1881 Sportsman's #202

[52plusjoker]

Happy New Year to all! This year I intend to post items from our collection on a semi-regular basis. To start here's one of the first decks made by  Russell Morgan & Co., the main predecessor company to the United States Playing Card Co. This deck, their second ever brand, was called Sportsman's #202 and featured the duck hunting theme you see on the Spade Ace and Joker. It has a great pachyderm back, the early RM & Co. courts and a colorful tuck-case.The US on the box refers to their branding of their cards from the very beginning as "US Playing Cards".

We hope you enjoying viewing these old cards. I am sure the majority of members of The Discourse have not had the opportunity to see many cards like this. If you like them maybe you'll have enough interest to join 52 Plus Joker and maybe even join us at our annual convention to be held in Charleston this coming October!

[WKalush]

Great deck Tom, especially that tuck case. Reminds me of that amazing Faro deck Jim Faller had.

[10ofclubs]

What was their first brand and roughly how many other Sportsman decks were made?
Why do you think they chose elephants to put on the backs of a deck with a hunting theme?

[52plusjoker]

What was their first brand and roughly how many other Sportsman decks were made?
Why do you think they chose elephants to put on the backs of a deck with a hunting theme?

Hi 10ofclubs
The first brand was Tigers #101. They continued making Sportsman's #202 until 1936 with five or six modifications to the branding [Spade Ace, Joker, Box, etc.]. In the early years they had a number of different backs including animals more related to ducks, deer, etc. This particular elephant back we think is pretty unusual and rare. By 1900 or so the back designs had become geometric as opposed to sporting.

[Don Boyer]

Now that's an attractive court card, right there.  Why on earth are we not making them that way today?  That is COOL.

[jmrock]

That is a phenomenal deck… Wow… Just unbelievable… The intricacy of the back design is amazing… Looking forward to more posts Tom...

[Leif]

I very much enjoy viewing these cards, and hearing about the history of them. I particularly enjoy court cards. One could almost say I'm obsessed with them. I remember as a kid, I used to pick out the court cards from the decks and examine them, and compare them and just look at the beauty of them. Back then I thought the Swedish cards, with the more fancy courts, were much more beautiful than the American Bicycle decks I happened to come upon. Now, I've learned to appreciate the Anglo/Rouen courts too.

Only problem is... I'd like to see all the courts of the deck, and in high resolution!  But I know it's way too much to ask.

Just to show what a total newbie I am; Are the courts on this deck also the predecessor to the Bicycle courts, or Bee and Hoyle too? Or are all those developed parallel to eachother?

[Don Boyer]

Just to show what a total newbie I am; Are the courts on this deck also the predecessor to the Bicycle courts, or Bee and Hoyle too? Or are all those developed parallel to eachother?

It's not such a n00b question.  The only dumb question is the one you don't ask because you were afraid of looking like a n00b.  EVERYONE was a n00b once - we're sympathetic.

Tom mentioned that this was Russell Morgan and Company's second deck series, numbered 202 - the first was the Tigers #101 deck.  It was printed in 1881, while the first Bicycle deck, which was brand #808, came out four years later.  Bees were already in production with their originating company, New York Consolidated Card Co., as of somewhere between 1820-1840, I think 1823.  The Hoyle brand for playing cards didn't come into existence until the 1920s, though I believe it was around for a few hundred years prior as a brand name for game rule books, including cards.

So court-wise, this shares more of a heritage with the Bicycle deck than the others.  I recalled that some of the brands Russell Morgan sold before and soon after becoming USPC were more deluxe editions and had better printing details, more colors, etc., while others were more for a budget audience and were more simply printed, having as few as two or three colors.  I'd guess that Sportsmans were toward the higher end of the quality spectrum.

Trivia: if I'm not mistaken, Bee is USPC's oldest brand still in print, though it was originally in print by a former competitor that later became their subsidiary.  I think Bicycle's the second oldest, but I'm not 100% certain as I don't know the age of the Tally-Ho deck.

