curious about this photograph
 

Posted By: <b>jamie</b><p>The subject is definitely 1870's- early 1880's but I'm having a hard time identifying whether it's period or via what style of photographic method it was produced.<br /><br /><img src="http://imgs.inkfrog.com/pix/dylanjames56/baseball1.jpg"><br /><br />The paper measures 11x14 so it's fairly large. The front has a matt pebble surface and the back has no texture. The paper itself is about as thick as card stock. It reminds me of a high quality art print you might be in a gallery or a museum. The image itself is not actually as bright as it appears in the scan- it's more of a soft gray and the borders an off-white.<br /><br />Just wondering if anyone might have any thoughts on this piece. I don't want to misrepresent it should I choose to sell. Has anyone encountered this image before?

curious about this photograph
 

Posted By: <b>Phil Garry</b><p>I'm not a photo expert but my guess is that it is a more modern reproduction, not from the 19th century at all.

curious about this photograph
 

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>The picture looks like a comedy troupe doing a farce about early baseball. I just have a feeling, and only a feeling, that it might be from the silent era of movies. When I first saw the photo, I thought it might be from the late thirties or early forties, but the makeup made me change my mind.<br /><br /><br /><br />

curious about this photograph
 

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>I would say 1890s and I think the photo is period- bib fronts were not uncommon in the '90s. The print is most likely out of a presentation type of book from whatever school they are representing.

curious about this photograph
 

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>In my opinion, the uniforms are definitely 1870s. The white shoes are standard for the period. Looks sort of like a dress up, as 1870s kids didn't ordinarily wear full adult-style uniforms.<br /><br />My offhand guess without seeing it in person is the print is not from the 1870s, but that doesn't rule out it from being old.

curious about this photograph
 

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Doh! I didn't even look down at the shoes, but yes I agree that the shoes are definitely 1870s era.

curious about this photograph
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>It's tough to do photo authentication from a scan, but I find something strange about this image. All the heads seem to be attached to the bodies at odd angles. Does anyone else see this? It might be the heads were superimposed onto the bodies at a later date, and then reshot. But I could also be wrong.

curious about this photograph
 

Posted By: <b>Shawn Chambers</b><p>I think the heads are also cut and pasted onto the bodies. The whole thing has a very odd look to it that will haunt my dreams.

curious about this photograph
 

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Wasn't this image posted and queried about 12 to 18 months ago?? It looks familiar. And a bit odd.

curious about this photograph
 

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>Perhaps its a grade school yearbook type thing, with the kids heads put on an old baseball photo. Sounds like something a school or studio might do. <br /><br />What you need is someone to look at it in person and give you an idea of age. As I said, it doesn't appear 1870s, but that doesn't mean it isn't old. If the heads are superimposed, photography studios were doing type of composite/collage stuff since before the turn of the century. Those 1880s Presidential Big Head tobacco cards are just one example

curious about this photograph
 

Posted By: <b>jamie</b><p>my wife thought the kids in the pic had a children of the corn quality. especially the kids in the front. i dont think they were superimposed. heres some closer images<br /><img src="http://imgs.inkfrog.com/pix/dylanjames56/baseball3.jpg"><br /><br /><img src="http://imgs.inkfrog.com/pix/dylanjames56/baseball2.jpg"><br /><br />it's definitely strange<br /><br />btw david, your book on identifying photographs is my first stop anytime i pick up a new picture. it's really become an invaluable took in my hobby

curious about this photograph
 

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>There were late 1800s art prints, prints instead of photos with black/white photographic images (instead of albumen sepia). I've seen baseball examples. Depending on the printing process used, the surfaces can be rough/matte and can be on thick paper. Some of the processes could do high quality reproductions of photos, better than on period magazine or baseball card. The paper will often be off white with age. Sometimes something will be a size that makes it unlikely to be from the advertised period. For example, 8.5"x11" is the standard for computer and typing paper not 1812 etchings. However, I just checked, and 11x14 inches prints existed in 1800s. Again without seeing it, yours could be one of these types of prints. These would have been sold to the public at stores or galleries.<br /><br />A key is that an 1800s photo wouldn't likely be that black and white in tone and wouldn't be on thick paper unless mounted (pasted to heavier backing). However, a late 1800s ink and printing press print with photorealistic image could be that tone and could be on thick paper or cardboard.<br /><br />If it's an 1800s ink and printing press print, I would say a good guess it's a photogravure. Photogravures can have black and white tones, high quality photorealistic images and have rough/matte surface textures, and the process was often used to make art prints and quality book illustrations. I've seen a few late 1800s photogravure prints of baseball teams, including Major League teams.

