Author (Read 39981 times)

xZEROx · « **Reply #275 on:** March 19, 2012, 02:36:31 AM »

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing here. Like you said yourself, the company was in operating between 1922 and 1947. That's the time frame I'm talking about.

Don Boyer · « **Reply #276 on:** March 19, 2012, 04:52:46 AM »

Quote from: xZEROx on March 19, 2012, 02:36:31 AM

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing here. Like you said yourself, the company was in operating between 1922 and 1947. That's the time frame I'm talking about.

You mentioned the deck wasn't from the 1800's. We don't know this for certain, since we don't know if the company was operating in that era or not. I'm assuming based on my own observations that it's a more modern design, but I could be completely wrong. Elements of the design are older, while other elements appear more modern, but I couldn't say that with any real authority. Indices and two-way faces were both developed at around the same period, within 20 years after the end of the US Civil War in 1865. This deck has two-way faces, but no indices, and I'm guessing that the court cards look more modern, but I have little to base that on with certainty.

While we know the company was operating 1922-1947, it could have started operations long before 1922 and/or ended them long after 1947. We have no way yet to confirm anything more than that the firm was in business during the period of 1922-1947.

xZEROx · « **Reply #277 on:** March 19, 2012, 05:26:40 AM »

Dazzleguts mentioned the company's around between 1922-1947. I wouldn't comprehend the sentence in a way that it could be operating before and after that. Even if it did, it would probably have used different name, similar to Russell and Morgan Printing Co. as opposed to the UPSCC now.

Don Boyer · « **Reply #278 on:** March 19, 2012, 07:25:27 PM »

Quote from: xZEROx on March 19, 2012, 05:26:40 AM

Dazzleguts mentioned the company's around between 1922-1947. I wouldn't comprehend the sentence in a way that it could be operating before and after that. Even if it did, it would probably have used different name, similar to Russell and Morgan Printing Co. as opposed to the UPSCC now.

OK. But the name change idea - no way to know. Russell & Morgan opted to change their name but many companies don't. I don't think they opted to change until they started absorbing other card companies in bulk! It may or may not have changed, but all we know is they don't appear to be using the original name if they're still in business today. And that, too, is an assumption - they could have folded or been bought up USPC-style.

AlessandroPangia · « **Reply #279 on:** March 20, 2012, 02:49:45 PM »

Sorry Zero, I've been so busy I will post it soon, might be today.

AlessandroPangia · « **Reply #280 on:** March 20, 2012, 03:37:36 PM »

Here it is!
The Ace of Spades, The Box, a Court Card and the Back Design all in one photo:

Ace of Spades:

Some history about this deck, it was produced in NY by Andrew Dougherty in 1885, on the 27th of October to be exact, since it was their first run of decks with the "Improved Card Box". A little known fact, there was a back design of Tally Ho with this same back design, I have one complete deck, box and jokers too, it is the same back, just in Green. This deck is one-way, I am almost 100% positive that this deck was used by a cheat, since it has some line work, typical of that era (pre Sharps and Flats type), in fact each spread of important cards has some line work and shade work on some leaves. The marks are tiny, but very clear if you are used to marked cards. I might open a new topic showing my collection of crooked gambling cards, if you want so, please comment down about it.

AlessandroPangia · « **Reply #281 on:** March 20, 2012, 04:21:08 PM »

By the way, I will post one tomorrow to fill the gap I took for posting this one.

digipunk · « **Reply #282 on:** March 22, 2012, 02:04:45 PM »

Quote from: AlessandroPangia on March 20, 2012, 03:37:36 PM

Here it is!
....

I only see 2 frogs... $:-\$

xZEROx · « **Reply #283 on:** March 22, 2012, 02:13:46 PM »

Quote from: digipunk on March 22, 2012, 02:04:45 PM

I only see 2 frogs... $:-\$

That's weird...Anyhow, here it is for you!

NathanCanadas · « **Reply #284 on:** March 22, 2012, 02:28:31 PM »

Are these the first cards made by Dougherty? (before the Tallys)?