[52plusjoker]

Just to show what a total newbie I am; Are the courts on this deck also the predecessor to the Bicycle courts, or Bee and Hoyle too? Or are all those developed parallel to eachother?

It's not such a n00b question.  The only dumb question is the one you don't ask because you were afraid of looking like a n00b.  EVERYONE was a n00b once - we're sympathetic.

Tom mentioned that this was Russell Morgan and Company's second deck series, numbered 202 - the first was the Tigers #101 deck.  It was printed in 1881, while the first Bicycle deck, which was brand #808, came out four years later.  Bees were already in production with their originating company, New York Consolidated Card Co., as of somewhere between 1820-1840, I think 1823.  The Hoyle brand for playing cards didn't come into existence until the 1920s, though I believe it was around for a few hundred years prior as a brand name for game rule books, including cards.

So court-wise, this shares more of a heritage with the Bicycle deck than the others.  I recalled that some of the brands Russell Morgan sold before and soon after becoming USPC were more deluxe editions and had better printing details, more colors, etc., while others were more for a budget audience and were more simply printed, having as few as two or three colors.  I'd guess that Sportsmans were toward the higher end of the quality spectrum.

Trivia: if I'm not mistaken, Bee is USPC's oldest brand still in print, though it was originally in print by a former competitor that later became their subsidiary.  I think Bicycle's the second oldest, but I'm not 100% certain as I don't know the age of the Tally-Ho deck.

A few comments - NYCC was formed in 1871 through combination of Samuel Hart, Lawrence & Cohen and John J. Levy. Bee brand was introduced in 1892, so Bicycle is seven years older. What is the oldest USPC brand still in existence - it's not Bicycle, rather it is Congress #606 which was introduced as Congress #404 [plain edges] in 1881!!!

[Don Boyer]

Just to show what a total newbie I am; Are the courts on this deck also the predecessor to the Bicycle courts, or Bee and Hoyle too? Or are all those developed parallel to eachother?

It's not such a n00b question.  The only dumb question is the one you don't ask because you were afraid of looking like a n00b.  EVERYONE was a n00b once - we're sympathetic.

Tom mentioned that this was Russell Morgan and Company's second deck series, numbered 202 - the first was the Tigers #101 deck.  It was printed in 1881, while the first Bicycle deck, which was brand #808, came out four years later.  Bees were already in production with their originating company, New York Consolidated Card Co., as of somewhere between 1820-1840, I think 1823.  The Hoyle brand for playing cards didn't come into existence until the 1920s, though I believe it was around for a few hundred years prior as a brand name for game rule books, including cards.

So court-wise, this shares more of a heritage with the Bicycle deck than the others.  I recalled that some of the brands Russell Morgan sold before and soon after becoming USPC were more deluxe editions and had better printing details, more colors, etc., while others were more for a budget audience and were more simply printed, having as few as two or three colors.  I'd guess that Sportsmans were toward the higher end of the quality spectrum.

Trivia: if I'm not mistaken, Bee is USPC's oldest brand still in print, though it was originally in print by a former competitor that later became their subsidiary.  I think Bicycle's the second oldest, but I'm not 100% certain as I don't know the age of the Tally-Ho deck.

A few comments - NYCC was formed in 1871 through combination of Samuel Hart, Lawrence & Cohen and John J. Levy. Bee brand was introduced in 1892, so Bicycle is seven years older. What is the oldest USPC brand still in existence - it's not Bicycle, rather it is Congress #606 which was introduced as Congress #404 [plain edges] in 1881!!!

Thanks for that info - I'd heard about Bee being older, but I wasn't 100% sure of the information's validity.  Now I know!

[10ofclubs]

Since we're on the topic of  USPCC's different brands, how many do they still print today? Just Bee and Bicycle? It's a real shame these sort of decks aren't made anymore, because I think a Sportsman's deck would be sweet to have just for regular use. I love the theme so much. Granted, I grew up looking up to hunters and fishermen.

