Early Admission Prices

[Buzzaldrin]

I've read time and again that the hard and fast rule in the early NL was 50c admission, and one of the selling points of the new AA was its 25c admission.

A few minutes ago, though, while reading some SABR research archive stuff ( http://research.sabr.org/journals/ov...ers-documented ), I came across an article on the origin of the term bullpen. Apparently, in the early days of pro ball it referred to a section set aside in some distant part of the ball park where customers were literally herded in for a reduced fee after the game had begun.

The following item is from the Cincinnati Enquirer of May 8, 1877:

"The bull-pen at the Cincinnati grounds with its `three for a quarter crowd' has lost its usefulness. The bleacher boards just north of the old pavillion now holds the cheap crowd, which comes in at the end of the first inning on a discount."

This strikes me as being directly at odds with the rule of 50c admission, which supposedly was supposed to attract a wealthier and therefore "better" class of spectator.

Does anyone know offhand of any other clubs back then that had such policies?

[Beady]

Offhand I don't know the details, but it was a little later than this that the NL adopted the fifty cent minimum as a policy. The League was never utterly inflexible about requiring every team to charge fifty cents, although exceptions did require special approval and were certainly not common.

If you had to watch those first couple of Cincinnati NL teams, you would probably demand a discount, too.

[Beady]

While we're at it, the propaganda line I've seen when the AA was organizing in the fall of 1881 was that the new organization would have "liberal policies." Because each team essentially kept all its gate revenue, there would not be a need to meddle in other clubs' affairs, and so it wouldn't impose policies on members as happened in the NL, where gate sharing meant that each club effectively had an interest in the business of the others. Clubs would have the right to play Sunday ball but they didn't have to -- naturally so, since it was illegal in some areas - and they could sell alcohol at the ball park but didn't have to.

As a practical matter, it also meant clubs could charge 25 cents, as many preferred, but they shouldn't have been required to go below fifty unless they wanted to. Within a few years, however -- I'm not sure exactly when it happened -- the 25 cent minimum became a policy imposed on all teams probably even more strictly and uniformly than the NL imposed the fifty cents. What happened to "liberal policies?" I have no idea.

[Beady]

I have looked through my fairly large and totally unorganized notes on business practices, and I can't quite find a smoking gun, but the earliest items I find that clearly reflect a fixed NL policy to charge a fifty-cent minimum are from the offseason of 1879/80. I remember that at one annual meeting the League adopted a business agreement (not a formal bylaw) requiring each club to charge fifty cents.

I know, too, that clubs such as Worcester found the 50-cent requirement a drawback to joining the League, and I have the sense that the clubs were probably generally charging fifty cents from the very first. But even if that was a requirement generally imposed on all members so early, it wasn't yet a formal policy, and so it might well have allowed more room for cut prices like the Cincinnati bullpen example.

I can say that in 1875 when NA clubs played exhibitions in the Cincinnati area, and a good number did come through late in the season, they regularly charged fifty cents.

[RuthMayBond]

I have notations about

On March 25, 1879 the National League set minimum ticket prices at fifty cents

On November 3, 1881 the American Association set at least some seats at twenty-five cents.

[Beady]

Yes, looking some more I see that some of the new clubs entering at the end of 1879 were reluctant to charge 50 cents and there may have been some sentiment in the same direction among the holdovers. Their side lost the floor fight, and a provision was added to the NL constitution requiring the fifty cent charge. But it's plain that was just a matter of setting down more firmly what was already established policy.

The visitors' 30% gate share was calculated only on the price paid for general admission, and all extra charges for admission to the grandstand and other special areas went to the home club. The rationale was that such special seating required construction that only the home club would pay for; it was fair, therefore, to let the home club keep all the extra revenue from them, and doing so would also serve as an incentive to clubs to improve their grounds.

But a side result of this policy was that everybody had an incentive as well to keep up admission prices throughout the League. If people in one city were paying only a quarter to get in the door, they would be more inclined to pay extra for grandstand seats, and the home club would keep all that extra revenue.

Man, I really must be seriously demented. This stuff is much more interesting to me than figuring out who were the eighth and ninth greatest third basemen in history.

[Buzzaldrin]

Originally Posted by Beady

Man, I really must be seriously demented. This stuff is much more interesting to me than figuring out who were the eighth and ninth greatest third basemen in history.

Nah, figuring out this stuff out is trying to re-create and understand history and the people and circumstances that shaped it in order to better understand the consequences, figuring out the latter is a time consuming exercise in debate that accomplishes nothing concrete since the answer can never be truly known (although I love playing with numbers).

