PDA

View Full Version : August Pick Ups


kdixon
08-03-2013, 11:49 AM
Picked up this Postal First day cover. Its not much but it was cheap.

repsher
08-03-2013, 05:35 PM
Here are a couple of original photos I picked up:

Herb Pennock from 1923 (Underwood and Underwood)

108686

Herb Pennock and Yankees owner Jacob Ruppert from 1927 (Wide World)

108687

And here is what I believe is a George Burke/Brace negative of Bill Lee (1934). I was able to pick it up cheaply ($10), because I was able to recognize what it was from what I've learned from Lance about Burke/Brace negs. Thanks Lance.

108688

thecatspajamas
08-03-2013, 06:43 PM
And here is what I believe is a George Burke/Brace negative of Bill Lee (1934). I was able to pick it up cheaply ($10), because I was able to recognize what it was from what I've learned from Lance about Burke/Brace negs. Thanks Lance.

:)
You're welcome, and correct. Nice snag! Mind PMing me where you picked it up? (simple curiosity, assuming it was the only one and/or you're done shopping)

D. Broughman
08-05-2013, 03:12 PM
Any idea of year for this Detroit Tigers Stroh's sign? It is 12"x11" thanks D.

yanks12025
08-05-2013, 04:25 PM
Jimmie foxx pro model/index bat from late 1940's, johnny bench 1976 bat turned into a lamp and a 1976 Carlos may road jersey.

lefty147
08-05-2013, 08:13 PM
Any idea of year for this Detroit Tigers Stroh's sign? It is 12"x11" thanks D.

Has a 1960's look to me. Mike

Rob D.
08-05-2013, 08:58 PM
Stroh's = A headache in every bottle (or so we said in high school).

Nice sign.

HRBAKER
08-05-2013, 09:01 PM
Stroh's = A headache in every bottle (or so we said in high school).

Nice sign.

Rob,

I had you for a Genessee or Hudepohl man!

Rob D.
08-05-2013, 09:17 PM
Rob,

I had you for a Genessee or Hudepohl man!

Well, you're pretty spot-on. My season in rookie ball was spent largely in Paintsville, Ky., which was in a dry county. We had to drive about 30 minutes to the nearest carry-out in neighboring Pikeville County (if I remember correctly). My first trip I bought three cases of Hudepohl, in long-neck bottles.

My roommates, two from the West Coast and one from Chicago, looked at me like I was crazy.

ruth-gehrig
08-06-2013, 09:12 PM
Love this bat! Tapered barrel so I'm guessing 1870s? Looks like barrel end has a very faded painted ring around it. Measures 36 inches long and 43 ounces!

Runscott
08-07-2013, 01:59 PM
................

sports-rings
08-08-2013, 07:05 AM
I picked this up at the National...

sports-rings
08-08-2013, 07:11 AM
Picked up this 1958 Colts championship ring from the Player's widow. It's a 1958 - a Historic Championship Game that launched the popularity of the NFL.

I also picked up a player Ravens super bowl ring. Shame the player had to sell it.

The pictures are not to scale, the newer ring is 3x the size of the '58 Colts ring.

mjkm90
08-08-2013, 07:12 AM
Epic trophy Mike:eek:

perezfan
08-08-2013, 03:06 PM
Ditto...

I saw the dealer diligently polishing it up on Thursday. Knew it wouldn't sit for long... Congrats on landing a real beauty!

kjjavic
08-08-2013, 03:36 PM
Killer Spalding Trophy!
I just added this piece for my Eagles collection.
Technigraph plaques aren't that uncommon, but this is the first I've encountered an Eagles one in its it original packaging with its shrinkwrap.
http://i395.photobucket.com/albums/pp36/VintagePigskin/TechnigraphPlaque_zps5a79d4d9.jpg

kdixon
08-08-2013, 07:46 PM
Love the trophy. Picked up this piece the Royals gave to season ticket holders last year. Has the three patches from the 3 KC All Star games. May frame it up with my press pins from the three games.

bobfreedman
08-08-2013, 09:19 PM
Mike, you bought that about 15 minutes before I was going to make the guy an offer. I went to his both and he quoted me a price but I had to run off for about 30 minutes. When I returned it was gone. I absolutely love this piece and you have a keeper. Congrats! If you ever want to sell it....

71buc
08-08-2013, 10:12 PM
There have been some very impressive pick ups this month. I couldn't make the national but will be in Cleveland next year. August has been slow for me so far I have made two minor additions to my original news photo collection. The First is of Frank Robinson in his rookie season of 1956 and the second was Waite Hoyt in 1931.

GaryPassamonte
08-09-2013, 07:35 AM
National pick-ups.

repsher
08-09-2013, 09:41 AM
Great stuff guys.

Mike - I had a bid on that Robinson photo. It's a nice one. Did you cleanup that Hoyt photo or was that done before you purchased it?

Ryan

71buc
08-09-2013, 12:30 PM
Great stuff guys.

Mike - I had a bid on that Robinson photo. It's a nice one. Did you cleanup that Hoyt photo or was that done before you purchased it?

Ryan

I cleaned it up as it was covered in editorial ink.

Exhibitman
08-09-2013, 03:08 PM
I thought this was interesting so I picked it up in CHI:

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/miscellaneous4/large/1950s%20Ticket%20Indianapolis%20Clowns.jpg

My guess is 1954 since the only Wednesday July 21 in the 1950s was 1954.

Also got these two items that I can't ID:

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/miscellaneous4/large/Mack%20pin%20up.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/miscellaneous4/large/1950%20Kiner%20photo.jpg

Kiner is about 3 x 4; Mack is about 8 x 10

Also these Gabby Hartnett snapshots:

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/miscellaneous4/websize/Hartnett%20photo%201.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/miscellaneous4/websize/Hartnett%20photo%202.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/miscellaneous4/websize/Hartnett%20photo%203.jpg

Duluth Eskimo
08-09-2013, 05:29 PM
That Connie Mack was used as an inside cover shot for Baseball Magazine, but I cannot remember what month / year.

