Harper's woodcut question

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>brian p&nbsp; </b><p>I recently picked up a Harper's woodcut (not in my usual collecting realm) of the 1874 Boston team. When I got it home, I discovered it differed from the one listed and shown in the VCBC #14 article on Harper's by Dennis Purdy in that the player's names are listed on both bottom and top, the caption indicates that it is "From Harper's Weekly, June 27, 1874, is titled International Baseball--The Boston Champions (the Baseball does not have a dash between the Base and Ball), and has a rectangular box at the bottom left that reads as follows:<br /><br />"The baseball event of 1874, according to papers of that year, was the visit of the Boston champions to England. A.G. Spalding acted as avant-courtier for the tourists, and the men who played on the visiting team have, in most cases, emerged into a national prominence."<br /><br />The back has an engraving of a horse rescue at a subway work site, and has Harper's Weekly at the top and a page number 687. It also looks to be from the same general time frame.<br /><br />Did Harper's later reprint their woodcuts? Purdy does not have anything like that listed in his article. Also, does the lack of a dash between Base and ball indicate a certain time that this was issued? It certainly appears old. Sorry, no scans--anyone (Julie?) out there can help? Sure would appreciate it.<br /><br />Brian<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Julie</b><p>.....

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Julie Vognar</b><p>it does indeed sound like a HARPER'S reprint, since there is the "Harper's Weekly" at the top. But mine exactly matches the one Purdy reprinted in VCBC, including the Base-Ball, no names on the top, and pages 535 (back_--with entirely different things on it)--and page 536 (front), no little box with further comments.<br /><br />The allusion to the men's later careers (though vague) would indicate that it wasn't too much later. I mean, no 25 years. Is the entire page toned evenly?--all my Harper's are. They are also quite thin, and the test of a real one is supposed to be that the print from the back shows through a little on the front.<br /><br />Not that I've made an exhaustive study of Harper's Woodcuts, but I don't think I've ever HEARD of their doing a reprint before. If yours is as large as mine, there's no way you could scan it-=-and the subtle differenes--the toning, the see-through print-=-wouldn't show up anyway.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Julie Vognar</b><p>"New York's Winning Battery" in a later edition which had many pages of baseball figures. The Keefe--think it was Keefe_ and Ewing figures were much smaller than the original ones, but were otherwise exactly the same.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>brian p</b><p>Thanks Julie for the info on the Harper's. With the wording of the little tag-on "the men who played on the visiting team have, in most cases, emerged into a national prominence" would lead one to believe that it was printed (reprinted) sometime during the player's careers. The thing that makes me think, however, that it might date later is the change of the word "base-ball" into "baseball". Seems like I remember reading that the word didn't lose its dash (in common usage) until sometime after the turn of the century, but I am just not sure. The fact that some of the images were reprinted later gives me some hope that this is a 19th century production.<br /><br />As far as my print goes, it appears to be the right size, about 10-3/4" by 15", is evenly toned and on somewhat lightweight paper. The print does show through from the other side, but one has to examine it closely to notice. <br /><br />One further question for Julie--although my piece does not have a glossy appearance, it does feel smooth to the touch. Are your Harper's printed on similiar smooth paper?<br /><br />Thanks again for the help,<br /><br />Brian<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>hankron</b><p>The 1870s Harper's were on paper similar to today's newspaper paper. Thin, fibery but not un-smooth. If the paper is white coated and super smooth, like today's Sports Illutrated paper or the 'illustrated plates' in an old book, it is probably from later.<br /><br />There are a good number of 19th century newspaper and magazine baseball woodcuts that are uncataloged or rarely seen. After you've discovered the date of your woodcut, you will can be its official cataloguer.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Julie Vognar</b><p>justice! I made it right after I got it because I thought it was so beautiful--but the scan is all lumpy looking. Anyway, you can see above the picture and below it, so maybe some of the areas where our woodcuts differ.<br /><br />Yes, it is sort of smooth--but in no way shiny--and you do have to look fairly hard to see where the print shows through.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/jphotos/HWSWsOR.jpg"> <br /><br />Those are the Wrights on the right, and Spaulding standing behind George, and O'Rourke seated with the ball far left. hey--bad scan--it's all blurry. And--how'd it get BLUE patches in it?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>brian p</b><p>Thanks Julie and David for the info--I knew I could rely on the board (and I even figured that if only two people responded it would be you two). Still a bit of a mystery, but at least I have something more to go on now.<br /><br />Brian

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>hankron</b><p>The jist of my post is if you or someone else finds a baseball woodcut that no one has heard of before, that should not automatically cause worry. There are a lot of legitimate uncatalogued, obscure and unknown woodcuts out there.<br /><br />It's mostly just an issue of time before you find when and where it was published.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>hankron</b><p>Harper's Weekly was last published in 1916.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Julie</b><p>other differences...I proposed that it's a Harper's reprint of their own woodcut, because it was a popular one.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>hankron</b><p>Harper's used this Boston Bostons image a second time, and the ten thousand dollar question is when this second one was printed.