[Philly-brownsfan]

Originally Posted by Buzzaldrin

I've read time and again that the hard and fast rule in the early NL was 50c admission, and one of the selling points of the new AA was its 25c admission.

A few minutes ago, though, while reading some SABR research archive stuff ( http://research.sabr.org/journals/ov...ers-documented ), I came across an article on the origin of the term bullpen. Apparently, in the early days of pro ball it referred to a section set aside in some distant part of the ball park where customers were literally herded in for a reduced fee after the game had begun.

The following item is from the Cincinnati Enquirer of May 8, 1877:

"The bull-pen at the Cincinnati grounds with its `three for a quarter crowd' has lost its usefulness. The bleacher boards just north of the old pavillion now holds the cheap crowd, which comes in at the end of the first inning on a discount."

This strikes me as being directly at odds with the rule of 50c admission, which supposedly was supposed to attract a wealthier and therefore "better" class of spectator.

Does anyone know offhand of any other clubs back then that had such policies?

I'm a big fan of the Philadelphia Phillies and I'm doing some preliminary research on a possible book on Phillies history. Would you know the ticket prices when the Phillies, then known at the Quakers, were in their inaugural year in 1883?

[timmyj51]

The NL imposed the fifty cents rule as much to keep out the riff-raff as
it was to raise revenue. But some NL clubs found ways to get
around it. At some parks if a guy bought his ticket a lady with him
got in free. At others if you came to the game after the seventh
inning you got in for ten cents. Then, as now, specific market conditions
always determine prices.

[Beady]

Originally Posted by Philly-brownsfan

I'm a big fan of the Philadelphia Phillies and I'm doing some preliminary research on a possible book on Phillies history. Would you know the ticket prices when the Phillies, then known at the Quakers, were in their inaugural year in 1883?

They started at fifty cents but fared so badly in competition with the Athletics that the NL gave them special permission in midseason to go to a quarter. and they remained there for a long time. Harold Seymour's book "Baseball" gives more detail, and I remember that the first page of one of his chapters includes a simple chart showing the very dramatic increase in attendance per game after the price went down -- far more than sufficient to make up for the lower income per capita.

There were cities that were regarded as better paying at the fifty cent admission and others that were considered quarter towns -- Philadelphia was in the latter camp, and even after the 1892 merger, when the Athletics disappeared and NL teams in general were given more flexibility in pricing, the Phillies' management went to considerable trouble to continue getting the NL's agreement to a special allowance for lower pricing than other teams had. The subject becomes more complicated, and I don't exactly understand the nuts and bolts but I have some notes on the Phillies' situation I can send you if they'd be helpful -- not at all systematically gathered but may be a good starting point in trying to figure out what happened.

The Phillies' desire to maintain a special pricing was really a fundamental factor in how the Phillies related to their peers in all sorts of league matters during the '90's -- you could often get their vote on something you wanted done if and only if you agreed to support their 25 cent pricing -- so it's not just a minor detail of club management.

[SABRSusan]

Buzz, I don't know if this will be helpful to you or not, but the LA8 Foundation has a some 19th century and turn of the century periodicals online. In particular Baseball Magazine (1908-1919) and Sporting Life (1897-1912). Those might be a bit later chronologically than what you're looking for though. http://www.la84foundation.org/

You might also want to talk to someone in SABR's 19th Century committee. They may be able to steer you to other sources. (Glad to see that you've been making use of the online BRJ archives.)

[Buzzaldrin]

Originally Posted by SABRSusan

Buzz, I don't know if this will be helpful to you or not, but the LA8 Foundation has a some 19th century and turn of the century periodicals online. In particular Baseball Magazine (1908-1919) and Sporting Life (1897-1912). Those might be a bit later chronologically than what you're looking for though. http://www.la84foundation.org/

You might also want to talk to someone in SABR's 19th Century committee. They may be able to steer you to other sources. (Glad to see that you've been making use of the online BRJ archives.)

Honey, you know you're my hero. And somewhere in an alternate universe...

[rrhersh]

Originally Posted by Philly-brownsfan

I'm a big fan of the Philadelphia Phillies and I'm doing some preliminary research on a possible book on Phillies history. Would you know the ticket prices when the Phillies, then known at the Quakers, were in their inaugural year in 1883?

Others have addressed the ticket price question, so I will just note that you might rethink that "then known as the Quakers" bit. This is the standard claim in modern sources, but the modern sources on team names is seriously botched. It makes the tacit assumption that team names have always operated in the same way as it did in the second half of the 20th century.