Runscott
08-09-2013, 05:39 PM
It might be in more than one issue - I have it in a photo gallery in a BaseBall Magazine (not the inside cover). I believe it was 1910 or 1911.

Runscott
08-10-2013, 10:46 PM
This just arrived. The early catchers gloves were sold in pairs - the catcher in this photo has a glove on his right hand (placed over heart) and his left-hand glove is resting on his right knee.

Forever Young
08-11-2013, 12:47 AM
This just arrived. The early catchers gloves were sold in pairs - the catcher in this photo has a glove on his right hand (placed over heart) and his left-hand glove is resting on his right knee.

awesome

deebro041
08-11-2013, 08:27 PM
Very nice photo Scott!! Is that a mask on the catcher's knee?

Runscott
08-11-2013, 09:45 PM
Thanks Ben and Dan. Yes, that's a catcher's mask. I collect early catcher's mask photos, so this was a good find.

Forever Young
08-11-2013, 09:52 PM
Thanks Ben and Dan. Yes, that's a catcher's mask. I collect early catcher's mask photos, so this was a good find.

Scott... you like the Friday the 13th movies don't you? chchchchchch hahahahahaha.

Runscott
08-11-2013, 10:29 PM
I like 'catcher gear' photos because the catcher looks different from everyone else in the early photos. I was always intrigued by how that position (and 'look') evolved over the years. It was sad to me when guys like Johnny Bench had to finish out their careers at first base because of the toll catching had taken. But that pales in comparison to what the gloveless guys went through in the 1800's. It's hard not to have extra respect for the early catchers.

I would probably collect the gear itself, but I don't have the cash or the room.

Forever Young
08-11-2013, 11:08 PM
I like 'catcher gear' photos because the catcher looks different from everyone else in the early photos. I was always intrigued by how that position (and 'look') evolved over the years. It was sad to me when guys like Johnny Bench had to finish out their careers at first base because of the toll catching had taken. But that pales in comparison to what the gloveless guys went through in the 1800's. It's hard not to have extra respect for the early catchers.

I would probably collect the gear itself, but I don't have the cash or the room.

Gotcha. Old gear would be cool.

repsher
08-12-2013, 02:51 PM
Picked some photos up:

Frank Frisch 6/18/37 - Wide World

109893

Frisch and Mickey Cochrane shaking hands before the 1934 W.S.. This shot is extra cool for me because I picked up the negative , on the right, a couple of years ago. It's not the same shot but was taken at the same time.

109894 109895

This one is Burleigh Grimes. It was sold to me as "unknown baseball player". There is no stamping or writting on the back.

109896

stone193
08-12-2013, 10:24 PM
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y202/stone193/5449c032-a089-46d6-ae9b-c6608fc5aaba_zps3165508a.jpg?t=1375312975

I've been waiting for this game for some time. It usually goes for way more than I usually budget - usually in the 400 or more range. This one went for $201 - a good price IMO. The cards have been used but in very nice shape and the box is Vg-Ex.

It's has 52 game cards with 3 additional cards and an instruction booklet.

The cards measure about 2.5 X 3.5 inches.

I include this game in my collection - though it's not a "baseball" game as such but encompasses sports figures - most notably to many "the Babe" - and also includes American pop culture icons like FDR, Eisenhower and numerous movie heavy hitters like Clark Gable and Gary Cooper.

I also found that the total - 55 card - set is on the Registry.

Each card includes a black and white photo of the card's main subject at the top left - and is paired with an illustration of a related subject at the bottom right. E.g. if there's a Gable photo and a Cooper illustration - then there's a paired Cooper photo and Gable illustration card.

Also, there's a card of Sgt. Edwin A. Rowlands - the world's foremost autograph collector at the time. The card mentions he has a collection numbering over 3,000 pieces insured for 12K - a righteous amount for that time. He was also instrumental in helping Leister to get this game off the ground and into production.

The Checklist:

1- Grace Moore
1 - Lily Pons
1A - H.V. Kaltenborn
1A - Lowell Thomas
2 - Jack Dempsey
2 - Joe Louis
2A - John C. Thomas
2A - Lauritz Melchoir
3 - Kate Smith
3 - Dinah Shore
3A - Clark Gable
3A - Gary Cooper
4 - Bob Hope
4 - Jack Benny
4A - Frank Sinatra
4A - Bing Crosby
5 - Claudette Colbert
5 - Dorothy Lamour
5A - Irving Berlin
5A - Jerome Kern
6 - Arturo Toscanini
6 - Walter Damrosch
6A - Paul Whiteman
6A - Kay Kyser
7 - Byron Nelson
7 - Walter Hagen
7A - Bernie Bierman
7A - Knute Rockne
8 - Irvin S. Cobb
8 - Robert Benchley
8A - Franklin D. Roosevelt
8A - Thomas E. Dewey
9 - Douglas MacArthur
9 - Dwight David Eisenhower
9A - Babe Ruth
9A - Joe DiMaggio
10 - Red Grange
10 - Tom Harmon
10A - Don Budge
10A - Bill Tilden
11 - Fanny Brice
11 - Joan Davis
11A - Katharine Cornell
11A - Helen Hayes
12 - Ernie Pyle
12 - Westbrook Pegler
12A - William Green
12A - John L. Lewis
13 - Ted Husing
13 - Bill Stern
13A - Roy Rogers
13A - Gene Autry

I haven't gone over the instructions yet - but the game is "four" games in one and thus, each card is filled with a good deal of information for playing the various games.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y202/stone193/8ffb6826-873d-45ee-9f27-9a3ddf67f0ad_zpsaf740c99.jpg?t=1375313742

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y202/stone193/832df4dd-796e-4359-8056-44ea87406df5_zpsf127bc99.jpg?t=1375313678

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y202/stone193/2172234e-e463-4444-a27b-d363947ca303_zps406aaef7.jpg?t=1375313454

bobfreedman
08-12-2013, 11:12 PM
Love the Grimes photo!!



