Ask the Experts at 52 Plus Joker

[MrVamp]

It's not that hard to find out - if you do your research.  If one deck of a single print run had a vellum wrapper with a wax USPC seal around the cards as well as a tax stamp on the box, it's a safe bet that the entire rest of the print run was originally released in the same condition with the same materials.  You only need someone, somewhere, to have opened one box and for that person to tell about the experience!

A lot of information is also available in reference guides like the Hochman's Encyclopedia.

So if a deck has a single print run, and I have seen that the same deck with the box opened has the card wrapped in vellum or vax or whatever I am interested in, then I can deduce that every other deck of that type has the same type of packaging. That is simple enough.

Also, I have searched through Hochman's part 1 and 2 and both vellum and vax never shows up, and cellophane only shows up once in part 2. It seems that information about the inside packaging is fairly scarce.

Do you know of any other references, besides Hochman's, that would be good for determining single print runs, packaging details, etc.? I will also look at the material available at askalexander.org to see if anything interesting pops up, so you don't have to suggest that.

[Don Boyer]

It's not that hard to find out - if you do your research.  If one deck of a single print run had a vellum wrapper with a wax USPC seal around the cards as well as a tax stamp on the box, it's a safe bet that the entire rest of the print run was originally released in the same condition with the same materials.  You only need someone, somewhere, to have opened one box and for that person to tell about the experience!

A lot of information is also available in reference guides like the Hochman's Encyclopedia.

So if a deck has a single print run, and I have seen that the same deck with the box opened has the card wrapped in vellum or vax or whatever I am interested in, then I can deduce that every other deck of that type has the same type of packaging. That is simple enough.

Also, I have searched through Hochman's part 1 and 2 and both vellum and vax never shows up, and cellophane only shows up once in part 2. It seems that information about the inside packaging is fairly scarce.

Do you know of any other references, besides Hochman's, that would be good for determining single print runs, packaging details, etc.? I will also look at the material available at askalexander.org to see if anything interesting pops up, so you don't have to suggest that.

The biggest problem with getting information about the packaging of a vintage or antique deck is that often the deck itself is all that exists - the packaging is long gone.  Often the only way to get information on it is to inquire with someone who has a deck with intact packaging.

[skinny]

My 2015 price guide didn't download along with my Hochman's. I've got an open case with ConjArts. With that being said, I've got a value question.

I haven't seen Thistle Backs come up in a while. I've got the opportunity to pick up a deck with 52 only, no box, no jokers, and one non-facecard with 2 bent corners. The 51 others are in good shape. Should I wait for better or should I snatch these up under $20?

[Don Boyer]

My 2015 price guide didn't download along with my Hochman's. I've got an open case with ConjArts. With that being said, I've got a value question.

I haven't seen Thistle Backs come up in a while. I've got the opportunity to pick up a deck with 52 only, no box, no jokers, and one non-facecard with 2 bent corners. The 51 others are in good shape. Should I wait for better or should I snatch these up under $20?

I had a problem with my download - until I realized that there are carefully-written instructions in the email you received about your order telling you that you have to download everything beyond the first "book" using a slightly different method.  So in my case, it was more of a "user error!"  CARC was kind enough to let me know without making me feel like an idiot!

I'm thinking you could do worse, price-wise.  While the prices on decks in general don't change a lot past a certain point, they don't generally go down - today's $20 deck could be tomorrow's trade fodder for $25 worth of cards from someone else...

[52plusjoker]

My 2015 price guide didn't download along with my Hochman's. I've got an open case with ConjArts. With that being said, I've got a value question.

I haven't seen Thistle Backs come up in a while. I've got the opportunity to pick up a deck with 52 only, no box, no jokers, and one non-facecard with 2 bent corners. The 51 others are in good shape. Should I wait for better or should I snatch these up under $20?

If you continue to have trouble with the download let me know and send me your order details and I can likely get it for you.