curious about this photograph
 

Posted By: <b>Ryan Christoff</b><p>I'd just like to recommend the "preview" feature which is available to all board members prior to posting. I know the "edit" feature can be quite addictive to some, but a cure is available in the form of a "preview" button. <br /><br />I'm not sure if 13 edits is a record, but it's a clear sign of the need for an intervention. Help is available, David. We're here to support you.<br /><br />-Ryan<br /><br />

curious about this photograph
 

Posted By: <b>MB3</b><p>The photo looks contrived and to well rehearsed to look anything other than bogus. I own alot of baseball photos from the turn of the century and this looks nothing of the sort. My thoughts are it reminds me of a civil war reenactment photo where even though the soldiers have on real uniforms it is not period looking. A ballplayer has a certain look even at a certain age and these kids look like great actors.

curious about this photograph
 

Posted By: <b>Jodi Birkholm</b><p>That is not David's record. Not by a long shot! <br /><br />David, <br /><br />Could you please create a post consisting of a single word, edited seventeen thousand times? I've been craving that longer than I'd care to admit! The sad part is that I'm serious! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

curious about this photograph
 

Posted By: <b>fkw</b><p>I dont see shadows from the trees on the players, the background is blurry compared to the crisp players. Also the grass changes right behind them.<br /><br />Im no expert, but the catchers mask seems to be far more modern than the shoes/uniforms.<br /><br />PS the guy on the ground (left side) whats in his left hand???? <br /><br />My guess is its from the early 20th Century and made to look like from the 1870-80s

curious about this photograph
 

Posted By: <b>kenneth McMillan</b><p>Photoshop??????

curious about this photograph
 

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Could be a 1910ish photo of a school play, on stage, of a play about an 1890s youth ball team.

curious about this photograph
 

Posted By: <b>DMcD</b><p>What an unsettling image! Looks like a team of psychos, maybe the local nine of the Village of the Damned. Scary stuff!

curious about this photograph
 

Posted By: <b>Dennis W.</b><p>I can't pass up a good mystery. I noticed that all of the players have long sleeves except the kid on the far right (pitcher?). Also, it'd be interesting to see a close-up of the ball he's holding and the pen the kid at the table is holding to see if they're period. Fun photo - thanks for posting it.

curious about this photograph
 

Posted By: <b>Steve</b><p>It is a loathsome, offensive photo -yet I can't look away. <br />

curious about this photograph
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Steve- you're thinking of the Kramer! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

curious about this photograph
 

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>Barry, perhaps you're thinking of the Seinfeld episode where Kramer did a lifetime of cigar smoking in one weekend and looked like the Marlboro man. After seeing his own reflection in Jerry's toaster, Kramer said "Look away, Jerry. I'm hideous."<br /><br />I've watched a lot of old B horror movies, including those starring Bela Lugosi. Invariably the movie starts with the local townsfolk thinking Lugosi is the lovable, harmless old local professor or doctor. Come on, how can they not know he's evil? It's Bela Lugosi. Don't the other characters of Leave it to Beaver town USA notice he's the one one dressed in black and speaking cryptically in thick Transylvanian accent (Did you know Lugosi really was from Transylvania?) <br /><br /><img src="http://www.biography.com/biography/images/episode_images/lugosi_bela_320x240.jpg"><br />Everyone in town loves the kindly and humble doctor<br /><br />One of the more curious Lugosi B movie plots was when he played a scientist for a perfume company (As expected, the townsfolk all love the kindly local scientist and loyal employee). After feeling he was wronged out of company stock pay, he concocts a cologne that attracts the giant killer bats he is secretly breding. In the end, someone splashes cologne on him and he is killed by one of his own bats.<br /><br />In classic Lugosi evil scientist moment in the middle of the movie, after having one of his bosses try out the new cologne, the boss says "Well, see you later Doc."<br />With expression similar to the above pic and with his unmistakable speaking manner, Lugosi's says simply, "Goodbye."<br />Bela says "Goodbye" to a few other bosses in the movie.

curious about this photograph
 

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>Isn't that a '57 Corvette in the background?

curious about this photograph
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>David- there's a Seinfeld episode where Jerry's girlfriend paints a portrait of Kramer, and a rich couple purchase it and hang it in their townhouse. That's the one I was thinking of (and likely Steve too).

curious about this photograph
 

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>Obviously .................. The Boonetown Hermaphrodites

curious about this photograph
 

Posted By: <b>jamie</b><p>here's some more pics from the baseball team from the village of the damned.<br /><br /><br />[IMG]<img src="http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g28/wassermj/misc/IMG_7023.jpg">[/IMG]<br />[IMG]<img src="http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g28/wassermj/misc/IMG_7024.jpg">[/IMG]<br />[IMG]<img src="http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g28/wassermj/misc/IMG_7025.jpg">[/IMG]<br />[IMG]<img src="http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g28/wassermj/misc/IMG_7026.jpg">[/IMG]<br />[IMG]<img src="http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g28/wassermj/misc/IMG_7027.jpg">[/IMG]<br />[IMG]<img src="http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g28/wassermj/misc/IMG_7028.jpg">[/IMG]<br />[IMG]<img src="http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g28/wassermj/misc/Untitled-1copy.jpg">[/IMG]<br />[IMG]<img src="http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g28/wassermj/misc/Untitled-2copy.jpg">[/IMG]<br />[IMG]<img src="http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g28/wassermj/misc/Untitled-3copy.jpg">[/IMG]<br /><br />i had a chance to look at it through a loupe today and i can see deterioration and age spots reproduced on the print which makes me think this was an original vintage picture that was reproduced and blown up for a quality matte image. which of course begs the question why the hell someone would want a better look at these kids but still a unique item