This one is Burleigh Grimes. It was sold to me as "unknown baseball player". There is no stamping or writting on the back.

Runscott
08-13-2013, 11:54 AM
Early 1900's 'in action' Cyanotype of students playing baseball at Yale

http://i.ebayimg.com/t/Circa-1880-Yale-University-Baseball-game-Antique-Cyanotype-Cabinet-photo-Early-/00/s/MTEzNlgxMTM1/z/IKEAAOxy-gBR~u7o/$(KGrHqJ,!rYFHo-B5O87BR+u7nwclQ~~60_57.JPG

http://i.ebayimg.com/t/Circa-1880-Yale-University-Baseball-game-Antique-Cyanotype-Cabinet-photo-Early-/00/s/MTE1MVgxMDk1/z/xFwAAMXQxKxR~u7m/$(KGrHqF,!p8FHkrQULKDBR+u7mgPk!~~60_57.JPG

Lordstan
08-13-2013, 01:30 PM
1937 Cuban magazine with Gehrig on the cover. There are about 4 articles inside about the Yankees and Giant World Series matchup. Of the 4, three are about individual players. One each for Gehrig, Joe D, and Mel Ott.

It's in pretty nice shape, considering it survived how many hurricanes/tropical storms over the years in the Caribbean.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v222/lordstan/My%20Lou%20Gehrig%20stuff/LG-1937CubanMagazine.jpg

39special
08-13-2013, 03:30 PM
1937 Cuban magazine with Gehrig on the cover. There are about 4 articles inside about the Yankees and Giant World Series matchup. Of the 4, three are about individual players. One each for Gehrig, Joe D, and Mel Ott.

It's in pretty nice shape, considering it survived how many hurricanes/tropical storms over the years in the Caribbean.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v222/lordstan/My%20Lou%20Gehrig%20stuff/LG-1937CubanMagazine.jpg

Nice pickup Mark!

thecatspajamas
08-13-2013, 04:16 PM
Very neat photo, Scott. I wonder where the name cyanotype for that type of photo came from...? ;)

Runscott
08-13-2013, 05:21 PM
I don't know - seems like they would have called it a 'blueotype' :eek:

gnaz01
08-16-2013, 01:19 PM
Matty Type 1 photo from 1909 and Darktown Battery Bank (in full working order) :D

Scott Garner
08-16-2013, 01:22 PM
Beautiful pickups, Greg! I love the Matty!

khkco4bls
08-16-2013, 07:40 PM
Greg love the bank. Had a chance at one years ago. 1800 in great shape .just didn't have the jingle at that time..

perezfan
08-16-2013, 09:55 PM
Luv the Bank :D

gnaz01
08-17-2013, 08:32 AM
luv the bank :d

lol :)

JoeyF1981
08-20-2013, 08:00 PM
Picked up this 1947 babe ruth original photo. Story behind this photo is the 13yr old boy in the photo who belonged to a orphanage won a essay contest to meet Babe Ruth for a day. In the picture he's wearing babe's game used glove while Ruth is signing a autograph for him. That had to be a hell of a experience. Oh and I didnt pay anywhere near $200 for it which was nice also. :)



http://i450.photobucket.com/albums/qq224/Blackitalian/1947ruth_zpse3c22cb7.jpg (http://s450.photobucket.com/user/Blackitalian/media/1947ruth_zpse3c22cb7.jpg.html)

GaryPassamonte
08-21-2013, 07:34 AM
Circa 1875 South Bend

JeremyW
08-21-2013, 03:38 PM
Gary- Great cdv. It looks like one of the players couldn't make it for picture day? I try to get up to South Bend at least once a year for some college football. I just noticed, maybe the missing player is the shy guy hiding in the background?

GaryPassamonte
08-21-2013, 04:26 PM
That's the best hypothesis I've heard so far, Jeremy.

ksfarmboy
08-21-2013, 09:17 PM
Added a couple of Kansas minor league items. Topeka Reds program. They were coached by Johnny Vander Meer. Next is a Wichita Aeros jersey from the 1975-76 time frame and could have been used into the 1980 season.

Scott Garner
08-24-2013, 08:24 PM
Vandy, Babe and Paul Derringer Type 1 (?) photo prior to Vandy's 2nd consecutive no hitter.

Slug on back gives the detail...

thecatspajamas
08-24-2013, 08:47 PM
Vandy, Babe and Paul Derringer Type 1 photo prior to Vandy's 2nd consecutive no hitter.

Slug on back gives the detail...

Nice addition having the slug to give the details on the back! It's weird how much the lighting can change the look from one photo to another. I went back and looked at the one you picked up from me a while back, and did a double-take b/c it looked like Vandy was wearing a different jacket. I think it just looks a lot darker in your newer shot because of the shadows/lighting. Must have really set the mood, as I can also see Vandy has slipped his hand over on ol' Babe's knee by the time your newer photo was taken...

Scott Garner
08-24-2013, 08:51 PM
Nice addition having the slug to give the details on the back! It's weird how much the lighting can change the look from one photo to another. I went back and looked at the one you picked up from me a while back, and did a double-take b/c it looked like Vandy was wearing a different jacket. I think it just looks a lot darker in your newer shot because of the shadows/lighting. Must have really set the mood, as I can also see Vandy has slipped his hand over on ol' Babe's knee by the time your newer photo was taken...

