Baseball Player Dag? [Archive] - Net54baseball.com Forums

View Full Version : Baseball Player Dag?

Archive

08-17-2003, 04:46 PM

Posted By: runscott  I'm interested in thoughts on this item. <a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3237256727&category=408" target=_new>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3237256727&category=408</a>

Archive

08-17-2003, 04:50 PM

Posted By: BenI think its a whole lot of wishful thinking on the seller's behalf. That glove looks more like what my mom uses in the backyard garden than a baseball mit.

Archive

08-17-2003, 05:10 PM

Posted By: Jeff OSo this is "an obvious ballplayer", and we know this because "he is holding a ball, unseen...". It's really amazing how the sell knows what is "unseen" in this photo... based on that kind of skill, I'm sure he could also tell us all kinds of interesting this about the individual in the photo (what color underwear he has on, if he has any birthmarks, etc.). I see a photo of a guy wearing a plain coat, a hat, and a glove on his left hand only. Sounds more like Michael Jackson than a baseball player. Jeff <a href="http://www.seattlehockey.net" target=_new>http://www.seattlehockey.net</a>

Archive

08-17-2003, 05:11 PM

Posted By: MWThe comment the seller makes about a baseball being held (hidden) in the person's hand is pure conjecture. Also, I question whether early baseball gloves ever extended that far up the wrist/arm.

Archive

08-17-2003, 05:33 PM

Posted By: scgaynorSince dags fell out of fashion in the 1860's, this photo should predate baseball gloves anyway. Scott

Archive

08-17-2003, 05:45 PM

Posted By: HankronIt's not a baseball player in uniform. The first baseball glove was invented more than a decade after this photograph. Additionally, the first baseball glove was like a fingerless batting glove (no padding) and nothing like a 'puff' fielding glove with which we are familiar.

Archive

08-17-2003, 05:58 PM

Posted By: HankronI am confident that if a baseball player wore that glove onto the field in the 1850s or 60s, he would have living crap beat out of him. It would be akin to wearing a polka dotted dress.

Archive

08-17-2003, 06:01 PM

Posted By: Brian Weisner Looks more like a Cowboy who's been riding , roping and branding cattle than a baseball player. Or it could be Wyatt Earp's sworn enemy Ike Clanton, he didn't wear a glove on his Gunhand. Later Brian

Archive

08-17-2003, 06:02 PM

Posted By: HankronBrian might be right on, that the guy is cow hand of some sort.

Archive

08-17-2003, 06:52 PM

Posted By: Jimmy LeidermanWhat Scott G. said is the main reason to know this is not a baseball player dag. This same item was offered on ebay some months ago without the "baseball" description... price was of course a way lot less than this time. It's the same thing with other early photography types. People selling old fireman and sailor images as ball players just to drive price up. Rule: If not sure it's a baseball related image, DON'T BUY IT!

Archive

08-18-2003, 12:16 PM

Posted By: HankronJimmy's correct. If the man, woman or child is holding a baseball or baseball bat, for examples, you're safe. Also, in more appropriate (modern) times, a real baseball glove is good too. A nice shot of gussett ball, ring bat or other neat equipment will increase the value of the photo. This is only in part because many equipment collectors also buy photos with relevant equipment in the images.

Archive

08-18-2003, 12:28 PM

Posted By: HankronLastly, there are known baseball Daguerreotypes, including one pictured in Ken Burn's Baseball book. Most are not identified as baseball Dags not because of the equipment, but because the people in the images are known and known to be baseball players. When no one knows the identity/history of the person (as is usually the case with tintypes and such), you have to rely upon the uniform and equipment. As Jimmy indicated, tintypes of gymnasts and firemen (early fireman and baseball uniforms were often almost identical) and childred peeling grapefruits are sometimes labelled as baseball tintypes. Even in England and in Germany it is well known to photography collectors/dealers how desirable and valuable are early American baseball photographs, so a lot of this labelling is wishful thinking.

Archive

08-18-2003, 12:44 PM

Posted By: HankronBelow is a link that shows various tintypes of baseball players holding equipment. Realize that these players were intentionally holding the equipment to show that they were baseball players. It wasn't an accident that a player was holding a game ball or had a baseball bat at his side. <a href="http://www.cycleback.com/1800s/earlyphotos.htm" target=_new>http://www.cycleback.com/1800s/earlyphotos.htm</a>

Archive

08-18-2003, 03:53 PM

Posted By: julieNice dag, too--certainly would bring a few bucks. But Holy Moly Big Red Cheese look what's being bid on it!

Archive

08-22-2003, 12:26 PM

Posted By: HankronThe photograph sold for over $1,000. I talked to two bidders and the seller and basically said: 1) Baseball gloves didn't exist at the time of the photograph and 2) and, even if they did, that isn't a baseball glove (kind of resembles a 1900s glove, but is siginficantly different in a variety of ways). I did not say they should retract their bid, as that is entirely their choice and I don't know the current value for a Daguerreotype a hog farmer. One of the bidders thanked me, as he knew alot obout Daguerreotypes but not about baseball. Strangely, the seller returned my email or amended his auction description. From a purely practical standpoint, I assured one man that if he bought the photo, then later tried to resell it to advanced baseball photograph collector or collector of 19th century baseball memorabilia, the potential buyer would say the same thing as me: "Nice photo, but that's not a baseball player."

Archive

08-22-2003, 12:48 PM

Posted By: HankronI should also point out that one of the persons I talked to was the winning bidder-- which helps explain why contacting bidders/sellers is often a waste of time. Not only will the dishonest seller often report you to eBay for 'interfering' with their auction (The interference being providing bidders with accurate information), but the buyer often ignores you anyway.

Archive

08-22-2003, 02:56 PM

Posted By: ElliotDavid, I don't see an amendment to the auction description.

Archive

08-22-2003, 03:13 PM

Posted By: HankronMy typo. Should read, "Strangely, the seller NEVER returned my email or amended his auction description." Most honest sellers offer thanks for significant facts and duly change their description. And I always contact the seller first and give ample time to reply or correct the error. The error may simply be an honest mistake, and we all make honest mistakes from time to time. Last, I very rarely contact a seller or bidder in an eBay auction. This is in part because I'm not a regular browser at eBay. However, when a 'baseball Daguerreotype' is mentioned, you can bet I will take a look.