California Photographer CDV - Late 1870s?

[Leon]

You guys did so good on the tintype, what are thoughts on the age of this one....

[khkco4bls]

Leon according to the ring bat 1880s. Can u read the label on the bat

[Leon]

Leon according to the ring bat 1880s. Can u read the label on the bat

Thanks Kevin. No, I can't read the label on the bat even with a huge scan. I thought maybe late 1870s because of the bibs, but I got this from Scott F. and I think (but am not sure) he had it listed as 1880. Maybe circa 1880 would be good?

[pariah1107]

According to this website in the late 1870's/early 1880's, the photographer for MH Grant studios in Eureka, California was Amassa Flaglor.

https://library.humboldt.edu/humco/holdings/EricsonNews.htm

Here's Flaglor bio:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Nne4L9h27RsC&pg=PA237&lpg=PA237&dq=Amassa+Flaglor+photographer+Eureka+California&source=bl&ots=a0OZfkzp1-&sig=qAONWBk-V1kWK6bL_Ol9rlcHnV4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nygGU5WCCpXfoASKk4LADg&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Seems Flaglor was in Eureka 1871-1880, then moved to San Francisco. Don't find any record of MH Grant studios after 1882 in Eureka. But records are incomplete.

[slidekellyslide]

c1880 is probably as good as you can get...could certainly be late 1870s, but almost certainly is not later than 1885. I have had photos of players in bib uniforms as late as the 1890s, but this certainly looks circa 1880.

[pariah1107]

Went to Library of Congress Newspaper Archives and searched "Eureka Baseball", years 1875-1885. There are seven articles on the Eureka Baseball Club, all from a Sacramento paper, all in 1883:

Here's one:
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn82014381/1883-05-23/ed-1/seq-3/#date1=1878&index=0&rows=20&words=Baseball+Eureka&searchType=basic&sequence=0&state=California&date2=1883&proxtext=eureka+baseball&y=0&x=0&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=1

Strange there were no articles pre-1883, but Dan's right ca. 1880 is probably as close as possible. It's a great looking image. Hope that helps, enjoy the rest of National Love Your Pet Day.

[Runscott]

Thanks Kevin. No, I can't read the label on the bat even with a huge scan. I thought maybe late 1870s because of the bibs, but I got this from Scott F. and I think (but am not sure) he had it listed as 1880. Maybe circa 1880 would be good?

I try to be conservative with age guesses, but I really do think circa 1880 is good for this one. We often see age arguments built based on the presence of ring bats, bibs or pillbox hats - I might start a new thread: "Show us your baseball images with bibs, ring bats or pillbox hats, from the 1900's" Some of you would be quite surprised.

I try to start by looking at the qualities of the photo and mount first, then key on the other stuff as support for my first gut reaction - you don't want a bib, ring bat or pillbox hat clouding your judgement. Attaching an age to an old photos is often based on a lot of stuff going on in your brain at a less conscious level - hard to put your finger on it, but you have a gut feel based on the sum of all the knowledge you've accumulated and pieces you've seen. When I see people assertively state that something's from say, 1880, and I have a strong feeling that it's more like 1900, I should probably just keep my opinion to myself - without 'proof', it's all just one collector's knowledge and experience vs another's.

I do remember getting bamboozled by a mount that I was certain was circa 1905, and then I found one from the 1890's in my own collection that could be definitively dated to that period. There are always opportunities to learn.

[drcy]

If I had to pick a decade, I'd pick 1870s. It looks 1870s. The photo style and uniforms are 1870s-stye, which of course doesn't mean it couldn't be say 1880 or 1881.

[barrysloate]

I'll say 1880-85.

[drcy]

Dark shoes are post 1870s style, but they could be wearing work shoes to the studio and the guy in the right back appears to possibly be wearing the 1870s style. The shoes are the only troublesome detail for me. If they were wearing white shoes, they'd I'd be more more firm that it's 1870s. The general rule of thumb is white hightop shoes (with black trim) are 1860s-70s and black/dark brown athletic shoes are 1880-90s. Dark low tops 20th century. The problem is sometimes the players wore their work or dress shoes or are only in their stocking feet as they're in the photography studio-- but they usually wear their athletic shoes because its part of their uniform.

The guy on the front left is wearing dark shoes, but they look like slip on non-athletic shoes. Official athletic shoes were lace up. And it looks as if the shoes on the right front are also not lace up. And, as I said, the guy in the right back appears to be wearing 1870s baseball shoes. So the shoes are the tough part.

As I said, it could be be early 1880s, but my pick of a decade is still 1870s.

Clearly, December 31 1879 and January 1st 1880 weren't far apart, which is why there is a margin of error, or allowances made, when picking a decade. That's why the word 'circa' was invented.

[Runscott]

The guy at front left is wearing a fairly definitive style of shoe - perhaps someone can date them?

[drcy]

As long as you don't see a Nike logo under magnification.

[drcy]

I add that the overall photo style (mount, etc) is a standard 1870s style, which, again, doesn't mean it could have overlapped into say 1880.

[Runscott]

I did find an 1874 Warren cabinet that was almost the same exact style, but it was on HOS, so I decline to link or post the image. Also found a circa 1870 cabinet at this site: http://ids.lib.harvard.edu/ids/view/10391691?buttons=y

http://ids.lib.harvard.edu/ids/view/view/10391691?viewheight=600&captionText=Harvard+University%2C+Harvard+Universi ty+Archives%2C+W405357_1&height=600&width=405&viewwidth=405

[Old Hoss]

For at least some more information, here is a link to the auction where it was sold, in case you haven't seen it:

http://sports.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=7065&lotIdNo=411007

It does not look like it is a cdv-it is too big according to the Heritage website.