Lance,
He absolutely IS wearing a different jacket. To facilitate the photo shoot, for whatever reason, they had him change his jacket. Weird!

thecatspajamas
08-24-2013, 08:59 PM
Lance,
He absolutely IS wearing a different jacket. To facilitate the photo shoot, for whatever reason, they had him change his jacket. Weird!

Are you sure? Because the buttons on the right side of the jacket are the same shape and in the exact same place and position in both. I also noticed that the bill and logo on their caps look almost black in your newer photo, but are clearly a different color in the one you got from me before.

Weird either way, but now I'm curious to see what you think after comparing them side-by-side.

Scott Garner
08-24-2013, 09:11 PM
Are you sure? Because the buttons on the right side of the jacket are the same shape and in the exact same place and position in both. I also noticed that the bill and logo on their caps look almost black in your newer photo, but are clearly a different color in the one you got from me before.

Weird either way, but now I'm curious to see what you think after comparing them side-by-side.

Lance,
Hmm...You know what, I believe that you are correct now that I've looked closely.
I have looked at these two images before and wondered about them and why...

I wonder what in the photographic process would make them look like this? Maybe you are right about the lighting.
Do you think the shot that includes Paul Derringer has been altered so as to create this look? I guess I might know more once I have it in hand...

Scott Garner
08-24-2013, 09:21 PM
BTW Lance, Vandy idolized Babe when he was growing up. Additionally, he was a huge fan of Carl Hubbell (also a pretty fair lefty hurler I've heard... ;)) and the NY Giants.
Vandy grew up in Midland Park, NJ, just up the road from the NY Giants...

thecatspajamas
08-24-2013, 09:22 PM
Lance,
You know what, I believe that you are correct now that I've looked closely.
I have looked at these two images before and wondered about them and why...

I wonder what in the photographic process would make them look like this. Do you think the shot that includes Paul Derringer has been altered so as to create this look? I guess I might know more once I have it in hand...

Only thing I can think of is the lighting source each photographer relied on for his shot. Perhaps that's the difference between having a good flash, and relying on ambient light? There are probably other more-technical aspects that I'm not familiar with that can affect it as well, but in the one you got from me, it looks like a flashbomb just went off, providing enough light that you can see it reflected from the paint on the back of the dugout.

Scott Garner
08-24-2013, 09:32 PM
Only thing I can think of is the lighting source each photographer relied on for his shot. Perhaps that's the difference between having a good flash, and relying on ambient light? There are probably other more-technical aspects that I'm not familiar with that can affect it as well, but in the one you got from me, it looks like a flashbomb just went off, providing enough light that you can see it reflected from the paint on the back of the dugout.

I said it before, but the lighting in the photo that you sold me was like cracking The Davinci Code as far as revealing where the dugout was in my Kreindler painting...

I'm glad that your Vandy/Babe photo answered the riddle that Graig and I puzzled over...

thecatspajamas
08-24-2013, 11:08 PM
I said it before, but the lighting in the photo that you sold to me was like The Davinci Code in cracking the mystery of where my dugout was in my Kreindler painting...

I'm glad that your Vandy/Babe photo answered the riddle that Graig and I puzzled over...

I'm just glad that it found a good new home. That it helped to solve the mystery made it all the more satisfying. All deals should have such a happy ending :D

Lordstan
08-24-2013, 11:24 PM
Great pics Scott.
I wonder if the top one could be a copy of an original print. There seems to be so much less detail in the top one as compared to the bottom one of Vandy and Ruth. Notice the bat the Derringer is holding in the top photo. Ruth is holding it in the second. The printing of the band is sharper in the second picture, but the overall color is pretty much the same. Could the first be from a copy negative where the photographer did something to the print to make the jackets and hats not be able to show the logos?

Butch7999
08-25-2013, 02:13 AM
FWIW:
A) the wrinkles/folds in Vandermeer's jacket look (to us) almost identical in both photos.
B) Some black-&-white film will see red as black, and blue (even dark blue) as grey.
C) Cincinnati wore blue caps with red peaks in 1938.

The Reds caps both Vandy and the Babe are wearing in the pic with Derringer look grey with black peaks in our browser.
The caps look black with light-colored peaks in the two-shot,
and Vandy's jacket in that pic looks to have a black front and light sleeves, which would mean the front is blue and the sleeves red.
Which would account for the all-black look of the jacket in the three-shot.

Our best guess: one photographer was using better-quality film.

Scott Garner
08-25-2013, 06:05 AM
FWIW:
A) the wrinkles/folds in Vandermeer's jacket look (to us) almost identical in both photos.
B) Some black-&-white film will see red as black, and blue (even dark blue) as grey.
C) Cincinnati wore blue caps with red peaks in 1938.

The Reds caps both Vandy and the Babe are wearing in the pic with Derringer look grey with black peaks in our browser.
The caps look black with light-colored peaks in the two-shot,
and Vandy's jacket in that pic looks to have a black front and light sleeves, which would mean the front is blue and the sleeves red.
Which would account for the all-black look of the jacket in the three-shot.

Our best guess: one photographer was using better-quality film.

Butch,
Excellent detective work! I appreciate your input. :)

Scott Garner
08-25-2013, 06:18 AM
Great pics Scott.
I wonder if the top one could be a copy of an original print. There seems to be so much less detail in the top one as compared to the bottom one of Vandy and Ruth. Notice the bat the Derringer is holding in the top photo. Ruth is holding it in the second. The printing of the band is sharper in the second picture, but the overall color is pretty much the same. Could the first be from a copy negative where the photographer did something to the print to make the jackets and hats not be able to show the logos?

