Revisiting the 1910 PC805 Novelty Cutlery Postcard set.

[rickalaska]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

Show me one card with a postmark before 1910. Novelty Cutlery postcards are not that rare to where a single example should not exist. Same goes for the PC796 Sepia series.

What year do you think that the PC796 Series (which has the exact same subjects and exact same images) was issued?

It would make no sense for Novelty Cutlery to make a card of Speaker in 1908. He was not even on the team until the end of the year, played in only 31 games and hit a paltry .224.

When did Hal Chase and Art Devlin play together? Hal Chase only played one year for the New York Giants - 1919.

How do you explain the inclusion of pitcher Sam Frock? He played in 5 games in 1907, none in 1908 and eight in 1909. 1910 was his big year - he pitched in 46 games.

Some of the images used for the cards are from 1907 or maybe even earlier, but I do not think that they were produced until 1910.

The set is rare - PSA and SGC have graded a total of 186 Novelty Cutlery postcards(93 cards each), many of those were likely crossovers, so the total number would be smaller. There are only a handful of each player known. The most cards graded of any one player by PSA is 7 and the most by SGC is 6, so the populations are very low.

I have only seen three or four examples with postmarks - 1911 is the earliest. I own one dated 1923, so, not everyone mailed the card as soon as they got it - they were collectibles. It's now 110 years later and I still haven't mailed my cards.

If this 25-card set was all produced in the same year (1910), why would the printer use just "last names" on some cards and "full names" on other, backgrounds on some cards and no backgrounds on others? Again, how does Walter "Johnston" (Johnson) and "Honas" (Honus) Wagner get misspelled in 1910? ** Why did the printer choose to represent both the 1908 and the 1909 World Series on different cards (the dual player cards)? **

TRIS SPEAKER - he may have only played 31 games in 1908, but then why would the printer choose SAM FROCK who only pitched 2 innings for Pittsburg in 1910 - was then traded to the Boston Doves and had a losing record? FROCK's best years were in the minors in 1907-08 when he won 23 and 24 games respectively. Sometimes reputation precedes a player and the card printers take a chance on a Rookie - as I recall, SPEAKER turned out to be pretty good.

You are right - Hal Chase was with the NY Highlanders during the time Devlin was with the NY Giants.

The images were clearly taken before 1910 (e.g., 1907 Cobb, 1908 Speaker), so how can anyone conclusively say that the set was printed and distributed in 1910...? The only argument seems to be that there are no early postmarks - this may just tell you how collectible the set was and still is. The 1907-09 designation is clearly the better choice.

[Bicem]

The argument the set was produced over multiple years because of background changes, name misspellings & using older source photographs is a really weak argument. Baseball card and postcard issues used older photography all the time.

[rickalaska]

Originally Posted by Bicem

The argument the set was produced over multiple years because of background changes, name misspellings & using older source photographs is a really weak argument. Baseball card and postcard issues used older photography all the time.

The argument that one of four postmarked postcards out of 186 graded, doesn't have a postmark prior to 1911 is an even weaker argument.

Why don't we just say they were all produced in 1911

[Bicem]

Originally Posted by rickalaska

The argument that one of four postmarked postcards out of 186 graded, doesn't have a postmark prior to 1911 is an even weaker argument.

Why don't we just say they were all produced in 1911

So your theory is they produced 5-7 cards a year starting in 1907 for the next 4 years because they used photos from 1907? We'll have to agree to disagree.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by rickalaska

The argument that one of four postmarked postcards out of 186 graded, doesn't have a postmark prior to 1911 is an even weaker argument.

Why don't we just say they were all produced in 1911

Because an example is known with a 1910 postmark.

[BRoberts]

Heh heh.

[Casey2296]

Follow up question: Do you think the NC postcards were distributed in series over a 3 year period as the photographs were taken?

I also find it interesting that the Collins and Crawford photos were taken at the same time but where? I would think it was during an A's Tigers game but that background is neither Bennett Park, Shibe Park, or Columbia Park. Where would those two Teams have gotten together outside of their respective fields?

Also the background of the NC Lajoie card vs the PC796 card is air brushed out in the NC version, can that be an indicator of which came first? I don't know, just some conjecture.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Follow up question: Do you think the NC postcards were distributed in series over a 3 year period as the photographs were taken?

I also find it interesting that the Collins and Crawford photos were taken at the same time but where? I would think it was during an A's Tigers game but that background is neither Bennett Park, Shibe Park, or Columbia Park. Where would those two Teams have gotten together outside of their respective fields?

Also the background of the NC Lajoie card vs the PC796 card is air brushed out in the NC version, can that be an indicator of which came first? I don't know, just some conjecture.

I do not think that they were issued over a 3 year period. The fact that not a single PC796 or PC805 postcard is known with a postmark before 1910 does not make sense.

