PDA

View Full Version : 1909 Imperial (?) Norfolk Team Cabinet


Archive
06-08-2007, 02:05 PM
Posted By: <b>Zach Rice</b><p>Today arrived one of the cornerstones of my collection, an amazing cabinet photograph of the 1909 Norfolk Baseball team of the Virginia League. Though one year behind the issuing of the T210 set (1910) this cabinet pictures 6 players who were featured a year later in the T210 set. <br /><br />The back of the framed item is also neat and has four autographs of players in the picture as well as 2 taped down pages of the 1910 Spalding guide. Interestingly enough, the pages are on the Virginia League and one even has a team photo of the 09' Norfolk team, this is the same image as my cabinet. <br /><br />It should also be noted that in the bottom right corner is the photographer's name (Freeman of Norfolk, Virginia) embossed on the mount.<br /><br />The title of this thread was one of my main questions, what would a cabinet like this be categorized as? It is approx. 20 inches long and 16 inches tall. I have read that to be a "mammoth plate", the image must be 19th century, so would this be just a large imperial cabinet?<br /><br />The cabinet is one its way to be professionally framed and matted and will soon be on the wall. I'll try to put up images of the T210s later this evening.<br /><br />Thanks in advance for any help.<br /><br /><img src="http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m84/mzm55cards/norfolk1.jpg"><br /><img src="http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m84/mzm55cards/norfolk2.jpg"><br /><br /><br />

Archive
06-08-2007, 02:14 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Hi Zach- the photo tones and contrast alone are superb, making this photograph visually exceptional. And the history behind it is even better. Super pickup!<br /><br />I missed your question- mammoth plate refers to size and this would qualify as a mammoth, I think. It's not an exact term, nor is imperial. Corey Shanus and I have talked endlessly on this subject and we still just go with a gut feeling. But this one is very large.

Archive
06-08-2007, 02:17 PM
Posted By: <b>Rob Fouch</b><p>I don't know anything about cabinets -- new to non-card stuff -- but that piece is stunning, Zach. Congrats.

Archive
06-08-2007, 03:12 PM
Posted By: <b>Bruce Babcock</b><p>Very cool, Zach. Congratulations!

Archive
06-08-2007, 04:04 PM
Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Nice pickup Zach. No matter what you call it - Mammoth or Imperial it's pretty sweet.

Archive
06-08-2007, 05:46 PM
Posted By: <b>Max Weder</b><p>Zach zach zach. Wow is all I can say.

Archive
06-08-2007, 06:42 PM
Posted By: <b>paulstratton</b><p>Nice one Zach. I bid, but somehow knew it would be a t210 collector who won it.

Archive
06-08-2007, 09:47 PM
Posted By: <b>Clint</b><p>Great photo Zach. Would love to have one of those uniforms with the vertical and horizontal pinstriping.

Archive
06-09-2007, 04:10 AM
Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>Mammoth is generally assigned to 1800s photos. I'd call it an 16"x20" mounted photograph.<br /><br />It's a great photo. Not only big but with an image as clear as one could hope for. It's great to have the local Norfolk studio stamp too.

Archive
06-09-2007, 06:25 AM
Posted By: <b>Keith</b><p>Very nice photo - I love those plaid like unis.<br /><br />It was surprising to see your post, because I was just going to post inquiring about 2 early 1900s Norfolk players.

Archive
06-09-2007, 07:10 AM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>David- since mammoth refers to the size of the plate and not the age, why wouldn't the term apply to an early 20th century photograph?

Archive
06-09-2007, 02:16 PM
Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>I'm just saying how the term is typically used. It's ordinarily used with 1800s photos. In the 1800s, it was harder to make large photos, so photos this size were rarer than in the 1900s. A little larger than 20x20 was the physical limit of an 1800s photo. I think the term is not only defined by the size, but by the rarity of the size for the time. There are lots of signed 16x20s of Derek Jeter and Terrell Owens, but no one call these mammoths.<br /><br />For early 1900s photos, I'd call those massive Carl Horner team/league composites mammoths-- just because they're so unusually large for the day. I think they're something like 30x30 or something.<br /><br />I wouldn't call Zach's photo a mammoth, but it is unusually large for a minor or major league team photo. And it's large size makes it more financially valuable.

Archive
06-09-2007, 04:15 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>That makes sense. Thanks.

Archive
06-09-2007, 04:31 PM
Posted By: <b>Jerry</b><p>Congrats Zach, Great cabinet.<br />Wonder if there are any E222's of these players?

Archive
06-09-2007, 08:07 PM
Posted By: <b>Zach Rice</b><p>Thanks everyone for the kind words and great information. I was looking through REA's past auctions this evening and found my cabinet in two auctions (2005 lot 656 and 2007 lot 867). Both times it was the same cabinet, in fact, lot 656 and 867 are nearly identical lots except one cabinet was added to the mix for the 2007 auction. This cabinet was discussed in an earlier thread, the seller claimed it to picture Dan Brouthers amongst other major league players, it sold for approx. $1700.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/site/bidplace.aspx?itemid=2177" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/site/bidplace.aspx?itemid=2177</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/site/bidplace.aspx?itemid=9027" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/site/bidplace.aspx?itemid=9027</a><br /><br />Jerry-The only player pictured that is seen in the E222 set is Otey. Otey was one of the four that autographed the cardboard backing of the cabinet's frame, too. <br /><br />Here are the T210s of the players in the cabinet. I know a few of the players pictured above can be found in other sets, however, the only example I have of this is Mullaney's T209-2 card.<br /><br /><img src="http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m84/mzm55cards/t210imperials.jpg">

Archive
06-09-2007, 08:19 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>It's great doing photo i.d. when every face matches perfectly. That's a very impressive wall of photos Zach!

Archive
06-09-2007, 08:27 PM
Posted By: <b>Rhys</b><p>Zach<br /><br />In case you want it for your records or whatever, here is a very rare signature of Red Munson pictured in your cabinet.<br /><br />Rhys<br /><br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1181348819.JPG">

Archive
06-09-2007, 09:30 PM
Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Nicely done Zach. Out of curiosity are you still collecting Columbus baseball items? This cabinet went off in a live auction yesterday that I thought was outstanding.<br /><br /><a href="http://tinyurl.com/2rkdc8" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/2rkdc8</a><br /><br />They have the team name listed wrong in the auction as this would have been the Columbus Reds and not the Solons.

Archive
06-11-2007, 03:28 PM
Posted By: <b>Zach Rice</b><p>Rhett-Thanks for posting the autograph of Red Munson. I imagine autographs of these guys are a pain to collect.<br /><br />Dan-Thanks for the link to the Columbus cabinet. I can't recall ever seeing that one, it sure is outstanding. Oddly enough, the only other Columbus cabinet I can visualize in my head right now is an equally neat and unique design, i'll try to post a picture of the one i'm thinking of. The players all appear to be coming out of a large baseball, its difficult to describe. I am still collecting Columbus items but haven't really been searching too hard lately. So far my collection is pretty small but I do have some neat postcards and cards.