19th Century Base Ball Painting
 

Well, it's been ten days since the close of this ebay auction so I suspect all of the dust has settled. I thought maybe one of our forum members may have picked it off and shown it off on here but nothing so far.

I say "Wow!". Amazing vintage artwork. I thought the player with the "C" may have been representative of the 1869 Cincinnati Red Stockings but, although still possible, I don't think so since the 69 team didn't have the bib front with the trim around it. Anyway, this large painting went for $18200+.

I haven't yet tried to identify the location by the grounds behind the players. Does anybody recognize the location?

Rob M.

Attachment 254789

Attachment 254792

Based upon famous print.
 

This seems to be a folk art piece based upon a print from 1870, I think titled New York fashion 1870. It is Capitoline grounds. The original had more players and was much better done. It is supposed to be Cincinnati, among others. I will look up the print for more information, but wanted to let you know this much for your own search. I also believe this was auctioned off recently, going for about 6000 I think, and then put up again. I assume they are the same, but am not positive. I don't know for sure whether or not that painting itself is from the 19th century. It is, however supposed to depict 19th century players and uniforms. I don't know how to post images from somewhere else, but I am sure a search of 1870 New York fashion baseball images will come up with the famous print and someone can post it. Very interesting piece.

Thanks. I believe you are correct but I just couldn't find that old print nor remember where I had seen it before. I do remember there being a similar image with several players in different uniforms and a base ball grounds in the background.

If it went for $6k recently at auction, somebody made a good flip.

Rob M

Not so easy to find.
 

You are right, not as easy to find as I thought. I will keep looking, I found it when the first one came up, but can't seem to now.

It is good policy to be wary of early paintings. About a year ago a major antique auction house had what was thought to be a vintage 19th century baseball painting. I saw it in person and planned on bidding. After some investigation, the painting was found to not be a 19th century work, but rather a more recent effort. Believe me, this painting was beautiful. I'm not saying the painting mentioned in this thread is not vintage, but some caution is wise.

"New York fashions for March 1870"
 

Try New York fashions for March 1870, that is the title. It has 6 uniformed players, which to my eye, are much more professionally depicted. I remember one of these original prints going at auction quite awhile ago for about the price this painting went for. I will try to find that to be sure.

Robert Edward spring 2010 one went for over 15000
 

REA Spring 2010, the print was sold for over 15,000

I guess that figures. Seems there isn't ANY area of sports collecting now that's safe.

It comes up as 'Union Grounds'. I believe it represents a game between the Cincinnati Reds and the Athletics in 1870.

http://www.covehurst.net/ddyte/brook...%20catalog.png

Thanks Scott
 

Thanks Scott, my memory is not what it used to be.

Bingo! Thanks guys for the detective work. It would be interesting to find out just when that painting was actually done. Can you guys get right on that now?

Rob M

My Pleasure. I found a litho with the same building in centerfield, but which otherwise looked nothing like this print. It was described as a game between Brooklyn and Cincinnati in 1870. I believe the 'Fashions' print was based on the same game, but the players added to it (other than the 'A' and 'C' players) had nothing to do with the rest of the image but were added ('C' and 'A' uniforms changed to blue uniforms) to illustrate other types of baseball uniforms.

This makes the 'folk art' painting sort of curious. Someone who knows more about the 'Union Grounds' could probably compare the painting to the print and determine which came first. My own opinion is that the print came first, as the players look very relaxed and natural, whereas the middle guy in the painting looks like he is floating in air, and the players in the painting do not look like they are a natural distance from one another. I'm guessing the litho artist created an all-'Cincinnati/Brooklyn' version first, then modified some of the uniforms for the 'Fashion' litho.

...I also think that the fact that the painter handled the middle guy's feet and shadow so poorly might indicate that it is a legitimate early painting (1800's), as a modern forger should have at least made the feet look like they were standing on the planks, just so it wouldn't look like a bad copy of a litho (bringing into question its age).

Here is a painting I bought a few years ago based on an existing image. It is a watercolor and is quite primitive compared to the one referenced in this thread. The date 1867 is written on the painting. Is it vintage? I'm unsure. Although making a copy of an existing painting or print was not uncommon, I still become skeptical when I see one where the potential for big dollars is possible.

It sold in REA Spring 2007 $22,325, then in Spring, 2010 for $15,275

http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/...ll-lithograph/

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder but as someone who collects non sport folk art, yeesh. I'd say about 17,500 of the 18k is a premium for it being baseball related. Although it is old let me tell you it would not be hard to do a similar piece. Old artists board plus old frame plus old paints, this is not an old master we are talking here. I'd stay far away, plus it is god awful ugly. Again totally my opinion.

