Hake's Auction

[Runscott]

edited: My post kind of went overboard. This period of history is something that interests me, so I hate to see erroneous information published. That website that Hake's mentioned is really the problem - the info there looks valid, so now it's getting disseminated. The issue wasn't that Leland renamed his team - he did; but rather that the website indicated that the Union Giants only existed through 1904 - Peters took over that name sometime after 1904, probably 1905, but I can't verify without researching further. I've only verified 1909-1913.

This all probably sounds very esoteric, but it's history.

[Runscott]

Here's the website that Alex used: http://nlbpa.com/chicago_union_giants.html

I hate to risk offending anyone here who might have been involved in the creation of that website, but... WTF? They didn't even check for typos - Colmbia?

The 'Leland Giants' page also has errors (e.g-Leland's team became the Chicago Giants in 1910, not 1911.

http://nlbpa.com/1909_leland_giants.html

[Jacklitsch]

Doesn't the divided back date the pc to 1907 at the earliest?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Jacklitsch

Doesn't the divided back date the pc to 1907 at the earliest?

I don't know - I just collect them for the pretty pictures (seriously)

My concern over this lot was simply the statement: "This historic card dates to 1904." I see no evidence that warrants making such a claim, and because most of the black baseball postcards we've seen date closer to the 1908-12 range, it's significant.

I know I'm a troublemaker, but I've made a few calls that had to be made. Anyone remember the cap on the left?

[Kenny Cole]

Well, at the very least I commend them for removing the not "Buck Leonard" postcard from their auction until they can determine who the postcard actually depicts. That was obviously the right thing to do.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Well, at the very least I commend them for removing the not "Buck Leonard" postcard from their auction until they can determine who the postcard actually depicts. That was obviously the right thing to do.

Agreed. This stuff happens all the time, and the good thing is that there is no malicious intent. Hake's did due diligence, found what looked like reputable information, and used it in their lot description. It all seems reasonable to me.

I need to add one more thing: According to what looks like a reputable source to me (I have the book and it's loaded with footnotes, but I don't have time to verify them), the Chicago Union Giants formed "the following season" after 1900 (so, 1901). I know from my own research (viewing actual Chicago newspapers) that they were around as late as 1913.

Without considering other factors, such as the make of the automobiles in the postcard (there's one in the back that you auto experts might be able to date), and characteristics of the back of the card (not my area of expertise), the team in question existed from 1901 until at least 1913, so this card could certainly be from 1904.

[Hake's Auctions]

Thanks to Scott for all of his help and knowledge in this matter. While we may never know an exact year of the postcard, we now have a definitive time frame in which to work with. Nice to see a positive outcome.

[Runscott]

Here's another perfect example of how seemingly legitimate information on well-crafted websites, can cause further confusion. If you google "Chicago Union Giants", you will find the following website. Very interesting reading, but has many facts that are just plain wrong: http://www.evansvillehistory.net/Baseball.htm

For instance, it states: "The Chicago Unions, sometimes called the Chicago Union Giants, or the Leland Giants was a team composed entirely of Black players from Chicago." And later in the essay, the author takes this self-proclaimed liberty when describing an 1898 game, referring to the 'Chicago Unions' as the 'Union Giants', when in fact there was not yet such a team.

The internet is great, but it's loaded with crap.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by Jacklitsch

Doesn't the divided back date the pc to 1907 at the earliest?

Yes, March of 1907 for postcards that were to be used int he U.S. As far as I know, that is pretty black and white.

[Hake's Auctions]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

Yes, March of 1907 for postcards that were to be used int he U.S. As far as I know, that is pretty black and white.

The "AZO" stampbox mark on the back with 4 triangles pointing upward was first used by the company in 1904. This comes from the standardized real photo postcard documenting chart.

[Jacklitsch]

Originally Posted by hakesamericana

This comes from the standardized real photo postcard documenting chart.

What does the chart say about the divided back?

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Jacklitsch

What does the chart say about the divided back?

Not sure why this point is being repeatedly ignored here...

[Exhibitman]

My understanding is that givided backs were legalized for US mail in 1907 when postal rules were liberalized to allow the writing of messages on the backs of postcards. An undivided back could be made any time; odds are that if the back is undivided and states that the back is for address only it is a pre-1908 card.

[Bicem]

Originally Posted by Jacklitsch

What does the chart say about the divided back?

That Steve guy is one smart fellow!

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by hakesamericana

The "AZO" stampbox mark on the back with 4 triangles pointing upward was first used by the company in 1904. This comes from the standardized real photo postcard documenting chart.

FWIW, my book says that postcards with the stampbox that has four right side up "Triangles in Corners" were first used in September of 1907.