to the end and posted my opinion.

"The nit-picking part here is that the definition of a “baseball card” has always been a card or similar item depicting a player or team that was designed to help sell another product."

Sez who? The Lord Commissioner of Baseball Cards? I must have missed that memo. I guess that means none of these are baseball cards:

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...bsize/Ruth.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...lmann%20PC.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...y%20Mantle.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...20Jennings.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...Unc%20Ruth.jpg

I would say if there's no advertising/promotion of another product, but they were commercially sold as collectibles, that too would count as trading cards.

There will be a question by some about the size (another technicality), but Exhibits were sold as collectibles so would fit my definition of a baseball card in that aspect.

Keeping my opinion to myself, but a lot of folks on this board don't consider postcards to be trading cards, advertising splashed across them or not. They just consider pcs something different.

Keith's article focused on one aspect of what constitutes a baseball card, and that is how the were distributed. Typically baseball cards are readily available to the public, whether found in a box of cigarettes, a wax pack with bubble gum, a penny exhibit machine, or through some type of promotion. Even Peck & Snyders would fit into that category as anyone could walk into their store and purchase one of their photographic trade cards.

But I do not believe the general public had access to a standard CdV. That Brooklyn Atlantics was likely made for the members of the team to give out to their friends and family. The average fan of the team probably didn't even know they existed. And add to it that they had no advertising, they had no commercial value whatsoever.

So while there are various characteristics of a baseball card, and a CdV fits most of them, they were privately distributed and therefore different from traditional cards as we know them.

they were certainly different, but given that there was only one, I would add an 'if' to your above statement. I gave some alternatives in my last post.

It's understood :)

But I was kind of surprised that he proclaimed himself to be an expert on 19th century baseball cards - I've never seen any evidence of it.


Regarding cdv's, etc as advertisement. William T. Sherman wrote a letter to Napoleon Sarony, ordering cabinet photos of himself that he wished to sign at the bottom and give away. He complained that Sarony had used too much of the space at the bottom for his own studio information, and as such, it was a "Sarony advertisement". He threatened to use another photographer if Sarony wasn't willing to send him photos that did not have the Sarony information on the front.

Edited to add: “Enclosed is the check for $18. for the pictures sent—but the Special one—Imperial Mounted on a large sheet is not at all what I wrote for. Sheridan is dead, and could not if he would come to your Studio—the best photo I have of him is by C. Rankin of Washington and is on a panel 17 x 11 1/2 in which no margin at the top and sides but a good margin below for autograph, date & c. Such as a photograph should be. Gutekunst of Phila. promises me one of same size and kind of General Grant. Yours of me either 13,331 Cabinet—or 2945 panel 7 1/2 by 13 inches—No margins top or sides, but a full inch White Margin below—(without advertisement). Your photographs of Me are the best extant, but as issued are advertisements of ‘Sarony’ and not likenesses of Genl Sherman. I think you made a mistake and I tell you so with a Soldier’s frankness. ..."

The way I read into it, KO is slightly upset that the 'thing' was marketed as a baseball card and that it brought first baseball card money.

For once I would like to see him write up his opinion BEFORE the event, as opposed to getting on a pedestal afterward and proclaiming how things should have been.

I think his T206 Wagner is ugly. :)

What about 2013 Topps cards? Or the rack packs I bought in 1983? Those weren't distributed in order to promote a different product. Is Keith Olbermann arguing that 1983 Topps cards aren't baseball cards because they weren't produced in order to sell candy/tobacco/bread?

The many discussions we have had about what is and is not a baseball card just show that the question is really not objectively answerable. To me the Brooklyn thing is not a card but if it is to someone else so be it.

There are several characteristics which constitute what we all agree is a baseball card:

1) It's a rectangular piece of cardboard that depicts a baseball player or several players.
2) It's typically distributed to advertise a product, such as tobacco, candy, or gum.
3) It's widely distributed to the greatest number of people possible.
4) If you collect the whole bunch of them you will be able to complete a set.

The Atlantics CdV certainly depicts baseball players, but it contains no advertising, was selectively distributed, and is not part of a set. So it does not have all of the traits we typically associate with a baseball card.

When I first started specializing in 19th century baseball memorabilia in the late 1980's, there wasn't a single collector who called a CdV a baseball card. But that definition has changed over time, and now most collectors consider it to be one.

What do I think was most responsible for that change? The slab. When the TPG started slabbing them, we started calling them baseball cards. It's just part of how the hobby has evolved.

Does it have to be rectangular? What about a series such as Colgans? Are they cards or not?