Finally, and most importantly: it is a great photo! California baseball memorabilia from the 19th century is pretty rare, which I bet you already know.

Best,
Charles

[drcy]

If it's a cabinet card, that's rarer and more valuable than a CDV. The bigger the better.

[Runscott]

If it's a cabinet card, that's rarer and more valuable than a CDV. The bigger the better, especially in the 1870s.

David - I showed you this item when it first arrived. You actually held it.

[drcy]

After about my second or third post, I remembered it.

[drcy]

Another dating detail is the small and simple photographer's stamp on back. In the 1860s-70s, studio stamps were small and simple. In the 1880s-90s they became much larger and ornate, often filling up the entire back.

The more I think about it, the more confident it is 1870s.

[bgar3]

The Church, History of Base Ball 1845-1871 (1902) references a Eureka club from Santa Monica existed in 1867 at the very least. not saying this is from then, or even the same team, just adding a reference to a Eureka club in California prior to the newspaper references. see pages 43-45.

[Old Hoss]

If it's a cabinet card, that's rarer and more valuable than a CDV. The bigger the better.

I don't think this is accurate. There are so many other factors to consider in valuation. Size may add value. But it may not. It totally depends. And as for rarity, baseball cabinets are far more common than baseball cdvs.

[pariah1107]

Finally got a chance to view some of the LOC newspaper archives articles about the "Eureka Baseball Club". Here's the 1883-84 line-up:

J. Sullivan, captain 1883
T. Meagher 1883
W. Renfro 1883-84, pitcher
W. McLaughlin 1883
E. Furness 1883-84, 2nd base
R. Barry 1883-84, 3rd base
T. Costello 1883-84, short stop
J. Leonard 1883-84, 1st base
G. Hilbert 1883-84, rightfield
Crone 1884, centerfield
Mack 1884, catcher
Perry 1884, leftfield

This may have nothing to do with your image, but I found it interesting. It's possible the team in Sacramento was known as the Eurekas but I can find no record of it.

Anyways, managed to piece this together from a Sacramento Daily Record-Union article August 8, 1883. "The Eureka Baseball Club held a meeting last evening, and organized with the following members....". They played before as Eureka Baseball Club in May so I don't know why they "formed an organization" in August. And another July 21, 1884 SDRU article about a 14 to 0 victory over the "Peruvian Bitters". No stats, or particulars about players, but think I can find more info on players through 1880 census, or by searching names in archives.

[GaryPassamonte]

Leon- I've only seen one other baseball cdv from California. Very nice pick up.

[Leon]

Leon- I've only seen one other baseball cdv from California. Very nice pick up.

Shameless plug is it will be in our next auction opening in a few days....Good luck if anyone goes for it. I already have one cdv for my collection besides my Peck and Snyder so don't really need another. And the one I speak of is the one I unfortunately won out from under you on the bay. :(

[aaroncc]

I don't think this is accurate. There are so many other factors to consider in valuation. Size may add value. But it may not. It totally depends. And as for rarity, baseball cabinets are far more common than baseball cdvs.

I agree was thinking the same thing.

[drcy]

I meant, and should have said, that when all other things are equivalent (age, condition, subject, etc), the bigger the more valuable. I was comparing 1870s to 1870s, not 1870s to all other eras. It's true that baseball cabinet cards are relatively plentiful, but over 90% of them are from after the 1870s. In the 1860s to 1870s, CDVs were more common overall as a form of photography.

I originally was going to say 'all other things equivalent,' but assumed people wouldn't think I was saying that size is the only quality that matters. Clearly, an 1860s CDV of James Creighton will be worth more than a 1890s cabinet card of an anonymous barn, and a 1920s 3x2" snapshot of Babe Ruth will be worth more than an 8x10" digital photo of my dog. But the same Ruth or Creighton photo except in 8x10" form will be more valuable than the smaller versions.

And I know valuation bets can be off with baseball card collectors, as they sometimes prefer items that most resemble a baseball card. But I try not to submit to irrational points of view, such as with baseball card collectors who pay $1,000 for a $50 cut signature (with 3 of the player's letters cut off) just because it's on a Upper Deck baseball card with '1/1' stamped in corner :) Hell, some card collector paid $600 for a scissors cut out magazine picture of Nolan Ryan, just because it was in a PSA holder and listed the PSA set registry. My valuation calculations don't include prices paid out by the insane, because they might start taking their medication or run out of money. Any good statistician knows you can't base your longterm valuation tables on the manic phases of the bipolar and those not legally allowed sign a contract.

Besides, I was claiming Leon's photo was even better when I found out it was bigger. I wasn't putting down anything.

[Old Hoss]

Thanks for clarifying. In general, I understand and agree with you.

I think that whether or not it is a cdv can be potentially important in dating this photograph, which is why I pointed out the Heritage Auction description.

To me, if it were a cdv, that might be one contributing factor (not dispositive) that it is on the earlier side of things. If it were a cabinet (which the measurements indicate it is), that is one factor (of many) that could indicate that it is not quite as early.

I agree with you and think it is a fantastic photo!

[GaryPassamonte]

You sure know how to hurt a guy, Leon.