Mark,
IDK, but you are certainly correct that the clarity is much better in the second photo that features Vandy and Babe only. Lance called this photo a Type II as I recall...

The photo that I just bought (Vandy, Babe, Derringer) is supposedly a Type I and the slug indicates that it is from 1938. I'll know more when it's in hand. I really like the image regardless....

repsher
08-25-2013, 07:47 AM
It could also be that the photo was poorly scanned. Those photos are great. He certainly looks like a boy meeting his idol.

Runscott
08-25-2013, 10:42 AM
Couldn't it be that someone touched up the negative in the darker one? Even Babe Ruth's cap appears to have been 'darkened' substantially - doesn't look like something that either lighting or different file would cause.

Maybe David (Cycleback) has some ideas?

repsher
08-25-2013, 01:57 PM
Here are some photos I picked up on the cheap($10) from the John Rogers SN collection.

This Rube Marquard is what I believe is a type II Conlon. Taken ~1910 but developed later.

111489

Hank Gowdy's head. This is also a Conlon photo but since it's pasted to a board I'm unsure which type it is.

111491

Gabby Harnett from 1930.

111490

Joe DiMaggio from 1940

111488

repsher
08-25-2013, 02:29 PM
Here are some negatives I recently picked up:

Schoolboy Rowe's grip on the ball in spring 1935:

111498


A young Frank Robinson.

111499

And a young Lou Pinella

111500

Lordstan
08-25-2013, 02:47 PM
Here are some negatives I recently picked up:

Schoolboy Rowe's grip on the ball in spring 1935:

111498



Ryan,
Love the Rowe.
Would make a great Kreindler painting!
Mark

Runscott
08-25-2013, 07:13 PM
Picked up four bats the other day: 1930's 34" "Atlanta Cracker", 36" hand-lathed flat-end ash, 34" Louisville Slugger 125 (can't read signature, if any), Louisville Slugger 'Edd Roush'.

Here's the label of the 'Atlanta Cracker', 34", no damage other than worn label and some marks. Also, the hand-turned one.

Runscott
08-25-2013, 07:17 PM
Here's 'before' pics of the Roush '40 ER'. It was very dry and splotchy with separated dead wood and some reddish-brown stains that wouldn't come off with thinner or stripper - all the dark areas in the photos were even more pronounced. It looked like someone had tried to remove the varnish, or it had been left in water - you can see a wiggly line on the bottom pic that looks like what worms do to driftwood. Some will shoot me for this, but the bat was 'all there', but unsightly, so I made a project out of it, and I expect it to be quite a looker when done.


injected wood glue beneath separated pieces and clamped - you can see where the 'Edd J Roush' signature is almost totally lifted from the wood - it is now flush and looks very nice.
removed as much of the dark splotches as possible, using thinner, then stripper
removed a bit more using 220 sandpaper
stained with 'red oak', guessing that was close to the original color
it's now drying. I'll add a light coat of bullseye French polish tomorrow and post pics

Lordstan
08-25-2013, 07:31 PM
Mark,
IDK, but you are certainly correct that the clarity is much better in the second photo that features Vandy and Babe only. Lance called this photo a Type II as I recall...

The photo that I just bought (Vandy, Babe, Derringer) is supposedly a Type I and the slug indicates that it is from 1938. I'll know more when it's in hand. I really like the image regardless....

No doubt it's a great image of a boy and his hero.

Lordstan
08-25-2013, 07:36 PM
My newest Lou pic. Direct from Curt(Thanks)

1934 in action with Oscar Melillo.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v222/lordstan/My%20Lou%20Gehrig%20stuff/LG-1934atfirstwithMelillo.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v222/lordstan/My%20Lou%20Gehrig%20stuff/LG-1934atfirstwithMelillobk.jpg

Scott Garner
08-25-2013, 08:03 PM
Lou pulled his foot. Safe!! :D
Nice action photo, Mark.

bcbgcbrcb
08-25-2013, 08:22 PM
I haven't posted much lately but here is my most recent pick-up from earlier this month. Frank Robinson in center of photo from his professional baseball debut season of 1953 with Class A Ogden.............

Lordstan
08-25-2013, 08:25 PM
Lou pulled his foot. Safe!! :D
Nice action photo, Mark.

Same ump worked Galaragga's game. :D

Mark
08-25-2013, 10:46 PM
Picked up four bats the other day: 1930's 34" "Atlanta Cracker", 36" hand-lathed flat-end ash, 34" Louisville Slugger 125 (can't read signature, if any), Louisville Slugger 'Edd Roush'.

Here's the label of the 'Atlanta Cracker', 34", no damage other than worn label and some marks. Also, the hand-turned one.

Beautiful job. It seems to me that you saved a fine bat. Any chance that you happened to measure how much weight was added via restoration?

Runscott
08-25-2013, 11:59 PM
Thanks Mark, all the pics I posted are 'before' pics - all the dark spots were even darker and more dramatic, but are now less pronounced since I worked on it.

I wiped a darker stain over it this afternoon, and hoping it's ready for a small amount of French polish tomorrow - it already looks much better than before. As far as weight added, it would be negligible - just some glue, stain and Watco Danish oil that probably account for the weight lost due to the wood drying up.

RCMcKenzie
08-26-2013, 12:30 AM
Found this photo to go with the T36 De Palma card...

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7364/9597438622_204f0cb4d5_o.jpg

h2oya311
08-26-2013, 08:23 AM
I haven't posted much lately but here is my most recent pick-up from earlier this month. Frank Robinson in center of photo from his professional baseball debut season of 1953 with Class A Ogden.............

