 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
06-24-2009, 05:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
1910 Phil A's team premium? Help please
Trying to find out information about this item. Any help would be appreciated. Size is 24 X 16. Bottom right it says Burke and Atwell. Bottom left says The Baseball Magazine Company
Thanks, Toby Last edited by bigfish; 06-24-2009 at 05:27 PM. 
|
|
#2
06-24-2009, 05:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Toby - if you can make out and post the text in the bottom left of the white border and the bottom right on the image, that might give some clues.
Edited to add - you should button a collar button or two 
Last edited by Matt; 06-24-2009 at 05:28 PM.
|
|
#5
06-24-2009, 08:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
That looks like an M113 Baseball Magazine premium.
Frank W.
|
|
#6
06-24-2009, 08:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#7
06-24-2009, 09:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hey Matt...
First, I think it is an M113. I agree with you, Matt, that M113s aren't 24" x 16". I have 3 really large M113s, Hughie Jennings and Walter Johnson are 19" x 10", Tex Russell is 19" x 12". But I don't think that scan up there depicts something that is truly 24" x 16". If it is, the fellow holding it has 4 inch thumbs. And from the middle of his chest to the edge of the poster would be half the width... 12" from the middle of the chest to the edge?? 24" across excluding the arms??? No way... So I think it is an M113. I think Toby needs to remeasure. Toby, do you actually have that? If you do, please remeasure. If you don't, ask whoever has it to remeasure. Finally, I think the SCD may be a year or two off on the 1913 date that they've attributed to the Philadelphia Athletics team poster. Last edited by FrankWakefield; 06-24-2009 at 09:13 PM.
|
|
#8
06-24-2009, 09:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Evening
I just re measured it. Measured just the glass this time. 22.5 X 14.5. I will take it out of the frame eventually. I do have it in hand and can't find a reference for it. I appreciate your comments and time.
Frank, You might be right. SCD might be off. Copyright is 1910. Must be a typo. I have received a few e-mails about this. Thank You Last edited by bigfish; 06-24-2009 at 09:31 PM.
|
|
#9
06-24-2009, 11:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It's beautiful
I have a large collection of baseball magazine supplements and would love to have this one. If you ever decide to sell it, let me know.
Doug doug.goodman@earthlink.net
|
|
#10
06-25-2009, 12:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hey Doug,
In your estimation, that is an M113 Baseball Magazine, right?
|
|
#12
06-25-2009, 04:12 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The item definitely has all the hallmarks of a M113 Baseball Mag Premium except the size. 1910 was the first year they produced the M113/M114's so they may not have had them standardized to what they were in later years. Although, there is tremendous variation in the sizes among the Baseball Mag Premiums. This one does appear to be that, but was specially made as a much larger piece.
-Rhett
__________________
Check out my YouTube Videos highlighting VINTAGE CARDS https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbE..._as=subscriber ebay store: kryvintage-->https://www.ebay.com/sch/kryvintage/...p2047675.l2562
|
|
#13
06-25-2009, 04:25 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
It is a very desirable Burke & Atwell Supplement issued by The Baseball Magazine in 1910. These are scarce and are quite coveted by collectors.
Below is a link from a Hunt Auction in 2005, which is the only time they've featured an original one of these (it has been reproduced, so be careful). Please note the price realized, and the fact that this one was in rough condition with a repaired tear. It is tough to find them any better (if at all) but like any other panoramas, the condition and price are closely linked. http://www.huntauctions.com/LIVE/ima...=961&lot_qual= You could consider re-framing yours, to conceal much of the water staining along the edges. Although many collectors prefer the original frame, no matter the condition.... simply a matter of preferance. Below is a shot of mine. It's one of my favorite panoramas of all-time, and really captures the essence of the fabulous dead-ball era...
|
|
#16
06-25-2009, 05:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I've not heard of a Burke & Atwell Supplement...
I still think it is an M113 from Baseball Magazine, notwithstanding what is opined above or by Hunt. I don't have faith in the 1913 SCD date, nor the 1910 date mentioned above. I understand that it has a copyright date of 1910 on it... seems to me that they may well have gone out the following year. Dating these is an odd process. Mr. Haber and others were of the opinion that some Baseball Magazine premiums that were listed in the ads weren't available when initially availabe; and that some weren't ever available even though they were advertised. Generally, SCD has done well with their list and their dating. As for Hunt's price, that seems realistic for one in good shape. Hunt mentions that their offering is marked Burke & Atwell, but they don't refer to it as a "Burke & Atwell Supplement". Hunt mentions dimensions of 12" x 20". I think this is an M113.
|
|
#17
06-25-2009, 05:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#18
06-25-2009, 06:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
No Sir, it is not semantics. Semantics is the study of meaning.
I've never heard of a Burke & Atwell Supplement. I do not think it is a Burke & Atwell Supplement. I think it is an M113 Baseball Magazine supplement. If you see everyone agreeing on that I don't. I see up there where it is too big, and where it's a Burke & Atwell Supplement. If you are agreeing with me that it's an M113 Baseball Magazine supplement, then we're in agreement. I agree with folks that think it is unduly big. M113s are quite big. The team photos are of varying sizes. This one may will be the biggest of the team photos; nay biggest of all.
|
|
#19
06-25-2009, 06:06 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Here is another Burke & Atwell
Here is another in the Hunt Auction
http://www.huntauctions.com/online/i...=324&lot_qual= one more: https://www.huntauctions.com/online/...m=85&lot_qual= Last edited by smokelessjoe; 06-25-2009 at 06:07 PM.
|
|
#20
06-25-2009, 06:09 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Semantics....