Dennis - I beg to differ. The 'floating man' technique is very hard to master. I am thinking about doing a painting where an entire team is floating above the field.

..well then you would have to call the team the "Angels". ;)

Scott, I knew I was missing something. It is no longer a piece of folk art, but instead early outsider fine art and should easily fetch in the six figures. My mistake.

Btw I do like Gary's watercolor much better, very charming piece .

Just a couple of trivial points (and even more trivial conjecture) for clarification:

Even allowing for considerable inaccuracy and artistic license, the painting and print shown in posts 1 and 9 are surely meant
to depict not the Capitoline Grounds but indeed the Union Grounds, famous for the large three-story pagoda in center field.

We'd also suggest the player shown wearing the A is intended to represent a member of not the Athletics of Philadelphia
but rather of the Atlantics of Brooklyn. The Atlantics and Cincinnati Red Stockings met in 1870 in what was described
as the greatest game ever played.

From the well-researched http://www.brooklynballparks.com/ :

"The Union Grounds, formally known as the Union Base Ball and Cricket Grounds, were... bounded by Harrison Avenue,
Rutledge Street, Lynch Street, and Marcy Avenue.... the grounds [ were converted ] for baseball for the summer of 1862....
The Union Grounds were demolished in July 1883.

"The Capitoline Base Ball Grounds were conceived in 1863 as a rival to the immediately successful Union Grounds of a year earlier....
In April of that year, the proprieters... offered the powerful Atlantic Club a free lease at their new park.... The Capitoline grounds
stood in Bedford, in a block bounded by Halsey Street, and Marcy, Putnam and Nostrand Avenues.... The only season of major league
baseball at the Capitoline Grounds was in 1872. The Atlantic Club, then of the National Association, won the final major league game there...
but left for the Union Grounds in 1873.... In 1880 the Capitoline Grounds were demolished.

"The finest moment of the Capitoline Grounds was the visit of the awesome Cininnati Red Stockings on June 14, 1870...
Harry Wright's club carried in an 89-game win streak, but suffered a stunning defeat, 8 to 7 at the hands of Bob Ferguson's
Atlantics in 11 innings. This was regarded at the time as the greatest game of baseball ever played, and may still be so."

(Butch must have me on 'ignore') :)

I am no art historian but 18,000 plus for an amateur painting seems like an absurd price.

Scott, on the contrary -- just wanted to offer some confirmation to the facts in your post since different guesses had been presented
and not retracted, and because so many guys here seem to only skim a thread or skip from the original post to the most recent,
and because a lot of guys don't click on links that lead to more accurate, more detailed information.
No disrespect intended -- quite the opposite. Guess we should have included "as Scott indicated" in our post.

We are not offended.

The man on the right in the painting is quite amusing to me. It shows that the painter did not fully understand perspective. His head is tiny and it looks like he is wearing diapers or has a long waisted female butt. Perhaps this is where the droopy drawers that the Black teenagers wear came from.

Weird post man.

Worse than weird. :confused:

OMG.
I can stop fricking laughing.. this is the most horrible post ever and I am crying with laughter. "Long waisted female butt".. I hate myself right now. Make is stop.

"It shows that the painter did not fully understand perspective." Bahaha!! Ohhh.. it hurts.

Something hit your funny bone, Ben? :) I have to admit it is pretty funny.

There are 4-5 segments within this post that were independently funny/weird/not PC let alone back to back to back to back to back. Oh man...

I was thinking it at first sight as well.... but refrained from posting.

The butt looks just like our mothers' butts back in the '80s, with those horrific high-waisted jeans. We called it "long butt syndrome" back then.

Pam Dawber (an otherwise very attractive woman) wore them a lot on Mork & Mindy. That was the height of the era :eek:

A classic post! :D

What can I say. I looked at that painting and the two things that stood out were the tiny head and those horrible pants. I take the Metro (subway) to and from work in Washington, D.C.every day. I have seen so many teenagers wearing those silly pants that I want to ask them if their mothers ever change their diapers. Worst post ever? A bit melodramatic, but I'll take it.

Yeah, other than that the painter really nailed the perspective.

I don't want to draw unnecessary attention to the subject of the last sentence, but here in Washington state I've seen plenty of mid-twenties white guys sporting the 'droopy drawers' look. Up here they generally come with rat-tails and untied high-tops. In Wal-mart such attire is even common on larger middle-aged women. And to think it all began on the Union Ball grounds back in 1870.

I wonder if women wear dresses because it's easier to wear diapers under them and hide their long waisted butts.