Nice pick-up Phil!! I saw that in the Hakes "Own it now" section...was gonna let the dust settle w/ our large trx before pulling the trigger! Glad to see it went to a good home!!

thecatspajamas
08-26-2013, 10:04 AM
B) Some black-&-white film will see red as black, and blue (even dark blue) as grey.

Well that explains a few things, both here and with other confusing b/w images I have seen. Thank you VERY much for that added insight. This tidbit made it onto a sticky note on my "wall of reference" :)

Mark,
IDK, but you are certainly correct that the clarity is much better in the second photo that features Vandy and Babe only. Lance called this photo a Type II as I recall...

The photo that I just bought (Vandy, Babe, Derringer) is supposedly a Type I and the slug indicates that it is from 1938. I'll know more when it's in hand. I really like the image regardless....

Type I vs. Type II shouldn't necessarily speak to image quality, as both are necessarily printed from the original negative. The one I sold is a Type II because it was printed some 20 years after the event, when UPI re-issued a slew of images following the merger of United Press and International News in 1958. It was still printed from the original negative, so the image quality should be identical to a Type I, but being that the print was produced well after the original event, it doesn't qualify as a Type I.

Your more recent acquisition, although a Type I produced in the period, appears to have been shot by a less-skilled photographer or, as Butch noted, one using lesser-quality film and equipment (or both). Looks like there must have been a number of photographers popping off shots of Vandy's meeting with Babe!

Scott Garner
08-26-2013, 10:55 AM
Well that explains a few things, both here and with other confusing b/w images I have seen. Thank you VERY much for that added insight. This tidbit made it onto a sticky note on my "wall of reference" :)



Type I vs. Type II shouldn't necessarily speak to image quality, as both are necessarily printed from the original negative. The one I sold is a Type II because it was printed some 20 years after the event, when UPI re-issued a slew of images following the merger of United Press and International News in 1958. It was still printed from the original negative, so the image quality should be identical to a Type I, but being that the print was produced well after the original event, it doesn't qualify as a Type I.

Your more recent acquisition, although a Type I produced in the period, appears to have been shot by a less-skilled photographer or, as Butch noted, one using lesser-quality film and equipment (or both). Looks like there must have been a number of photographers popping off shots of Vandy's meeting with Babe!

Lance,
Thanks for the insight!

Runscott
08-26-2013, 11:11 AM
Type I vs. Type II shouldn't necessarily speak to image quality, as both are necessarily printed from the original negative.

This is where the 'Type' designations get confusing and why I couldn't give a flip about it (yes, bad pun). Most photo collectors I know are interested in the following, and always have been. If you could get a sharp, well-composed print of something you were interested in, and it was printed from the original negative at around the time the photo was taken, then you were happy. And if it was printed yesterday, but would look good on your wall and the price was fair, then you were still happy. Now a 'Type 1' designation within a plastic holder makes up for problems that in the past wouldn't have been acceptable.


image clarity and composition
subject
date printed (either specifically or general)

thecatspajamas
08-26-2013, 11:46 AM
This is where the 'Type' designations get confusing and why I couldn't give a flip about it (yes, bad pun). Most photo collectors I know are interested in the following, and always have been. If you could get a sharp, well-composed print of something you were interested in, and it was printed from the original negative at around the time the photo was taken, then you were happy. And if it was printed yesterday, but would look good on your wall and the price was fair, then you were still happy. Now a 'Type 1' designation within a plastic holder makes up for problems that in the past wouldn't have been acceptable.


image clarity and composition
subject
date printed (either specifically or general)


The Type system is basically just shorthand for when and how a photograph was printed, and shouldn't speak to the quality of the image at all. I think there are definitely "good" Type 1 photos and there are "lousy" Type 1 photos. There is still a judgement call to be made with regard to aesthetics. I would agree that anyone who is allowing a Type designation and plastic holder to make up the difference between lousy and good is going to have a hard time building an aesthetically pleasing collection, even if all of their photos technically fall into the Type 1 category.

Forever Young
08-26-2013, 12:18 PM
This is where the 'Type' designations get confusing and why I couldn't give a flip about it (yes, bad pun). Most photo collectors I know are interested in the following, and always have been. If you could get a sharp, well-composed print of something you were interested in, and it was printed from the original negative at around the time the photo was taken, then you were happy. And if it was printed yesterday, but would look good on your wall and the price was fair, then you were still happy. Now a 'Type 1' designation within a plastic holder makes up for problems that in the past wouldn't have been acceptable.


image clarity and composition
subject
date printed (either specifically or general)


It doesn't get confusing at all. In fact, it provides clarity. I would much rather have a TYPE 1 IMAGE OF A BABE RUTH ROOKIE PRINTED IN 1915-16 -rather than the same image printed off the original negative in 1919 when he started breaking records for example. It is a no brainer. If peeps don't want to use the system fine. But make no mistake, it makes a difference to the high end collectors and the value. A BIG DIFFERENCE and rightfully so. I could care less about the slabs(most wouldn’t either so I don't know why this always comes up) but I do care about what the piece is and it is MOST MINUTELY DEFINED WITH THE TYPE SYSTEM. YES… those were CAPS:)

Runscott
08-26-2013, 12:45 PM
Ben, you and Lance are the same sort of collector as myself, and I understand your points (always did), just as I know you understand mine.

Lordstan
08-26-2013, 01:19 PM
My question to Scott about the 2 pics in question was based on the fact that image quality can often be one factor in determining which type category the image falls in. In my experience type 1, because they come off the original negative, are usually much sharper appearing. Type 3s, because they come from copy negatives or wire transmission, are often less clear and sharp. That is the differentiation I was alluding to. Obviously a type 2 will maintain the original clarity as it's made from the original negative. I made the mistake of assuming the second photo was a type 1 because of image quality. If I had seen the UPI stamp, I would've known it wasn't. I do realize that clarity and sharpness are not the only factor in determining type. Certainly, as has been suggested, the first picture could have been taken by a less skilled photographer with inferior equipment.