To be precise it is a Baseball Magazine Supplement, taken by renowned photography studio Burke & Atwell. Mastro sold one or two of these for around $1,100 in nice condition, back in their heyday (but I cannot find them anywhere in the Legendary archives). FWIW, the visible portion of mine measures 13.75" X 22.5", but more of it is tucked behind the frame. Hunt's description likely covers only the visible portion, of which a greater portion was matted out.
|
|
#21
06-25-2009, 06:30 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
#23
06-25-2009, 06:46 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Rea
Thank you Rob for taking the time to actually post them... I am suppose to be putting tile down in the bath-room so I am kinda crunched for time.
Thanks again, Here is one more from REA: http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/...2008/1134.html
|
|
#25
06-25-2009, 06:57 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Burke & Atwell
Man, these guys were good....
|
|
#26
06-25-2009, 07:02 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Sorry for hijacking with all of the pics...
|
|
#27
06-25-2009, 07:07 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Wow, that 20 heads on a platter supplement is uniquely creepy.
|
|
#28
06-25-2009, 07:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I've still not heard of a Burke & Atwell Supplement (capital letters).
I have long known of baseball photographs marked Burke Atwell Studio, Chicago. And I've seen an image of Ty Cobb in street clothes in a 1916 Baseball Magazine that is credited to "Burke E. Atwell". I wonder if it is the same thing. I'd guess that most of the Baseball Magazine premiums were from Conlon photographs. There was a Greene fellow that took a bunch, too. And there were several other sources, among them Burke Atwell. There's even a Burke Atwell photo on eBay right now, but not of a baseball subject.... Sounds like we're all in agreement that it's an M113 Baseball Magazine premium. Finally. Just like back up there in post #5. Anyone else have M113s of dimensions other than 19" x 10" or 19" x 12" ??? Last edited by FrankWakefield; 06-25-2009 at 08:12 PM.
|
|
#29
12-15-2010, 07:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
A bit slow to respond...
Hey, I'm only 18 months late...
In answer to Frank - yes, I think it's a Baseball Mag supplement. As for sizes, I have a Cobb that measures 12.5 X 21, a Johnny Evers that's 11.5 X 20, and both a Joe Jackson and a Red Sox team that measure 10 X 20 The 1957 issues are 17.5 X 20, but seem to not be involved in this thread. As for the Burke & Atwell credit, I have 641 different BBM supplements, photo credits are as follows : Acme - 43 Burke & Atwell - 3 Conlon - 221 Greene - 137 International - 67 No Photog Credited - 41 National League - 6 Pacific & Atlantic - 6 Press Associates - 43 Underwood - 6 United Press - 9 Wide World - 43 12 Assorted Photogs - 16 If anybody out there has figured out a way to catalog these things, I'm all ears. I have mine sorted by name, left caption city, right caption city, photographer, team, and what the player is doing in the photo, and size (although trimming complicates this). There are paper differences that I haven't gotten around to figuring out, and many have typeface differences. Both point towards separate printings. They are fun issues, that's for sure, Doug
|
|
#30
12-15-2010, 08:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thank you for posting, Doug. I just wanted to hear what you thought about that Burke & Atwell stuff... It's an M113, Baseball Magazine premium. You keep gathering the M113s and M114s. I'm cheering you along!!
|
|
#31
12-20-2010, 01:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
So while looking for some stuff to sell, I came across a box I'd not seen in a while, and in there was a Baseball Magazine, probably my oldest one. It is the May 1912 issue (I love using the word 'issue' with the meaning that I knew years ago, and not this new concept where it means 'problem'). Anyway, back in the back of the magazine, pages 111 and 112 seemed interesting. So I've scanned them.
  Now for this thread, the first matter of note is that on page 112 we have the M113 we've discussed in this thread. Above I doubted the 1913 date, and the 1910 date. With this in hand, I think that BM began issuing this in 1912, notwithstanding B&A's 1910 copyright. But, of greater interest to me are the 8 posters offered on page 111. The posters are listed on the right, with numbers. Number 1 is Ty Cobb. Number 2 is Harry Lord. Anyone here seen a Lord M113??? Anyone here own one??? An image of what it would be is top center on that page. The Standard Catalog doesn't list a Lord M113 as I can see. Maybe someone can point it out for me. The Standard Catalog mentions Mathewson as a 1913 issue, and Baker in 1914. Yet this page in Baseball Magazine has them listed in May 1912. It is my firm belief that some of the ads for M113s and M114s mention premiums that were never available. But I thought that was something that occurred in the late 50s and early 60s, based on talking with old collectors. So I think there may well be a Lord premium out there that The Standard Catalog has overlooked. And I've long thought some of dating of the premiums was a bit off in The Standard Catalog. I'm not maligning TSC, I'm glad they listed these in the first place, and they are an elusive issue to pin down completely. Last edited by FrankWakefield; 12-20-2010 at 05:50 PM.
|
|
#32
12-20-2010, 07:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I have the Wagner (trimmed), listed in the ad as #5, but take a look at the scan and you'll see that it's noted on the actual poster as #2, leading me to think that Lord may not exist (but it might). The thing with these issues (insert smiley face here) is that they are virtually impossible to date, and the only way they will be cataloged is if we all combine our lists, even then there will continue to be new discoveries. I think the TSC did the very best job that could be done, but those of us who collect them could help update the list, adding those that we have which aren't on the list, at least. It's hard to get rid of items listed that don't exist, because it's virtually impossible to prove that they don't exist. The Dan Howley La Presse Roto would be (for me) a specific item that I think might not exist, but is in the catalog. The White / McBride 1962 Topps stamp panel has been thought by many to not exist, but we now know that it does, so removing things can get tricky, I think noting that they MAY not exist is better. Doug Last edited by doug.goodman; 12-20-2010 at 08:03 PM. Reason: typo, I hate typos
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
