Peck & Snyder Cincinnati Red Stockings -- Black versus Red

[Archive]

Posted By: CoreyRSh.anus

With the recent publicity surrounding the latest Red Stocking's trade card to hit the market -- the red version featured on the Tonight Show -- a thought crossed my mind. Does the card's color indicate the year of issue? As we know, the card was issued in two colors -- black and red. To most people, my guess is that the red is more aesthetically pleasing. I know for my tastes it is. But should it be the more valuable? And why the two colors? Here's my thought. The red version is actually a second printing issued in 1870. My reasons are fourfold:

1. Having seen many black and red versions over the years, I have noted the reds in general exhibit poorer photo contrast than the blacks. In fact, to take this one step further, in over twenty years I have seen exactly one red version whose photo contrast compares to the best known blacks. If in fact the reds were printed the year after the blacks, then its reasonable to believe constant reuse of the negative could cause degradation which would in time impact the quality of the prints.

2. The 1870 team is identical to the 1869 team. And to go further, remember the Red Stockings went undefeated in 1869. So these two factors would reasonably compel any merchant to reissue the card in 1870.

3. 1870 was the year Peck and Snyder issued two other ink-colored baseball trade cards* -- the Philadelphia Athletics and the New York Mutuals. Philadelphia came with blue inks, the Mutuals with green. 1870 also is the last known year that Peck & Snyder issued baseball trade cards. So perhaps that last year only they experimented with color inks. (* To be fair and present all the facts, Philadelphia is also known with black inks and there also is an 1870 Chicago White Stockings which is known only with black inks.)

4. I know of at least one red version that has the year 1870 written on the front, indicating it was an 1870 issue depicting the 1870 team.

Admitedly this is just a theory and no single explanation is dispositve. But collectively they paint a picture that to me at least is highly suggestive. I'd be curious to know if others feel this way, or have other thoughts.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Your reasoning makes sense to me.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I also think it is a compelling argument. The team was extremely popular through the first half of 1870, until their winning streak was ended by the Atlantics. If the card was a big "seller" in 1869, it easily could have been reprinted the following year.

And here is a fifth point to support the argument. In the early part of 1869, when we can assume the card was first issued, the back featured the the Peck and Snyder sporting goods salesman. In the fall, as the weather got colder, it was replaced by the ice skate advertisement. Because the red ones went back to featuring the sporting goods salesman, we can surmise that their winter selling season had ended. With Spring, 1870 upon them, there was no longer a need to market their ice skates.

Overall, a good theory.

Edited to add I'm not exactly sure that is a salesman on the back, but that's what I've always called him. He's carrying so much equipment that he looks like a tired salesman to me.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

Sounds logical to me, interesting reading.

Steve

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Nice theory and sounds like it could be that way. You said-

"I know of at least one red version that has the year 1870 written on the front, indicating it was an 1870 issue depicting the 1870 team."


Is that writing handwritten or machine printed? regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

great stuff.

great reasoning.


Although I read with a hope of being able to pick on something ...
I don't see anything to pick on.


And I agree completely with your last paragraph..... the points in this theory (while still a theory) do paint a compelling picture.

[Archive]

Posted By: CoreyRSh.anus

Leon,

The 1870 designation was hand-written.