Why does it seem like 19th century cards get no love?

While the majority of card discussion on the forums are dedicated to T & E cards, it seems as though 19th century stuff often gets the cold shoulder. Remember several years ago when N172's were as hot as ever? Now you can get a decent low/mid grade OJ Hofer for a very reasonable price, sometimes as little as 50% of what you would have paid just a few years ago.

As for the rarer 19th century sets - are these not discussed and collected as much simply because they aren't as accessible to the average collector? Or is it because most of the desirable stuff is already tucked away in major collections, and any rarity that pops up in the future is going to go to those same advanced collectors with deep pockets (giving average collectors no hope)?

Or maybe it can be summed up simply as a general lack of interest in 19th century material relative to deadball era stuff?

I welcome your responses and hope to see more 19th century card discussions here in the future!

fisherboy7 wrote: Or is it because most of the desirable stuff is already tucked away in major collections, and any rarity that pops up in the future is going to go to those same advanced collectors with deep pockets (giving average collectors no hope)?

yes. I would love to talk about this stuff all day, but I own none of it.

A lot of it has to do with the lack of color. Most people do not care for the sepia and B&W photos. Although A&G and Goodwin cards are color, cards from multisport sets have never had the popularity of cards baseball only sets. Buchnar's are disliked because of the generic look of players, although some of the poses are comical, like the "air guitar" pose. The lack interest probably has something to do with MLB and the media essentially ignoring anything from that era in regards to records. People like records and when the real record holders for Ks in a season, wins, runs scored, etc are ignored, they don't get recognition Ryan (not the single season record holder for Ks) gets from the media.

Basically, out of sight, out of mind.

Jay

There are lots of 19th century sets, much like there are lots of deadball era sets. But right in the middle of the deadball era sets is the Monster - a force to be reckoned with. Similarly, the 19th century has OJs, the same basic 500 cards, but with from a few to 17 variations for each player. A monster's monster.

Plus, the players are largely unheard of individuals. Oh, there are the dozen or two "household" names; Brouthers, Ward, Radbourne, Anson, Ewing, etc., but most players are lost in obscurity to most baseball historians.

This is because the baseball fan/card enthusiast/historian does not consider the game played during most of the 19th century as really baseball. This is because the rules were still under development, and as such, were frequently changing. The number of balls for a walk, and those for a strikeout were not firm until the late 1880s. In 1881 the pitcher's mound was moved back to 50' from the batter, rather than the previous 45'. Two years later an out could not be recorded any longer unless the foul ball was caught on the fly. 1887 was the last year in which a batter could specify whether he required a high or low pitch. Six years later however, is considered the dawn of modern baseball, due to the pitcher's "mound" being moved back to 60'6", where it stands today, but that was essentially at the end of the century.

There are quite a few affordable, attractive sets - and an unbelievable wealth of history - if one is inclined to fight for it, but it does not come freely. OJ collectors are not known for passing on the "discoveries" which they have made regarding the cards, history, nor related considerations.

This era is much like a study of the Negro Leagues, except reliable information relating to nineteenth century baseball is way easier to come by, I think.

Dan Koteles and I discuss this regularly on the phone. We agree with Jay - we HATE the B&W cards! Although I do have a few in my collection and they are growing on me. TBH, I mostly collect not only color cards, but ones with very vibrant backgrounds (like the sunset backgrounds I post on here freguently).

I have always liked the 19th Century colored issues - Buchners especially. However, the only Buchner I can remember owning was an Anson. I also collected high grade Old Judges at one time (I think it was the time frame some were pulled from some old packs and found in pristine condition).

I guess most collectors like color - even on the backs of cards. That is probably why the Red Hindus and Uzits are collected so widely - very nice colors on the backs as well as the fronts.

Rarity trumps a lot of factors however. I would still LOVE to own a nice Lone Jack example - especially Comiskey!

I have a lot of early Hobby books lying around talking about the 19th Century cards and their "lack" of respect or collectibility. A lot of the Hobby authors also think that the players are less known as well - having an effect on their collectibility and popularity with collectors. Most anyone knows who Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb are. However, Cap Anson (probably the most popular 19th Century player) is not a household name.

Also, there were BIG changes in the rules of Baseball from the 19th - 20th Century. Some feel the records were "padded" for the 19th Century players. This might result in lack of interest as well.

There are several reasons we can discuss. However, the primary reason I don't collect 19th Century cards is the lack of color.

I see mid-grade N172 Commons going for same price if not more than mid-grade T206 hofers. Image quality has as much to do with price as the grade, if not more. The grading companies don't know how to grade a light image N172. I think, there is plenty of interest in the nice contrast n172's.

I would trade alot of my colorized Cards for a couple more bland (Tongue in cheek) N173 Hofers.

Very few people have the expertise to talk about rare 19th century sets. Even the most common N172 set has so many nuances and variations that the majority do not know about. The long time OJ collectors might have information but they have been so guarded about the information over the years. Most refuse to share publicly or privately any information about rarities or variations in the OJ set for fear of additional competition for those cards. As a result, very few people collect the N172 as a set; there might be those who collect HOFers or particular subsets, but only a handful of people try to complete the OJ.

