which is worth more?

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

I know there is debate as to whether or not a postcard is a baseball card. I start off by saying I believe that a postcard IS a baseball card - and I offer that as background info.


With a recent auction item slabbed 'photograph' as a card -

I ask this question... all else being equal:

Would you consider a photograph, or a postcard to be more valuable?

assume the exact same image...
assume the exact same issue date...
assume a Real Photo Postcard (so that the image process is similar)

just one item is a photograph print / and one is a real photo postcard.


My opinion:
The Real Photo Postcard is more valuable (surprise). It is a card.
Even if the photograph print is a larger format (which most likely it would be).
Of course I am biased on the issue.

Would love to hear other opinions.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve M.

1. Is the photo an original off of an original negative? i.e. first generation.

2. If so, is the original negative extant?

3. What is the provenance of the photo?

4. Does more than one postcard exist?

Just curious because I think you already know my opinion.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

1. Assume both the photo and the real-photo postcard are off the original negative.

2. not sure it matters either way? but if it does, lets assume yes.

3. Assume no special provenance of the photo

4. Assume the postcard and the photo have an equal number of 'first generation' known examples.


I guess my question boils down to:
Is an item more intriguing, and subsequently have a higher dollar value - if it is in real photo postcard format or if it is in photograph print format?

If you picked up a real photo postcard would you have been happier if you had picked up an original photo print?
or
If you picked up an original photo print, would you have been happier if you had picked up an original real photo postcard?

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

It seems as though the current thinking is anything that can be considered a card is more valuable than a photo. So it stands to reason, with all things being equal, a post"card" would be more valuable than a photo. Otherwise we woudn't be seeing the far reaching descriptions of things that aren't cards trying to make them into cards......I can't blame anyone for wild descriptions to maximize their financial interest. If you perfume a pig it still stinks though......I think Hal (hi Hal) should send in the drivers license to PSA and tell them it's a card.....Maybe he could throw in an extra 20 spot and they will slab it??

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve f

The old photos are often one of a kind or scarce enough to be considered such and not a card. I think true PCs are a seperate category. Exhibit made postcards, so I believe some postcards are baseball cards. On the otherhand, this Company seems to be shunned by a large segment of collectors. "Ohhh, it's a postcard?.. No thankyou." Personally, I love PCs and the artists renditions of those hand-colored, grand old parks.

In contrast, the large photo supplements ie; Sporting News, Quaker Oats, Police Gaz Premiums, Banners, silks, blankets and other whacky formats are often considered cards by collectors.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Would you pay more for this if it was a photo or if it had a postcard back?

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard

I would pay more if it had a postcard back. Just my preference.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

If the photos are of the same size, the postcard would be worth more financially as there are many who collect postcards and think postcards are comparable to baseball cards.

If the photo is a lot larger, a large display photo and stamped by the photographer or studio, the photo probably would be worth more financially.

Obviously, as the question is financial worth, the market is arbiter: which one sells for more.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

I kinda like the vintage era photos as many of them were distibuted in smaller numbers then postcards. Postcards can be used as well, which depending on how you look at things either devalues or adds history to it. I dont consider either a "card" though, i consider them exactly what they are. Cards have higher values so I understand wanting to advertise a photo or postcard as a advertisement card but i dont think anyones being fooled