PDA

View Full Version : 1896 Baltimore mammoth plate


Archive
05-09-2007, 04:53 PM
Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1178656986.JPG"> <br /><br />Now that we have our memorabilia board, I thought I would from time to time share images. This first one (which I have because it was emailed to me several years ago when I was offered the piece) is a mammoth plate of the 1896 Baltimore team. It came from the family of one of the team members. (Typically the original recipients of these photos were team members). I have transparencies of many items in my collection, which at some future date I hope to from time to time post if I can acquire a scanner that scans transparencies and figure out how to use it.

Archive
05-09-2007, 05:02 PM
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>That is a neat mammoth plate you have there. Very cool looking. But better than that "Congratulations" on figuring out how to post pics. You are really becoming one of us...be careful you might get the nickname "armpit" <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>....take care and let me know if I can ever help you again.....and to everyone that wants to post pics remember; when using the board temporary files scan :<br /><br />1. Needs to be .jpg image for best result<br />2. Has to be 128k or under in size<br />3. No weird file names....ie no... ! @ $ # - or any of that stuff....<br /><br />regards<br />leon aka moderator dude doing double duty.....

Archive
05-09-2007, 05:03 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Gorgeous image, Corey. Those are the kind of photo tones you want on a 19th century baseball photograph.<br /><br />Now that you know how to post a picture, you raised the bar for me. But I hope to do the same in the not too distant future. Thanks for sharing.

Archive
05-09-2007, 05:15 PM
Posted By: <b>Joe Jones</b><p>That is a great item Corey! It looks to be the exact same image that was used to make this pin I have.<br /><img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/joejo20/pins/small/img196.jpg">

Archive
05-09-2007, 05:19 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Joe- you are correct. Notice on the pin they airbrushed out the curtain and mirror in the background. Also, I've had that pin several times and never saw the little dog in the front.

Archive
05-09-2007, 05:30 PM
Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Corey what is the size of a mammoth plate photo?

Archive
05-09-2007, 05:44 PM
Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>Mammoth plates vary in size. The smallest would be the next size up from the largest imperial cabinet size (typically around 8" x 10"). So if a photo say is 9" x 12", I would call it too big to be an imperial cabinet and would therefore characterize it as a mammoth plate. I have seen 19th century mammoth plates as large as around 19" x 22". Remember one thing. For much (all?) of the 19th century photographers did not have the ability to enlarge or reduce prints from negatives. The 19" x 22" mammoth plate I have (of the 1889 Pittsburgh team) was printed from a negative that size! If someone wanted to make a baseball card from that image, he would have to reshoot it (i.e., take a photograph of the photograph) onto a smaller negative to generate the smaller positive image.<br /><br />I have in my collection an imperial cabinet of the Kalamazoo Bats Boston team. Its resolution/clarity exceeds that of the cabinet I have of the same team. How can this be? The imperial cabinet was likely the proof used to make (by reshooting that image onto a smaller negative) the cabinet (and the regular size baseball card).

Archive
05-09-2007, 06:01 PM
Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Thanks for the info Corey. I'm wondering about my Nebraska Indians cabinet and what it should be categorized as...the photo part that you can see is 8" x 10", but it appears to have been cropped when it was matted. I also have a Football cabinet photo that is 11" x 13" that I have been calling an imperial cabinet.

Archive
05-09-2007, 06:12 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>The terms "mammoth" and "imperial" have no set parameters. It's kind of a judgment call in some cases.

Archive
06-22-2007, 10:12 AM
Posted By: <b>Joe Jones</b><p>Sorry to bring up this older thread. I just sold this pin and the new owner would like to identify the players. Can anyone help? Here is a scan. It is too bad the scan of the mammoth plate that Corey has does not show up anymore. It would help a lot because the image is much bigger than the image on this pin. I tried to make the pin appear larger without losing clarity. Thanks in advance!<br /><img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/joejo20/pins/websize/img196.jpg">

Archive
06-22-2007, 11:08 AM
Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1182438447.JPG">

Archive
06-22-2007, 11:34 AM
Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>McGraw, Jennings, Wilbert Robinson, and Keeler are easy to pick out the rest I have no clue.

Archive
06-22-2007, 12:00 PM
Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>There are two other HOFers: Ned Hanlon (Mgr.) and Joe Kelley (seated to Hanlon's right).

Archive
06-22-2007, 12:00 PM
Posted By: <b>scgaynor</b><p>Ned Hanlon is the manager in the center.

Archive
06-22-2007, 03:02 PM
Posted By: <b>Phil Garry</b><p>Dan:<br /><br />Thanks for identifying the 4 HOF'ers, can you tell me what position they are in the photo, ie top row, second from left, etc.<br /><br />Your help is greatly appreciated.<br /><br />Phil

Archive
06-22-2007, 04:08 PM
Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>McGraw is second from left in front row<br />Keeler is second from right in the front row with his legs extended<br />Wilbert Robinson is third from right in the middle row<br />Hughie Jennings is second from right in the middle row

Archive
06-22-2007, 05:50 PM
Posted By: <b>Phil Garry</b><p>Thanks a lot, Dan.<br /><br />Corey: Sorry to be a pain, Joe Kelley is third from the left in the middle row, correct?

Archive
06-22-2007, 06:53 PM
Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>correct

Archive
06-22-2007, 07:21 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>In the first year of their championship run in 1894, they also had Dan Brouthers. That team had more future HOFers than any club except I think the 1932 Yankees (okay, there may be one or two others).

Archive
06-22-2007, 11:16 PM
Posted By: <b>Phil Garry</b><p>You're right, Barry. <br /><br />Brouthers was no longer with the team by 1896 but it was still an incredible outfit. <br /><br />Thanks guys for all of your help in identifying the HOF'ers and thank you Joe for selling the pin to me.