Re Thistle. Depends on how/what you are collecting. If trying to get an example of each back - go for this and eventually upgrade and sell this one. If you are collecting decks of various brands, etc. I would wait for one in much better condition, and complete .

[skinny]

I came across this one at an antique shop in Dallas. I hadn't heard of them before. Google came up with a listing (that has already sold) on Etsy. An older version of that page might suggest they were asking $98.

I didn't buy them; this is the only picture I've got. Any backstory or value on these?

EDIT: Since the picture isn't great, here's all the text from the box.

Teuila Fortune Telling Cards
The U.S.Playing Card Co.
Cincinnati, U.S.A.
Copyright 1899 by Isobel Strong
Copyright 1923 by Isobel Field
International Copyright Reserved

[Don Boyer]

I came across this one at an antique shop in Dallas. I hadn't heard of them before. Google came up with a listing (that has already sold) on Etsy. An older version of that page might suggest they were asking $98.

I didn't buy them; this is the only picture I've got. Any backstory or value on these?

EDIT: Since the picture isn't great, here's all the text from the box.

Teuila Fortune Telling Cards
The U.S.Playing Card Co.
Cincinnati, U.S.A.
Copyright 1899 by Isobel Strong
Copyright 1923 by Isobel Field
International Copyright Reserved

Well, I can tell you that the copyright's expired!

The only other thing I can tell you is that there's been a lot of "Fortune Telling Decks" from USPC over the years, including the popular "Gypsy Witch" deck.  They're kind of interesting.  I've even seen a few "hand-modified" standard decks, where people either wrote on the cards or glued strips of typed pieces of paper to them with fortune-telling directions for what the card means, depending on whether it was drawn facing up or down.  They're rather quaint, in terms of the fortunes told - like a little slice of folk history.

[52plusjoker]

This is a fortune telling game that is not a deck of playing cards as it doesn't use suit signs. It is interesting and has some value - I would suggest about $50 in mint condition.

[skinny]

The information on these is pretty scarce. Google is very little help; a few old newspaper ads come up mentioning them from the 40s and I've only seen a newer deck shown on WOPC. I bought these on a whim without the opportunity to research. Do I have anything here? Since one of the 10¢ stamps is partially detached, I might break into that deck soon.

[Don Boyer]

The information on these is pretty scarce. Google is very little help; a few old newspaper ads come up mentioning them from the 40s and I've only seen a newer deck shown on WOPC. I bought these on a whim without the opportunity to research. Do I have anything here? Since one of the 10¢ stamps is partially detached, I might break into that deck soon.

Based on what I see here, I can say two things:
1) that "Liberty Spade" design on the tuck box is definitely USPC, and
2) that particular tax stamp was in use only from 1929-1940.

In all likelihood, you have a Depression-era deck.  Never heard of the brand before, but my knowledge of vintage is more limited.

The brand name seems a little ironic, since technically, the back designs aren't really of a single color, and "monotone" by definition is not about color but about sound that is unvaried in key or pitch!  Assuming they were single-color, like Bicycle Rider Backs (and nearly all "old school" Bicycle designs), "monochrome" would be the more accurate term.

[52plusjoker]

This would be a cheap brand that USPC made, likely for a major customer, e.g. Rexall, to sell at a lower price than regular USPC decks.

[idris]

Good morning,

Do you happen to know any non-internet based literature I can read on Lewis I. Cohen? He seems like a really interesting guy with a great story and tantalisingly little about him here online!

Thanks :)

[52plusjoker]

Good morning,

Do you happen to know any non-internet based literature I can read on Lewis I. Cohen? He seems like a really interesting guy with a great story and tantalisingly little about him here online!

Thanks

By coincidence, the next issue of Clear the Decks, the quarterly magazine of 52 Plus Joker, has a long article on L I Cohen. It will be in the mail in about a week and available on the website about the same time. If you are not already a member, click the link below to join and we'll make sure you are on the mailing list.
http://www.52plusjoker.org/dnn/Members/MyAccount/tabid/77/Default.aspx?returnurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.52plusjoker.org%2fdnn%2f52PlusJokerClub%2ftabid%2f36%2fDefault.aspx

[idris]

Good morning,

Do you happen to know any non-internet based literature I can read on Lewis I. Cohen? He seems like a really interesting guy with a great story and tantalisingly little about him here online!

