The First Baseball Card?

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by z28jd

If you were buying a painting you liked and someone said it might be a Picasso, you would probably want to know it is before you paid what they go for. You wouldn't just say eh I like it so I'm buying it anyway and if it is a Picasso, then great. Other people made great paintings during his era, why are his worth more? It's the name attached to it and if you attach "first baseball card" to this, it becomes historically significant

I still don't get why it being a card makes a difference. What you call it doesn't change the size or the way it was distributed. So you are saying that it needs to be called a card by your peers before it is worth a certain amount of money? Again it comes down to semantics. Who is the official that gets to make the claim of when it is a card or not and how did that person get the authority?

Your example of Picasso here doesn't work. If you collect Picasso and you aren't sure it really is a Picasso that would be a better comparison to whether the person on this piece was really Harry Wright. Whether the Picasso painting was really a painting or sketch may be a better analogy, but even then it is more about the looks of the piece some people prefer paint over sketch. Or maybe if you were to discuss what phase of Picasso it was. That would be a better comparison. Though I would still say it doesn't matter what phase it was, if you like Picasso and you like the art, then buy it.

What you are talking about is whether something is worth your time because someone else told you it was. Again you are debating semantics to decide your collecting tendencies instead of enjoying the piece for what it is in cold hard facts. We know what the item was used for, you know who is pictured, you know what year it was distributed. If you can't decide you want it in your collection until someone else designates it with a certain word to describe it then so be it, but that doesn't make any sense to me.

[oldjudge]

Everyone has a different opinion, but mine is that this is a ticket and not a card. It is also a cricket ticket as, per the REA write-up, Wright had resigned from the Knickerbockers at the time of the Grand Match but was still an active cricket player. Look at the Sam Wright/Harry Wright CdV in Legendary and compare what it will realize to the $50K minimum that REA has on the Wright ticket. That is the value of convincing someone that it is a baseball card. The minimum is a safeguard against the card going for a CdV or Ticket price which would certainly be a LOT less than the REA minimum bid. It will be interesting to see if it gets a bid at that level.
Would anyone consider the tickets that many MLB teams now issue with players images on them to be baseball cards? Of course not, they are tickets. The same, in my opinion, goes for this item.

[triwak]

This is one of the hobby's most famous "cards!" Research it. This will go for 6-figs easy!!!

[oldjudge]

Ken--Side bet?

[triwak]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Ken--Side bet?

No thanks, Jay. I need to save my money for one of those 6-figs!!!

[Jlighter]

Three cards from this "set" just sold at Legendary for 15,000.

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...ntoryid=154257

[oldjudge]

They are as much the first baseball card as the Wright. Both Hammond and Crossley played in the baseball game.

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by Jlighter

Three cards from this "set" just sold at Legendary for 15,000.

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...ntoryid=154257

Shockingly low. So far this morning there are three separate threads about very low prices for 19th century cards in last night's auction. Can anyone explain that?

[RGold]

I follow 15 auction houses, averaging 3 to 4 auctions each per year. Plus eBay. Throw in that we are all waiting to see the REA preview.

I don't think it's just 19th century material. There were three listings in last night's Legendary auction that I normally would have bid on, and I decided, you know what, I think I would rather hold off and see what comes to market this Spring.

[GaryPassamonte]

Barry,
I think the market is so thin for many 19th century cards that once they are added to the collections of 19th century collectors, the market becomes all the thinner. All it takes is one or two players to not need or want a particular card and the demand collapses. Many hard core 19th century collectors are not sellers, particularly of the more obscure issues. Once they're in a collection they stay there. The result is a thin market with wide price fluctuations. In my thread you mentioned the similarity in pricing for the 1870 Forest Cities, 1870 Athletics, and the 1875 Hartford CdVs historically.. In order, the prices from the most recent sales of these CdVs: $32000, $2000, $16000. They each have a single digit population, but have quite different prices. It would seem the market is very small.

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

I still don't get why it being a card makes a difference. What you call it doesn't change the size or the way it was distributed. So you are saying that it needs to be called a card by your peers before it is worth a certain amount of money? Again it comes down to semantics. Who is the official that gets to make the claim of when it is a card or not and how did that person get the authority?

Your example of Picasso here doesn't work. If you collect Picasso and you aren't sure it really is a Picasso that would be a better comparison to whether the person on this piece was really Harry Wright. Whether the Picasso painting was really a painting or sketch may be a better analogy, but even then it is more about the looks of the piece some people prefer paint over sketch. Or maybe if you were to discuss what phase of Picasso it was. That would be a better comparison. Though I would still say it doesn't matter what phase it was, if you like Picasso and you like the art, then buy it.

What you are talking about is whether something is worth your time because someone else told you it was. Again you are debating semantics to decide your collecting tendencies instead of enjoying the piece for what it is in cold hard facts. We know what the item was used for, you know who is pictured, you know what year it was distributed. If you can't decide you want it in your collection until someone else designates it with a certain word to describe it then so be it, but that doesn't make any sense to me.

I'm just trying to tell you what people think based on my knowledge of collecting since I was five. I'm not an economy major and I'm done playing one. Think what you want about it, I honestly have no opinion as to whether it is a card or not. Sorry if you didn't get the analogy either, I used about ten for you, so pick another.

[drc]

There are a lot more baseball card collectors out there than baseball ticket or First Day of Issue envelope collectors, so if something is considered to be a baseball card there will be more demand and be financially worth more.

That's the financial answer to why whether or not something is a baseball card is important. I'm not at all saying financial value is the only way, or the best way, to consider or justify or measure a piece of memorabilia.

P.s. I don't believe anyone knows what is the first baseball card. In the area of early cards there is a lot of gray area, unanswerable questions and missing information, differing definitions and points of view and we're not certain when some cards were made. For two given early cards, the hobby may not know which one was made first.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by drc

P.s. I don't believe anyone knows what is the first baseball card. In the area of early cards there is a lot of gray area, unanswerable questions and missing information, differing definitions and points of view and we're not certain when some cards were made. For two given early cards, the hobby may not know which one was made first.

Once SGC began slabbing cdv's, the definition of 'baseball card' changed - all sorts of cdv's became eligible.

But ultimately, if two people who want the first baseball card both think this is it, then the price will reflect their thinking (even though it isn't)

[drc]

These items fall under the category 'Origins of baseball cards.' They resemble baseball cards in ways, but aren't baseball cards as we know them today. They are from the days when baseball cards were being formed, like the intersection of of townball to basesball.

There are a few early items that fit my definition of baseball cards, a few near misses and many that do not. Calling something you own or are auctioning a baseball card only because that means it will sell for more is, of course, intellectually corrupt and following the path of Shop at Home and QVC. I remember when Shop at Home would call about anything a 'rookie card,' because rookie cards sold for more. Joe Montana's first appearance as a Kansas City Chief would be offered as his 'Kansas City Rookie Card.' A Ted Williams 1959 Fleer was his "Fleer Rookie Card."

I'm not an active baseball card collector. It's the baseball card collectors who make the 'baseball card' label such a big issue. I like baseball cards, but tickets, studio CDVs and cricket cards are nice too. Having said that, I have a personal definition of what is a baseball card and sometimes voice my opinion as to whether an item is baseball card.

[FirstYearCards]

The definition of a rookie card: whatever you chose as you own personal guidelines. I have been collecting for years(HOF rookies), and have set my own rules. For my own purposes, here is how I collect:

http://www.firstyearcards.com/FAQ.html

[bcbgcbrcb]

Great stuff, Bill. I'll have to check that out much closer when I have a chance.