dazzleguts wrote:Myself, I think these are an early deck. This ace was first designed as a colour one for a special edition "Royal" deck from 1880, and the black and white version was used in standard Squeezers for years after that. The cherub in the ace Spade became a wreath in later editions (c1916), and the older style NYCC courts we see here started changing to the more modern USPCC courts around the same time.
I find it puzzling there is no mention on the box of the Gold Medal their squeezers deck won in Paris in 1878. They mentioned the medal on the box and in the joker up until at least 1928 (from an ad in the back of "Hoyle's Rules for Card Games"). WOPC has a deck showing with the same ace and courts and they date it to 1915, but their box mentions the medal. Perhaps NYCC didn't want to crow about the Paris Gold Medal on boxes of decks that were being exported to England?
Have you ever seen that card back Mike? I haven't been able to find it anywhere.
Yep, not familiar with that specific back, but there were many (many, many!) different backs all sold as "Hart's Squeezers". Just how many, I'd have to ask Tom, which I'll do here in about six weeks in person, but - it's really hard to put a precise number on it, frankly. It could easily be 1910-1930, it could be 1950, but I have to agree that it's not likely. They just have the look & feel more like the 20's, but - again, they did some things that were "looks like 50 years ago" during that same time-frame, but it just can't be more than 30 years older or again - the indices just wouldn't be on the deck. 1890 is about the cutoff for any form of what we're used to these days (not precise, and certainly not all makers), and Hart went through two companies (other than themselves) and still retained the same look and feel - for obvious reasons. They were about the most popular 'brand' of their time. Again, some of them were very rare, and some were quite common - to the point that generalizing Hochman's puts a fairly low value on them for decks of that era (20's). It belongs to one of several groups that they don't even bother to break out into individual decks, I think as I remember there are four or five tables that just show a series of 20-35 different decks but only lists one price for the whole group. As I said, some of them (like the original "Great Moguls" are very valuable and as such have been reproduced several times, at least one intentionally made to be confusing and often sold on ebay as being 'original' - but they're not. That's one problem with reproductions and reprints as opposed to restoration decks: intentionally made to be hard to tell from the originals. Restorations (like Michael Scott's "Triplicates" are exactly that - a completely re-envisioned version of the original not intended to be a even possible to confuse them with the original. Distinctly different simply because they're obviously done with newer technologies. Some of them are better than the originals, which is precisely the point of doing restorations as opposed to reproductions or reprints.