Thanks

By coincidence, the next issue of Clear the Decks, the quarterly magazine of 52 Plus Joker, has a long article on L I Cohen. It will be in the mail in about a week and available on the website about the same time. If you are not already a member, click the link below to join and we'll make sure you are on the mailing list.
http://www.52plusjoker.org/dnn/Members/MyAccount/tabid/77/Default.aspx?returnurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.52plusjoker.org%2fdnn%2f52PlusJokerClub%2ftabid%2f36%2fDefault.aspx

Perfect! Thanks Tom!

[Victory52]

Hello, my first "real" post, and the deck that prompted me to join the forum.  I am trying to understand how to date this particular deck, but the information I found researching today is a bit confusing.  The box states N.Y. Consolidated and supposedly this dates the deck to pre-1930.  But the tax stamp dates it between 1940-1965.  The Consolidated-Dougherty cancel seems to date it to pre-1963.  These sites were my main resources:

http://playingcards.wikidot.com/articles:uspcc-history
http://dananddave.com/learn/articles/dating-playing-cards-from-1-pack-tax-stamp/

So was this old NYCCC manufactured stock that was later sold by Consolidated-Dougherty?  Or did the NYCCC brand actually exist later than 1930?  I understand that NYCCC and C-D were subsidiaries of U.S. Playing Card that operated under their own brands.  I know these questions could probably be answered by opening the pack but I'm not prepared to do that at this point since it is still fully sealed. Or does that really matter with this one?

I'm curious about value, it looks like eBay sales for seemingly equivalent decks run around $15.  Does that seem right?  I looked at Worthpoint and these were selling for around $100 back in 2011.  That's a big drop, I'm curious what happend to the market on these since then?

Any help you can offer is appreciated!

[Don Boyer]

Hello, my first "real" post, and the deck that prompted me to join the forum.  I am trying to understand how to date this particular deck, but the information I found researching today is a bit confusing.  The box states N.Y. Consolidated and supposedly this dates the deck to pre-1930.  But the tax stamp dates it between 1940-1965.  The Consolidated-Dougherty cancel seems to date it to pre-1963.  These sites were my main resources:

http://playingcards.wikidot.com/articles:uspcc-history
http://dananddave.com/learn/articles/dating-playing-cards-from-1-pack-tax-stamp/

So was this old NYCCC manufactured stock that was later sold by Consolidated-Dougherty?  Or did the NYCCC brand actually exist later than 1930?  I understand that NYCCC and C-D were subsidiaries of U.S. Playing Card that operated under their own brands.  I know these questions could probably be answered by opening the pack but I'm not prepared to do that at this point since it is still fully sealed. Or does that really matter with this one?

I'm curious about value, it looks like eBay sales for seemingly equivalent decks run around $15.  Does that seem right?  I looked at Worthpoint and these were selling for around $100 back in 2011.  That's a big drop, I'm curious what happend to the market on these since then?

Any help you can offer is appreciated!

The New York Consolidated Card Company was founded in 1871, purchased by USPC in 1894 and merged into the Consolidated-Dougherty brand in 1930, under which it operated until the brand was "dissolved" and absorbed into USPC in 1962.  A. Dougherty is an even older firm, having been founded in 1848 and purchased by USPC in 1907.

Even to this day, you can buy packs of recently-made, new-stock Tally Ho playing cards that still state the manufacturer on the box face as "A. Dougherty," even though A. Dougherty as an independent corporate identity ceased to exist 85 years ago along with NYCCC.  (The copyright information on the box's bottom panel, something USPC introduced with the move to Erlanger, Kentucky in 2009, will list USPC as the manufacturer and copyright holder.  Technically the design is too old to be covered under copyright law, though it is still covered under trademark law, as long as USPC continues to keep the trademark registered.)  So I would not be surprised in the least to discover a box of Bees with the NYCCC brand which was made after the 1930 merger of the two units into Consolidated-Dougherty.