[52plusjoker]

Would be nice to have seen some of the great old brands continued. Think only Bicycle, Bee, Congress still active brands although they might still be making Ramblers for limited [overseas] markets. If we include Dougherty which became part of USPC in 1908 they might still make Tally-Ho but I don't think so.

[Don Boyer]

Would be nice to have seen some of the great old brands continued. Think only Bicycle, Bee, Congress still active brands although they might still be making Ramblers for limited [overseas] markets. If we include Dougherty which became part of USPC in 1908 they might still make Tally-Ho but I don't think so.

I know for a fact they're still making Tally-Ho, or at the least still selling them.  There's a fruit-and-vegetable shop near my house, open 24/7, that sells Tally Ho made in Erlanger but in Cincinnati boxes, made around '09 or '10.  I think it was Bill Schildman that told me that Tally Ho was a regional brand, and that the region was the five boroughs of New York City, and that's it!  Of course, there's magic shops as well, but you don't find Tally Ho selling anywhere outside of New York besides a magic shop, at least not any more.

If someone was interested in making a custom deck that was a straight-up unaltered copy of those previously-existing brands, I can see no reason why they'd refuse to make them.

[Leif]

Just to show what a total newbie I am; Are the courts on this deck also the predecessor to the Bicycle courts, or Bee and Hoyle too? Or are all those developed parallel to eachother?

It's not such a n00b question.  The only dumb question is the one you don't ask because you were afraid of looking like a n00b.  EVERYONE was a n00b once - we're sympathetic.

Tom mentioned that this was Russell Morgan and Company's second deck series, numbered 202 - the first was the Tigers #101 deck.  It was printed in 1881, while the first Bicycle deck, which was brand #808, came out four years later.  Bees were already in production with their originating company, New York Consolidated Card Co., as of somewhere between 1820-1840, I think 1823.  The Hoyle brand for playing cards didn't come into existence until the 1920s, though I believe it was around for a few hundred years prior as a brand name for game rule books, including cards.

So court-wise, this shares more of a heritage with the Bicycle deck than the others.  I recalled that some of the brands Russell Morgan sold before and soon after becoming USPC were more deluxe editions and had better printing details, more colors, etc., while others were more for a budget audience and were more simply printed, having as few as two or three colors.  I'd guess that Sportsmans were toward the higher end of the quality spectrum.

Trivia: if I'm not mistaken, Bee is USPC's oldest brand still in print, though it was originally in print by a former competitor that later became their subsidiary.  I think Bicycle's the second oldest, but I'm not 100% certain as I don't know the age of the Tally-Ho deck.

Oops, I actually meant Tally-ho and not Hoyle in that question, there.
Thank you for clearing this up for me. I've always wondered about the different looking courts and theirrelationship to eachother.

[jmrock]

Trivia: if I'm not mistaken, Bee is USPC's oldest brand still in print, though it was originally in print by a former competitor that later became their subsidiary.  I think Bicycle's the second oldest, but I'm not 100% certain as I don't know the age of the Tally-Ho deck.

A few comments - NYCC was formed in 1871 through combination of Samuel Hart, Lawrence & Cohen and John J. Levy. Bee brand was introduced in 1892, so Bicycle is seven years older. What is the oldest USPC brand still in existence - it's not Bicycle, rather it is Congress #606 which was introduced as Congress #404 [plain edges] in 1881!!!

Very interesting… Tom, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Bee No.92 Back No.67 still the longest running design to have ever been printed?

[WKalush]

Very interesting… Tom, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Bee No.92 Back No.67 still the longest running design to have ever been printed?

The no. 67 is still being printed in modified form but that designation and design didn't start with Bee.
Prior to Bee's creation (in 1892) NYCC sold the No. 67 in a form that is substantially similar, but not identical, to what is still sold as a Bee no.67. The number and design predate Bee. NYCC also sold Steamboats No. 67 simultaneously with selling Bee no. 67, and the back (but not the stock) was the same.