I think one could reasonably argue that CdVs that contain the studio name on the verso (the overwhelming majority) advertise the studio, in much the same way that, say, a Topps card advertises Topps (and the product it produces -- baseball player images).

In regard to the requirement that the depiction be of a baseball player (or players), I would add the qualification that the depiction be in a baseball context. For example an image of Cap Anson taken on a tennis court in tennis attire and holding a tennis racquet would not qualify to me as a baseball card, no matter how it was distirbuted and no matter what it advertised.

Colgan's Chips are interesting. They are quasi-cards. I would call them discs. In the end it probably doesn't matter. They're close enough.

Yes, a Topps card advertised Topps....but they sold bubble gum. That was their primary business. In later years the gum became less important.

I agree w/Barry in that the term "card" has become much more loosely assigned to things since slabbing. If we're going to call postcards, cabinet cards, discs, stamps, magazine cutouts cards...I would certainly consider a CDV with a studio's advertising...depicting a baseball team or player...a card...as back then...this is all there was?!

Fair, but when bubble gum became ancillary to their primary business --baseball cards, or, better yet, were they to have discontinued the sale of bubble gum, did their player cards cease to be baseball cards?

My point is that I think the advertising requirement is satisfied if the product/service advertised is the commercial taking of photographs by the establishment distributing the "cards".

Yes, the inclusion of the photographer's imprint on a CdV is in fact a form of advertising, and as I said a CdV is loosely akin to a baseball card. It has some but not all of the characteristics. And it's okay to call it a baseball card, even though not every collector agrees it is.

As kids we all would have agreed with the above (people my age, anyway), but I think you're assuming a lot, thinking we all are in agreement now.

For instance, I don't consider postcards to be 'baseball cards'. I also don't consider any mounted photograph to be a baseball card - in my opinion, they are mounted photographs. We even have more specific terms for them, such as 'cabinet photograph', or 'cart-de-visite'. Even if they advertise something;e.g-'Peck & Snyder', I don't consider them to be baseball cards. Perhaps it's the 'distribution' aspect you mention, or that such items aren't generally part of a 'set' (at least, a set of any meaningful size). But to me it doesn't matter - I collect both baseball cards and mounted photographs, and it doesn't matter to me what anyone else calls them.

Scott- I don't expect that everyone will agree with my definition of what constitutes a baseball card. We've had many debates on this topic, with varying opinions. The definition has widened over time for economic reasons too. A baseball card is worth more money than a mounted photograph. That's just a fact.

Okay, I thought you were serious when you stated "we all agree", which sort of surprised me. Although, I do for the most part agree with your list of criteria.

When asked "what is art?" Picasso supposedly replied, "what is not?"

My understanding is that MLB does have a pretty strict definition of what a baseball card is and they are highly protective of their intellectual property with respect to this. If one tries to distribute what they consider a card depicting major leaguers (NL or AL) of any era in major league uniforms without a license they are not happy.

There was an unofficial SABR project to produce colorized cards of early players for distribution to members. Hundreds of different cards were produced (yes - they are a set) and they are amazingly good, glossy and all. In the end (at least so far) they could not be distributed.

Of course we can distribute images of players among the membership in many forms (newsletters, magazines, books, etc.) with no problem. Perhaps, instead of cards, we should try making a set of CDVs.

I agree that the photography studio advertising its own business interests on CDVs or cabinets, is advertising a "product." I also believe that postcards are also selling a product - a postage medium. To me, its more important that the "cards" were made available to the public, and therefore collected. As someone said above, very early (prior to 1886), CDVs and cabinets were all they had. And postcards have been collected for over a century. Plus, both are simply COOL AS HELL!! (Which is why I collect in the first place).

Obviously I don't know all of the law but I would think that any card that doesn't have a trademarked MLB logo, or a team licensed logo, isn't something MLB could do anything about. Isn't that the way some unlicensed sets are produced today? I would tell them to stick it where they sun don't shine if they harassed me about cards without their logo.....

One essential part of a baseball card is that it is a trading card and was designed to be collected as collectibles by people in the general public. Thus, a studio photograph made for one team member or a family photo for the family is not a trading card.

Most CDVs were not trading cards. Though some were.

Some might reasonably argue that some postcards were designed to be, or assumed would be, collected as they have collectible images on them-- baseball stars, movie stars, etc. I'm sure there were people in the general public who collected postcards back them.

I don't like to get caught up in all of the semantics of what determines what is and isn't a card?! A disc...is not a card...a stamp...is not a card...but...a CDV...whether it was made for the team/team members...and has a studio name attached...in my opinion...is a card. Remember guys...this is from a time period before there were any baseball "cards"...there was no definition! For whatever worth a "definition" really is anyway?!