curious about this photograph
 

Posted By: <b>Julie Vognar</b><p>There are actually perfectly black-and white N172s--they're rare, but they exist. I would like to get a look at that "pen" the young guy is holding--looks like a ballpoint, not a fountain pen.<br />"They weren't too big on ballpoints in '43." (1943, that is).<br /><br />But I'm not sure I've ever known David to be wrong.<br /><br />I have a couple of old movies with close-ups of ordinary people signing things (a check (1936), a volunteering for the airforce (1927)).<br />If the guys here would get off the TV for a while, I'll check them out.<br /><br />Barry, TV is a noxious weed/ it satisfies no normal need.<img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/jphotos/110103_diving_prv.gif"> <br /><br />I didn't know ANYONE wore a facemask in the '70s or '80s.<br /><br />Those two "players" in front sure are going to get cricks in their necks, holding their heads that way.<br /> *<br />Men signing consent for their physical to serve in the airforce (1917) are seated at a longish table, with ink bottles in the center of the table. They hold a simple dark pen with an inserted steel writer (nib?) in one end, which they have to dip in the ink bottle. <br /><br />

curious about this photograph
 

Posted By: <b>ROBERT ADAMS JR</b><p><a href="http://s187.photobucket.com/albums/x160/bobadams123/?action=view&current=IMG862-1.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x160/bobadams123/IMG862-1.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a> I put a similar photo up . Still wondering !

curious about this photograph
 

Posted By: <b>Denny Walsh</b><p>Very curious if Mr. Wonka has a play in this? Those Heads are definately wrong for their bodies! I Magnified the Scan and the Guys with the Bats have hands that are Very Man Like.<br /><br />Freaky to say the least......<br /><br /><br><br>Life's Grand,<br />Denny Walsh

curious about this photograph
 

Posted By: <b>Bob Manning</b><p>Well, here's a start:<br /><br />The Blues played in the American Association (then considered a major league) for two years of which this is the second. Not all of the men in the photo are players:<br /><br />1Cub Stricker (2B)<br />2Ed McKeon ("McKean") (SS)<br />3Darby O'Brien (P)<br />4Ed Hogan (OF)<br />5Bill McClellan (OF)<br />6George Prosser (P)<br />7Ed Keas (OF)<br />8(?) Loftus (MGR)<br />9Jay Faatz (1B)<br />10George Howe (President)<br />11Chief Zimmer (C)<br />12Gus Albert(s) (3B)<br />13Deacon McGuire (OF)<br />14Bob Gilts ("Gilks") (OF<br />15Dick Van Sant ("Van Zant") (P)<br /><br />Several went on to long and successful big league careers. See especially Deacon McGuire and Chief Zimmer.

curious about this photograph
 

Posted By: <b>Steve</b><p>If you look at the person not in a baseball uniform it appears that he is in a military<br />school type uniform. I think it is from the late 1880's and is a picture of a High School <br />baseball team. The pic itself may be a repro though. After the Civil War military High schools<br />flourished. <br /><br /><br />Steve

curious about this photograph
 

Posted By: <b>Steve</b><p>The Blues team in this picture later became the Spiders, previous to this <br />second coming of the Blues, Cleveland had another team named the Blues.<br /><br />Similar to Washington in the 60's.<br /><br /><br /><br />Steve

curious about this photograph
 

Posted By: <b>Mark L</b><p>Any thoughts about the figure in the background, the man in the dark hat over the players' soldiers? Does anyone recognize him?

curious about this photograph
 

Posted By: <b>Bob Manning</b><p>The manager of this squad was Tom Loftus. The figure in the background? Stan Laurel. Professor Moriarty. Belva Lockwood.

curious about this photograph
 

Posted By: <b>Mark</b><p>Bob<br />I meant the figure in the other photo (unless it's the same guy).

curious about this photograph
 

Posted By: <b>ROBERT ADAMS JR</b><p>Thanks for the input . Kinda funny that both photos have a similar lurker in the back ground .

curious about this photograph
 

Posted By: <b>ROBERT ADAMS JR</b><p>Maybe a vintage " Where's Waldo " .

curious about this photograph
 

Posted By: <b>ROBERT ADAMS JR</b><p><a href="http://s187.photobucket.com/albums/x160/bobadams123/?action=view&current=111.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x160/bobadams123/111.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a> Actually , this appears to be a photo showing a 1888 Cleveland Joseph Hall Team Cabinet . Photo from Edwards auction .

curious about this photograph
 

Posted By: <b>ROBERT ADAMS JR</b><p>What I find interesting is the photo I have is of the exact same ultra-rare cabinet from the Edwards auction but more the original color . Wonder if Old Judges looked this way .