As far as the Bee branded version of No. 67 being the longest running design, the Bicycle Rider predates that.

bk

[52plusjoker]

Rider back goes back to 1887 and I believe is still being made today - that's 126 years!

[jmrock]

Printing block for Rider Back Bicycle Cards
The United States Playing Card Company, Cincinnati, Ohio, Ca. 1910. The United States Playing Card Company Museum.

[52plusjoker]

Very nice!

[AdamF]

What a lovely court card.  But such a small index.  I feel like you sacrifice some playability with all of that graphic oomph.

[Don Boyer]

What a lovely court card.  But such a small index.  I feel like you sacrifice some playability with all of that graphic oomph.

First, allow me to welcome you to the forum!  You should make a topic for yourself on our "Introduce Yourself" board, so we can get to know you a little better and give you a proper welcome.

The indices are rather small - but they were the style of the period.  in 1881, indices had been around for roughly a decade - prior to that, cards had no index at all and you had to look at the entire face to know what the card is.  They took the old design and sort of squeezed in a tiny index at the edge rather than making a whole new design with a larger index.  In time, however, I'm guessing people did find the tiny indices to be a little tougher to look at and the size was increased as the design was tweaked heading into the 1890s through to pre-WW1.  I know by the 1920s, most decks were using indices around the same size we're familiar with today as standard.

Personally, I'm a fan of small indices like this, despite my failing vision, when it comes to card games.  It's a great way to keep from accidentally flashing your cards to a neighboring player in a game.  But for things like magic or games with community cards, I'd want something closer to the modern standard.

[Cryptocard27]

I compared your Sportsman's deck with mine and I noticed that the index are not identical : the indexes of your deck are the same that your Army #303, Navy #303 decks and are smaller than mine. I also found another difference (noted in purple on the photo)
Does it mean that your Sportsman's deck is more older, more recent or anything else please Tom ?

[52plusjoker]

I compared your Sportsman's deck with mine and I noticed that the index are not identical : the indexes of your deck are the same that your Army #303, Navy #303 decks and are smaller than mine. I also found another difference (noted in purple on the photo)
Does it mean that your Sportsman's deck is more older, more recent or anything else please Tom ?

Yes, mine is a bit older. Russell, Morgan & Co. was used for the earliest decks - then they changed to Russell & Morgan Co after a couple of years - likely 1883. The earliest decks had the smallest indices and they were not as elongated.
I like the way you were able to enlarge the differences - COOL!

[Cryptocard27]

I compared your Sportsman's deck with mine and I noticed that the index are not identical : the indexes of your deck are the same that your Army #303, Navy #303 decks and are smaller than mine. I also found another difference (noted in purple on the photo)
Does it mean that your Sportsman's deck is more older, more recent or anything else please Tom ?

Yes, mine is a bit older. Russell, Morgan & Co. was used for the earliest decks - then they changed to Russell & Morgan Co after a couple of years - likely 1883. The earliest decks had the smallest indices and they were not as elongated.
I like the way you were able to enlarge the differences - COOL!

Many thanks for the answer Tom. Would you have possibly a pix or scan of a Sportsman's #202 with the special and extremely rare joker please ? I would like very much seeing a copy.

[52plusjoker]

I compared your Sportsman's deck with mine and I noticed that the index are not identical : the indexes of your deck are the same that your Army #303, Navy #303 decks and are smaller than mine. I also found another difference (noted in purple on the photo)
Does it mean that your Sportsman's deck is more older, more recent or anything else please Tom ?

Yes, mine is a bit older. Russell, Morgan & Co. was used for the earliest decks - then they changed to Russell & Morgan Co after a couple of years - likely 1883. The earliest decks had the smallest indices and they were not as elongated.
I like the way you were able to enlarge the differences - COOL!

Many thanks for the answer Tom. Would you have possibly a pix or scan of a Sportsman's #202 with the special and extremely rare joker please ? I would like very much seeing a copy.

Here it is - best copy I have.