As I've stated before, I like the type system, as, IMHO, it allows for some improved clarity and consistency of identification. I also think it has its flaws in both its definitions and implementation by third party graders.

Ben's example is a perfect one to see the flaws. A picture of Ruth from 1916 printed in 1919 may very well be classified as a Type 1 as the definition reads within approx 2yrs window of event. To me this is a flaw in the system's definitions. This situation is also a set up for a flaw in implementation by TPAs. Because the definition is open ended, it allows the TPA to use their discretion. Would this photo example be judged a type 1 if submitted by a big dollar customer/auction house but a type 2 if submitted by a random private individual? I don't know the answer, but certainly there are examples both in the card and autograph ends of the hobby, that would suggest such favoritism could happen.

Most of this discussion is academic. Great photos are great photos regardless of type. The main thing that changes is the amount of monetary value they hold. I guess if I were spending thousands of dollars on a photo, I would want to preserve and protect that value as well. None of all this takes away from the fact that they are both great photos of JVM and Babe.

Best,
Mark

Forever Young
08-26-2013, 03:34 PM
My question to Scott about the 2 pics in question was based on the fact that image quality can often be one factor in determining which type category the image falls in. In my experience type 1, because they come off the original negative, are usually much sharper appearing. Type 3s, because they come from copy negatives or wire transmission, are often less clear and sharp. That is the differentiation I was alluding to. Obviously a type 2 will maintain the original clarity as it's made from the original negative. I made the mistake of assuming the second photo was a type 1 because of image quality. If I had seen the UPI stamp, I would've known it wasn't. I do realize that clarity and sharpness are not the only factor in determining type. Certainly, as has been suggested, the first picture could have been taken by a less skilled photographer with inferior equipment.

As I've stated before, I like the type system, as, IMHO, it allows for some improved clarity and consistency of identification. I also think it has its flaws in both its definitions and implementation by third party graders.

Ben's example is a perfect one to see the flaws. A picture of Ruth from 1916 printed in 1919 may very well be classified as a Type 1 as the definition reads within approx 2yrs window of event. To me this is a flaw in the system's definitions. This situation is also a set up for a flaw in implementation by TPAs. Because the definition is open ended, it allows the TPA to use their discretion. Would this photo example be judged a type 1 if submitted by a big dollar customer/auction house but a type 2 if submitted by a random private individual? I don't know the answer, but certainly there are examples both in the card and autograph ends of the hobby, that would suggest such favoritism could happen.

Most of this discussion is academic. Great photos are great photos regardless of type. The main thing that changes is the amount of monetary value they hold. I guess if I were spending thousands of dollars on a photo, I would want to preserve and protect that value as well. None of all this takes away from the fact that they are both great photos of JVM and Babe.

Best,
Mark

Actually Mark,

My example of Ruth was to show that the 2 year window is very necessary at times. A mantle 1951 printed in 1951 would be much more valuable to me than the same image printed in 1956(when he won the triple crown and was the biggest star of the time) and reproduced many times over.

Both examples show why they settled for 2 year window(approx) and justifiably.

The execution of the type system by PSA is pretty good I would say. Of course there will be misses at times like there are in autographs, cards ect(no matter if is a tpa or a so called single expert we are talking about). But I think they are very accurate. Nobody better than Henry Yee after all.


Ben

Runscott
08-26-2013, 03:42 PM
Nobody better than Henry Yee after all.


Ben

Please, please, please...don't get me started. I have been doing so well :)

Forever Young
08-26-2013, 04:13 PM
Please, please, please...don't get me started. I have been doing so well :)

You get yourself started.:) The only people that would disagree with that statement are so called photo experts who are "competitors" of Henry, dealers who do not like the fact that psa is now cking their work(they have customers who want the service) and you! :) Just keeping is real... haha!!

PS: I love you Scott. And yes, you have been very good. :)

Runscott
08-26-2013, 04:55 PM
You get yourself started.:) The only people that would disagree with that statement are so called photo experts who are competitors of Henry, dealers who do not like the fact that psa is now cking their work and they have customers who want the service and you! :) Just keeping is real... haha!!

PS: I love you Scott. And yes, you have been very good. :)

Well, you know me - I would send every photo I own (even family snapshots) in to PSA for slabbing and typing, if I could be guaranteed that Henry Yee would personally handle each one.

(Now I have to go take a good shower, as I'm dripping with vile sarcasm)

smokelessjoe
08-26-2013, 05:09 PM
I've seen these banks with other teams, but I've never seen a Pelicans one? It's a glass baseball bank w/ Pelicans logo... 1940s. ???? I've looked around and cannot find one that has sold?

Anybody have one or know of them? High / low value?

Shawn

smokelessjoe
08-26-2013, 05:11 PM
Pelicans

smokelessjoe
08-26-2013, 05:15 PM
New Orleans

Forever Young
08-26-2013, 05:19 PM
Well, you know me - I would send every photo I own (even family snapshots) in to PSA for slabbing and typing, if I could be guaranteed that Henry Yee would personally handle each one.

(Now I have to go take a good shower, as I'm dripping with vile sarcasm)

I know you and yes.. please go take a shower pigpen. :)

bobfreedman
08-27-2013, 06:02 PM
Thanks Ben!

Forever Young
08-27-2013, 06:13 PM
Thanks Ben!

Ouch.. it hurts so bad...the price I have to pay to build my Ruth collection. This is a museum quality piece. It will look perfect with your Cy Young. You are welcome and congrats Bob.

BigJJ
08-27-2013, 06:34 PM
Awesome Walter Johnson.