AlessandroPangia · « **Reply #285 on:** March 22, 2012, 03:30:26 PM »

Tally Ho were introduced in the late 1800s, so this deck should precede them. What do you think about them Digi,Zero and Nathan? And what about the idea for the new topic?

xZEROx · « **Reply #286 on:** March 27, 2012, 07:48:11 AM »

I'm not familiar with these decks. I collect Bicycle-branded cards so it might be better if you ask someone else.
New topic? The gambling cards you mean? I'd love to see it!
How did you know about the October 27th? Of course you're talking about this back and box design, not this particular deck. But where did you find the information? I'm just curious and want to keep a record of the references.

AlessandroPangia · « **Reply #287 on:** March 27, 2012, 11:43:19 AM »

Zero, I am actually referring to this deck right here it was made on that date, I found the date on the box, and this deck was one of the first runs made that day (It has the Indicator Ace of Spades, which was the standard Dougherty Ace of Spade of the time, before they produced a custom one) In fact I spotted a deck few months ago with the same box, but with a different Ace of Spades (Tally Ho), and in fact it was produced in 1899. Today I will start the topic.

xZEROx · « **Reply #288 on:** March 27, 2012, 04:07:28 PM »

Could you then take another picture that indicates the date on the box? I've never come across any box that tells the exact date of production. Unless it's handwritten. Indicator AoS only tells the year, does it not?

Don Boyer · « **Reply #289 on:** March 28, 2012, 01:20:28 AM »

Quote from: xZEROx on March 27, 2012, 04:07:28 PM

Could you then take another picture that indicates the date on the box? I've never come across any box that tells the exact date of production. Unless it's handwritten. Indicator AoS only tells the year, does it not?

I didn't see a year on that Ace of Spades, and not only did the USPC date code not come into being for about three decades after, but Dougherty wasn't yet part of USPC in 1885.

I'd enjoy seeing clear shots of the box - it looks to be in incredible condition for an artifact so old.

Aaron · « **Reply #290 on:** March 28, 2012, 01:45:21 AM »

I have been meaning to post these for awile but havn't got around to it till now:

These are some pictures of my Bicycle Secret Weapon Deck: http://s1149.photobucket.com/albums/o581/azroth14/

Here is a thread with some info on it: http://aethercards.com/discourse/index.php?topic=1485.msg22732#msg22732

\i really like the deck, as does someone else who always wants to buy it from me

xZEROx · « **Reply #291 on:** March 28, 2012, 01:55:11 AM »

@Don,
I don't mean the alphabetical code for the USPC AoS. That particular AoS for the Dougherty decks indicates the year. I was asking how he knew the exact date.

@Aaron,
It seems like you've password-protected the album.

Don Boyer · « **Reply #292 on:** March 28, 2012, 05:53:15 AM »

Quote from: xZEROx on March 28, 2012, 01:55:11 AM

@Don,
I don't mean the alphabetical code for the USPC AoS. That particular AoS for the Dougherty decks indicates the year. I was asking how he knew the exact date.

I tried getting a good look at it in the photo, but I didn't see a year on it. I could have missed it.

xZEROx · « **Reply #293 on:** March 28, 2012, 06:03:09 AM »

You can barely see the box. That's why I asked for another clearer photo at it.

AlessandroPangia · « **Reply #294 on:** March 28, 2012, 08:21:32 AM »

So, the box has the date on it, and that's the Ace of Spades used in that period, so the date must be correct. I will take some pictures of the box and post it soon.

Aaron · « **Reply #295 on:** March 28, 2012, 10:03:35 AM »

I didn't mean to lock that, I will unlock it when I get home.

Aaron · « **Reply #296 on:** March 28, 2012, 06:30:42 PM »

Ok you guys should be able to access it now:

http://s1149.photobucket.com/albums/o581/azroth14/

xZEROx · « **Reply #297 on:** March 28, 2012, 06:36:52 PM »

The rider back actually caught me off-guard for a bit. I'm not sure what I was expecting, but I thought it would've been something else.

jmrock · « **Reply #298 on:** March 28, 2012, 10:59:09 PM »

@Aaron... Now you're just being cruel... What's it going to take...

Aaron · « **Reply #299 on:** March 29, 2012, 12:46:24 AM »

Quote from: jmrock on March 28, 2012, 10:59:09 PM

@Aaron... Now you're just being cruel... What's it going to take...

Haha, I am not trying to be cruel, I just remembered that some people asked for pictures of it one time, So I did it.

I don't even know what it would take for me to let it go