The most accurate measure of the deck's age would be the tax stamp, which in this case would place it as being made somewhere between the first use of the wide "1 PACK" tax stamp in 1940 and the abolition of the stamp tax on cards in 1965.  Someone more knowledgeable than I am might be able to narrow it further based on variations in the box design or the stamp's cancellation during that time period, but that's the best I can offer you as far as a date without the pack being opened.

[Victory52]

Hello, my first "real" post, and the deck that prompted me to join the forum.  I am trying to understand how to date this particular deck, but the information I found researching today is a bit confusing.  The box states N.Y. Consolidated and supposedly this dates the deck to pre-1930.  But the tax stamp dates it between 1940-1965.  The Consolidated-Dougherty cancel seems to date it to pre-1963.  These sites were my main resources:

http://playingcards.wikidot.com/articles:uspcc-history
http://dananddave.com/learn/articles/dating-playing-cards-from-1-pack-tax-stamp/

So was this old NYCCC manufactured stock that was later sold by Consolidated-Dougherty?  Or did the NYCCC brand actually exist later than 1930?  I understand that NYCCC and C-D were subsidiaries of U.S. Playing Card that operated under their own brands.  I know these questions could probably be answered by opening the pack but I'm not prepared to do that at this point since it is still fully sealed. Or does that really matter with this one?

I'm curious about value, it looks like eBay sales for seemingly equivalent decks run around $15.  Does that seem right?  I looked at Worthpoint and these were selling for around $100 back in 2011.  That's a big drop, I'm curious what happend to the market on these since then?

Any help you can offer is appreciated!

The New York Consolidated Card Company was founded in 1871, purchased by USPC in 1894 and merged into the Consolidated-Dougherty brand in 1930, under which it operated until the brand was "dissolved" and absorbed into USPC in 1962.  A. Dougherty is an even older firm, having been founded in 1848 and purchased by USPC in 1907.

Even to this day, you can buy packs of recently-made, new-stock Tally Ho playing cards that still state the manufacturer on the box face as "A. Dougherty," even though A. Dougherty as an independent corporate identity ceased to exist 85 years ago along with NYCCC.  (The copyright information on the box's bottom panel, something USPC introduced with the move to Erlanger, Kentucky in 2009, will list USPC as the manufacturer and copyright holder.  Technically the design is too old to be covered under copyright law, though it is still covered under trademark law, as long as USPC continues to keep the trademark registered.)  So I would not be surprised in the least to discover a box of Bees with the NYCCC brand which was made after the 1930 merger of the two units into Consolidated-Dougherty.

The most accurate measure of the deck's age would be the tax stamp, which in this case would place it as being made somewhere between the first use of the wide "1 PACK" tax stamp in 1940 and the abolition of the stamp tax on cards in 1965.  Someone more knowledgeable than I am might be able to narrow it further based on variations in the box design or the stamp's cancellation during that time period, but that's the best I can offer you as far as a date without the pack being opened.

Thanks a lot Don!  Any opinion on value or whether opening the pack is a good or bad idea?

Tim

[Don Boyer]

Thanks a lot Don!  Any opinion on value or whether opening the pack is a good or bad idea?

Tim

Wow - that's a big question!  The answer is really an individual's choice.  Some people like preserving their little pieces of history as intact, while others are eager to hold and use a piece of history, evoking thoughts of what life was like for the people for whom that specific deck would have been a contemporary item.

It goes without saying that opening it would reduce its value, but cash value isn't the only reason for owning something, is it?  I've also heard of some collectors opening a tuck box "surgically" from the bottom, carefully opening the cellophane at the folds and separating the bottom box flaps, allowing access to the cards to view them while at the same time preserving the cellophane tear strip and tax stamp in their original condition.  I'm not a fan of this, even if the box is carefully reglued and resealed closed to appear as it originally did, probably for much the same reasons why one can't become a virgin again after losing one's virginity.  But then again, if the work was done well, how would I know the difference, right?