Ben Bob et al Great new leather frames - and reasonable -

http://www.restorationhardware.com/catalog/product/product.jsp?productId=prod2461082&categoryId=cat2400008

Scott Garner
08-27-2013, 07:11 PM
Thanks Ben!

Beautiful! Congrats Bob.

Runscott
08-27-2013, 10:48 PM
Here's the refinished bat. After the stain dried, I gave it a thin layer of French polish, then used a synthetic wool to rub the shine off of it. The pics look shinier than the actual bat. For reference, two of the pics show comparisons to a 1911-14 bat and a later bat, both completely natural.

Forever Young
08-28-2013, 01:22 AM
Here's the refinished bat. After the stain dried, I gave it a thin layer of French polish, then used a synthetic wool to rub the shine off of it. The pics look shinier than the actual bat. For reference, two of the pics show comparisons to a 1911-14 bat and a later bat, both completely natural.

These look GREAT Scotty! You and your projects are impressive. I have no patience for things like this so I really appreciate seeing them.

Forever Young
08-28-2013, 02:15 AM
Awesome Walter Johnson.

Ben Bob et al Great new leather frames - and reasonable -

http://www.restorationhardware.com/catalog/product/product.jsp?productId=prod2461082&categoryId=cat2400008

Jon..Do you have your photos framed in these? I would lik eto see some of your items framed.

BigJJ
08-28-2013, 06:15 AM
I think they just came out. I am going to buy a couple soon.

BigJJ
08-28-2013, 06:18 AM
http://www.restorationhardware.com/catalog/product/product.jsp?productId=prod2461080&categoryId=search

Above link is in camel color.

Think I like camel better. Tough call.

bobfreedman
08-28-2013, 05:17 PM
Picked up two that I needed, if you have a Dallas Cowboys Mini, please let me know. Thanks

Runscott
08-28-2013, 05:25 PM
Ahhh, back when the Colts, Browns and Steelers were where they belonged.

Joe_G.
08-28-2013, 10:02 PM
An interesting early scorecard, New York Giants hosting the Detroit Wolverines. The date was May 30th, 1883.

http://aug13.hugginsandscott.com/a13/59682_new_york_detroit.jpg
http://aug13.hugginsandscott.com/a13/59682a_new_york_detroit.jpg

Here is a nice summary that can be found on the SABR website (http://sabr.org/bioproj/park/58d80eca).

Usually baseball games on the Polo Grounds took place one at a time. However, during a two-week stretch beginning May 30 (1883) Decoration Day (the original name of Memorial Day), both the New-Yorks (NL - Gothams/Giants) and Metropolitans (AA) were at home. Fortunately, the western diamond was finally ready for occupancy by this time, although the Metropolitans quickly learned that it was a far inferior playing area (with some of the tract reportedly leveled with the use of raw garbage as landfill).

However, the Metropolitans had little choice because five games--involving five major league teams and two college squads--were scheduled for the Polo Grounds on Decoration Day, and two diamonds would be necessary to accommodate all the games.

The Metropolitans started the long day of baseball with a 9:30 a.m. game against Cincinnati, a contest that marked the opening of the west diamond at the Polo Grounds. A half-hour later, just a bit to the east, the New-Yorks began a game against Detroit.

When the National League game was over, Yale and Princeton took the field on the east end for a game to decide the college championship. Upon its conclusion, the New York and Detroit teams returned for the second game of their doubleheader. Meanwhile, the Metropolitans--who had eked out a 1-0 win over Cincinnati in the morning game--were beating Columbus, 12-5, completing a doubleheader sweep over two different teams.

The crowds were sparse for the early games, but fans came and went over the course of the day and, in all, upward of 10,000 fans turned out at some time to see some of the baseball at the Polo Grounds on Decoration Day.
In an attempt to quell some of the confusion of simultaneous games, John B. Day had a flimsy, canvas-covered fence erected to separate the playing areas. This portable fence remained up through June 14, during which time the New-Yorks and Metropolitans continued to play on opposite ends of the same grounds at the same time.

Some additional items of interest include that 1883 was the first year for the NY Giants with the May 30th double header accounting for their 16th & 17th games of the year.

The score card is for the 2nd game of the doubleheader in which NY beat Detroit 8 to 4. What I find most interesting are the light pencil notations on the back which record the inning-by-inning accounts for the NY Mets victory over Columbus (12-5) and Yale's victory over Princeton (5-4). A lot of baseball for one day, I wonder if the scorer made the two earlier games as well.

Scott Garner
08-29-2013, 05:47 AM
An interesting early scorecard, New York Giants hosting the Detroit Wolverines. The date was May 30th, 1883.

http://aug13.hugginsandscott.com/a13/59682_new_york_detroit.jpg
http://aug13.hugginsandscott.com/a13/59682a_new_york_detroit.jpg

Here is a nice summary that can be found on the SABR website (http://sabr.org/bioproj/park/58d80eca).

Some additional items of interest include that 1883 was the first year for the NY Giants with the May 30th double header accounting for their 16th & 17th games of the year.

The score card is for the 2nd game of the doubleheader in which NY beat Detroit 8 to 4. What I find most interesting are the light pencil notations on the back which record the inning-by-inning accounts for the NY Mets victory over Columbus (12-5) and Yale's victory over Princeton (5-4). A lot of baseball for one day, I wonder if the scorer made the two earlier games as well.

Nice scorecard Joe! No kidding, what a day of baseball!
It's almost like getting fed ice cream with a snow shovel.

One good thing is that baseball games typically were pretty short back then, as they were frequently played in 2 hours or less. Not like today's 4 hour marathons, FWIW...

smokelessjoe
08-29-2013, 07:25 AM
Thought this one was neat... Old sea captains playing Cricket. Still, research to be done.