Collecting nineteenth century cards is mainly applicable to those comfortable with each non-altered acquisition costing over $100., and many above $200. Although these figures apply to cards from all eras, they are not the rule for every card.

With regard to collecting options and approaches to 19th century cards, and in keeping with Jay’s observations regarding the appearance of OJ cards: selecting them as an initial focal point may not be as good an idea as an alternate could be. And Jay is certainly not alone in a preference for more colorful portrayals. I’ve heard OJ descriptions such as “they look like a bunch of old cowboys with bats rather than six shooters”.

And to tell you the truth, my heart is with their competition, eventhough I do prefer these pictures of cowboys, as my primary collectible. So, lets take a look at their competition. But before we do, a little refresher on the early history of the National League, may be of value.

Started in 1876, the “pennant” was won by either Chicago (6x), Boston (3x), or Providence (2x) through 1886. The American Association, started in 1882 was never really a “World Series” contender in the eyes of most NL fans. But in 1886 the St. Louis AA team beat the NL Chicago White Stockings 4-2 in WS competition.

Goodwin & Co. embraced this occurrence and featured it in their stiffners which were inserted in the packs of their Old Judge cigarettes. The premier “pull” from one of these packs would be, of course, one of the Brown’s Champion cards. Their competitor, Allen & Ginter was less enthusiastic about the success of the American Association, and offered much smaller sets which included relatively few, highly targeted baseball player selections; called their N28 & N29 sets. In all, 16 baseball players are represented, as shown below.

N28 -
Adrian C. Anson
Chas. W. Bennett
R. L. Caruthers
John Clarkson
Charles Comiskey
Capt. John Glasscock
Timothy Keefe
Mike Kelly
Joseph Mulvey
John M. Ward

N29 –

Wm. Ewing
Jas. H. Fogarty (middle initial actually G.)
Charles H. Getzin (Getzien)
Geo. F. Miller
John Morrell (Morrill)
James Ryan



To many observers, these sets seem like a cacophony of players including many whose sole claim to fame is that they are included in these sets. In fact, A&G chose to minimize most obvious star performers, such as Brouthers, Galvin, Browning, Welch, Radbourn, Thompson, Connor, etc. in favor of a selection of more insightful choices picked to celebrate the strength in the NL. As such, from the above lists the following coupling and descriptions apply.

Clearly Cap Anson and James Ryan are two of the top 19th century performers. Fogarty and Mulvey though are less apparent choices. Both were members of the Philadelphia Quakers who finished in second place in 1887 without a real star performer. The were a team strong in the fundamentals of fielding and taking advantage of opportunities. As such, Fogarty got 82 walks to compliment his .261 BA and stole 102 bases. Mulvey, the third baseman stole 43 bases and batted .287 while typically putting the ball in play, to allow the misfielding which was common (14 Ks in 474 AB). 2nd Place – must have been a fun team to follow.

Getzin, of course was the mainstay of the mound for the Wolverines, who won it all in 1887. And Charles Bennett was his preferred batterymate, and an old timer who was dependable in the clutch, and the leading slugger of the team, until Thompson and Brouthers arrived. George F. Miller was Doggie Miller (the Foghorn of Calliope), and the batterymate of Pud Galvin. .267 hitter, light stick, good fielder.

John Morrill was the first baseman and Manager of the Boston Beaneaters, who among their many stars included King Kelly and John Clarkson. Similarly, the Gothams were a powerhouse from the mid-1880s on, and some of their stars are included in these sets: Ewing, Ward and Tim Keefe.

Pebbly Jack Glasscock stands alone as the bright spot of the ’87 last place NL team, the Indianapolis Hoosiers. He was the team captain and a continuing source of inspiration, as well as a fan favorite. Two key players of the AA Browns Champions are included in these sets as well: Caruthers and Charles Comiskey.

Both of these sets, n28 & n29 look alike and have similar cost (about $250 for vg, depending on the player). However, as shown below, the six card n29 set can be upgraded in attractiveness substantially, if your budget can allow one or more selections from the N43 A&G set. The n43s are identical (heck they totally include the n29s) and they lavish extra artwork to produce a prime example of nineteenth century lithography.







Also, if expansion of this collection is wanted, one option is to include other persons from the 1880s era such as Buffalo Bill or Annie Oakley.




Additionally, from sources such as A&Gs N2 set a similar design is encountered applicable to persons including Sitting Bull and Geronimo, whose "careers" were still active in the 1880s.




Gil

I never said I don't like OJs or B&W issues. It was meant as general observation of most collectors. Yes, I love the gaudey t205 set and art deco sets of the 30s, but I'll take a great B&W or sepia like those on Mayos or OJs over the mundane stuff you find in the t206 set.

Jay

Excellent post Gil! Enjoyed the read. And I agree - N28 is a good starting point for collectors looking to dabble in 19th century. Handsome looking cards, affordable relative to other 19th century sets, and a nice cross section of players from the era. The option of expanding into the non-sport subjects of the set is an added bonus as well.

Thank you, Jay for clarifying my misunderstanding of your statement.