In the case of the Philadelphia National League club, it is likely that jounalists did occasionally call them the "Quakers". But they were far far far more often called either simply "Philadelphia" or the "Phillies".

You should also be sure to look at the 1882 Philadelphia League Alliance club. Standard histories start the Phillies clock at 1883. There is substantial continuity between the 1882 and the 1883 Phillies. Even if you are unwilling to consider them the same organization, the 1882 club is necessary to understand the background of the NL Phillies.

Richard Hershberger

[spark240]

For some context... 50 cents in 1879 is equivalent to $11.13 in 2008, based on Consumer Price Index.

The range of admissions to Cincinnati Reds home games today, in 1879 prices (also based on CPI, or "purchase power" equivalencies):
Outer View Level, 22 cents;
Diamond Seats, $10.33. That should keep the riffraff out.

[spark240]

Originally Posted by rrhersh

In the case of the Philadelphia National League club, it is likely that jounalists did occasionally call them the "Quakers". But they were far far far more often called either simply "Philadelphia" or the "Phillies".

"Quaker" was just a kind of colloquialism for Philadelphian. It would be like (in a slightly later age) calling any person from Pittsburgh a "Steeltowner."

[SABRSusan]

Originally Posted by Buzzaldrin

Honey, you know you're my hero. And somewhere in an alternate universe...

Now you're making me swoon, baby...

[timmyj51]

Originally Posted by spark240

For some context... 50 cents in 1879 is equivalent to $11.13 in 2008, based on Consumer Price Index.

The range of admissions to Cincinnati Reds home games today, in 1879 prices (also based on CPI, or "purchase power" equivalencies):
Outer View Level, 22 cents;
Diamond Seats, $10.33. That should keep the riffraff out.

On what do you base this comparison? Would think the modern
equivalent of fifty cents in 1879 should be a lot more than ten bucks. When I was a kid a movie ticket was 25 cents. Now, just forty years later, its $6/7.

[RuthMayBond]

Originally Posted by spark240

For some context... 50 cents in 1879 is equivalent to $11.13 in 2008, based on Consumer Price Index.

The range of admissions to Cincinnati Reds home games today, in 1879 prices (also based on CPI, or "purchase power" equivalencies):
Outer View Level, 22 cents;
Diamond Seats, $10.33. That should keep the riffraff out.

They probably didn't have to pay too many free agents, and people may not have had as much discretionary money

[spark240]

Originally Posted by timmyj51

When I was a kid a movie ticket was 25 cents. Now, just forty years later, its $6/7.

Movie tickets are much more expensive now than they were forty years ago, not just in apparent price, but in real cost compared to other goods and services. If movies today were as good a deal as when you were a kid, you'd be paying about $1.50.

[Beady]

Originally Posted by RuthMayBond

They probably didn't have to pay too many free agents, and people may not have had as much discretionary money

The second part is right, but every player was a free agent in 1879, and the owners complained woefully about salary levels.

[SABR Steve]

Cincinnati was disqualified from competing for the NL flag in 1877; their games were not to be counted. However, they were to make some effort to play out a schedule with the other 5 clubs to show good faith. That may be a reason the admission price was reduced, at least for some patrons. Revisionists today have added the games back in which doesn't reflect the facts of the time. Something that SABR is not always interested in.

[Beady]

Originally Posted by SABR Steve

Cincinnati was disqualified from competing for the NL flag in 1877; their games were not to be counted. However, they were to make some effort to play out a schedule with the other 5 clubs to show good faith. That may be a reason the admission price was reduced, at least for some patrons. Revisionists today have added the games back in which doesn't reflect the facts of the time. Something that SABR is not always interested in.

The May 8 quote precedes the midseason collapse and reorganization that caused them to be dropped from the league, so that can't be at issue here.

When they reorganized, William Hulbert and probably most of the league wanted Cincinnati to be reinstated as a league member. However, the club had failed to play scheduled games, and under the NL constitution that was an offense requiring expulsion -- the penalty that had been visited on the Athletics the previous year. To override a constitutional provision required a unanimous vote, and Louisville blocked that, I believe because excluding the Cincinnati games gave them an advantage in the pennant race. I have looked through Hulbert's correspondence for the period in the Chicago Historical Society archives, and he expresses his frustration with the situation several times.

I would guess Cincinnati kept playing its old schedule, first, because the decision to exclude them was not official until the annual meeting after the season; and, more importantly, because it saved the NL teams the trouble of having to scheduling other opponents (and likewise for the Reds themselves) and gave everybody games that probably paid as well as any other exhibition games could have.