I'd consider opening it for much the same reasons why one might open a fine vintage wine or champagne - not for any old reason but for some kind of special occasion, like a poker game with some buddies you haven't seen in a long time or something to that effect.

[Victory52]

Thanks a lot Don!  Any opinion on value or whether opening the pack is a good or bad idea?

Tim

Wow - that's a big question!  The answer is really an individual's choice.  Some people like preserving their little pieces of history as intact, while others are eager to hold and use a piece of history, evoking thoughts of what life was like for the people for whom that specific deck would have been a contemporary item.

It goes without saying that opening it would reduce its value, but cash value isn't the only reason for owning something, is it?  I've also heard of some collectors opening a tuck box "surgically" from the bottom, carefully opening the cellophane at the folds and separating the bottom box flaps, allowing access to the cards to view them while at the same time preserving the cellophane tear strip and tax stamp in their original condition.  I'm not a fan of this, even if the box is carefully reglued and resealed closed to appear as it originally did, probably for much the same reasons why one can't become a virgin again after losing one's virginity.  But then again, if the work was done well, how would I know the difference, right?

I'd consider opening it for much the same reasons why one might open a fine vintage wine or champagne - not for any old reason but for some kind of special occasion, like a poker game with some buddies you haven't seen in a long time or something to that effect.

Truly an individual choice.  I'm sort of in both camps, the purist in me knows you can only break a seal once, the curious cat part of me wants to open things and play with them.  Thanks again for the helpful and thoughtful answers!

Tim

[skinny]

I asked the seller on eBay to relist these after they went unsold the first time around. I've done all the Googling I can take over the last few days and have seen nothing. I have them in hand now.

The cards have a nice rattle to them, so they haven't had moisture or humidity damage, and they don't sound to be additionally wrapped inside the box. The top flap reads air-cushion finish.

I have no other info. Does anyone know anything about this deck? AoS? Joker? Back?

[Don Boyer]

I can tell you very little about this deck!  I didn't see a mention of it in Hochman's, but that's not surprising considering the tax stamp and the style of the artwork.  The stamp dates it between 1940-1965 while Hochman's ends around 1950 or so, and that art and typeface to me evokes late 1950s or early 1960s.  Kinda preppy looking, actually.

[52plusjoker]

I can tell you very little about this deck!  I didn't see a mention of it in Hochman's, but that's not surprising considering the tax stamp and the style of the artwork.  The stamp dates it between 1940-1965 while Hochman's ends around 1950 or so, and that art and typeface to me evokes late 1950s or early 1960s.  Kinda preppy looking, actually.

It is from 1950's or 1960's and likely a brand made by USPC for a store or other special customer.

[Don Boyer]

I can tell you very little about this deck!  I didn't see a mention of it in Hochman's, but that's not surprising considering the tax stamp and the style of the artwork.  The stamp dates it between 1940-1965 while Hochman's ends around 1950 or so, and that art and typeface to me evokes late 1950s or early 1960s.  Kinda preppy looking, actually.

It is from 1950's or 1960's and likely a brand made by USPC for a store or other special customer.

So, my estimate was reasonably accurate!  Nice.

[andrew daugherty]

Here are my Rugbys in a blue box.  They were 23 cents each or two for 45 cents at Hook's drugs, a longtime Indiana-based drug store chain.

My blue box contained the bridge deck you see here, complete with the extra card to stick out of the slot on one side of the box.  That way you could see the design of the cards in the box! Slots were common in the 1930s for USPC and others to avoid custom printed or glued-card boxes for these inexpensive bridge decks.

You see the standard ace, joker and 1935 bridge/500 scoring table. The U date code puts these at 1935. 

Happy to assist!

Chris Turner
52 Plus Joker member
aka Andrew.

[52plusjoker]

Good work Chris