IMHO, postmarks are the best way to prove the latest date that a postcard was made. The earliest postmark that I know of is a PC796 from October of 1910. Given this, we know that the PC796 postcards were in circulation by the end of 1910. The earliest postmark that I know of for a PC805 is Sep 27, 1911, so we know that these were definitely in circulation by the end of 1911

Conversely, dated photographs are the best way to prove the earliest that a postcard was made. Obviously, it could have been made at any time after the photo was taken. The latest dated photograph that I am aware of from the set is from the 1909 World Series which began on October 8. Therefore, the earliest that that postcard could have been produced was on that date.

Given these two facts, I feel that the PC796 and PC805 postcards were issued between October, 1909 and October, 1910. Hopefully we can dig up some more facts that help us narrow down those dates.

If the postcards were so successful to have been issued over a three year period then I think that there would be more examples known, with some having postmarks from 1907, 1908 or 1909.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

I do not think that they were issued over a 3 year period. The fact that not a single PC796 or PC805 postcard is known a postmark before 1910 does not make sense.

IMHO, postmarks are the best way to prove the latest date that a postcard was made. The earliest date that I know of is from 1910.

Conversely, dated photographs are the best way to prove the earliest that a postcard was made. Obviously, it could be made at any time after the photo was taken. The latest dated photograph that was used in the set was from 1909 World Series which started on October 8.

If the postcards were that successful to have been issued over a three year period then I think that there would be more examples know with some having postmarks from 1907, 1908 or 1909.

Yes, the three year series release just doesn't make sense to me either.

[robertsmithnocure]

The year that a photo was taken does not date a card except to determine the earliest that it could have been produced. Cards use old photos all of the time, sometime a decade old. The Wagner / Cobb photo from the 1909 World Series makes me agree that the set was produced either at the very end of 1909 or sometime in 1910.

[rickalaska]

Originally Posted by robertsmithnocure

The year that a photo was taken does not date a card except to determine the earliest that it could have been produced. Cards use old photos all of the time, sometime a decade old. The Wagner / Cobb photo from the 1909 World Series makes me agree that the set was produced either at the very end of 1909 or sometime in 1910.

And what does the Evers/Schaefer card from the 1908 World Series make you think - 1910 again?

[robertsmithnocure]

Originally Posted by rickalaska

And what does the Evers/Schaefer card from the 1908 World Series make you think - 1910 again?

Sure. Why not? The card says nothing about the World Series. It just shows two stars of the day. Just like the Wagner and Cobb card. Card sets used old photos all of the time.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by rickalaska

Again, how does Walter "Johnston" (Johnson) and "Honas" (Honus) Wagner get misspelled in 1910? **

What does misspelling a person's name have to do with what year a postcard was produced? What year do you think that the postcard of Ty Cobb and "Honas" Wagner was produced?

It could not have been produced before the 1909 World Series. It would not make sense for them to issue it after the conclusion of the 1909 World Series. Instead, it would make much more sense to issue it in 1910 during the actual baseball season. Most postcard sets were distributed either right before the World Series or at the beginning of the regular season - not during the off-season when interest was the lowest.

[JK]

Originally Posted by rickalaska

Again, how does Walter "Johnston" (Johnson) and "Honas" (Honus) Wagner get misspelled in 1910?

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I really don't find this to be a very persuasive argument for dating a set. Printing errors and misspelled names, even stars, were fairly common during that era. Look no further than the E98 Cy Young card which depicts Irv Young.

[robertsmithnocure]

Originally Posted by JK

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I really don't find this to be a very persuasive argument for dating a set. Printing errors and misspelled names were fairly common during that era. Its like asking how does an E98 Cy Young card end depicting Irv Young? Clearly Cy Young was a well known star by the time that one slipped through some less than eagle eyed print editor.

I totally agree. Players’ names were misspelled all of the time. Christy Mathewson had his name misspelled “Matthewson” during his prime.

The postcard that misspells Wagner’s first name as “Honas” is the one with the image from the 1909 World Series, so the earliest that it could have been produced was then.

So, it makes no sense to posit that a name could be misspelled in late 1909 and not 1910.

[rainier2004]

Originally Posted by robertsmithnocure

I totally agree. Players’ names were misspelled all of the time. Christy Mathewson had his name misspelled “Matthewson” during his prime.

The postcard that misspells Wagner’s first name as “Honas” is the one with the image from the 1909 World Series, so the earliest that it could have been produced was then.

So, it makes no sense to posit that a name could be misspelled in late 1909 and not 1910.

I don't find it that odd the names are misspelled, but 4 of the 25 cards are wrong including two of the first 5 HOFers. As Rick pointed out, NC is in Canton which is fairly close to Pittsburgh and Wagner and he is the only that is incorrect in both sets somehow.

But the 805s have a much more refined look to them. All the names are located on the bottom, very decorative border and publishing info added, consistent font and the 796s have none of this...but the 805s have 4 spelling errors while the 796s only have the one. And then the odd image crop on the Plank on the 796s...

[Casey2296]

In 1900, the U.S. high school graduation rate was six percent. During the 1910s in Canada, the highest level of education the average person completed was grade six.

It's not unreasonable to presume that the assistant in charge of the refined 805 set produced after the 796 may have been spelling challenged. My personal opinion is that both sets were produced by NC, I still have not come to grips with the idea of why a marketing company would not brand the 796.