June 2012 Pick-Ups

[GrayGhost]

Picked up in the "barbershop" from another thread I started, weird places u find collectibles. Traded something worth more monetarily for this, because I like the guy and really like this item. prob won't be selling this:

COOL PIECE

Looks better as its scanned inside a ball cube

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by ngrow9

My only acquisition this month was a 1914 Federal League game ball. I love it already.

Great ball!

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

Andrew that is cool as well.
This is my favorite. It's not a new pickup, but it is one of my favorite pics of all.
They will need to pry it from my cold dead hands.

Lou Gehrig with Christy Walsh's son 1927

I'm an admitted sucker for these types of photos.

I've shown this one once before, but I love this photo of Johnny Vandermeer and a little girl at Ebbetts Field circa 1941.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by ValKehl

This piece is from the recent legendary auction. I've long wanted one of these, and when the bb cards I was bidding on (I am mostly a card collector) went past my $$ limit, I went for this piece, which will serve as a centerpiece for my collection of bb cards of the players on the 1924 W. S. Champion Senators team.

Beautiful, Val! Congrats!

[Brian Van Horn]

OT.

[Lordstan]

I picked this one up off ebay.
I'm not sure if I should call this a type 2 or 4, and would like some opinions.
The earliest date stamp combined with the paper mean the pic was not printed near the time of the even, Hence type 2 or 4.
The thing that trips me up is the detail in the picture. If the print is from the original neg, it would be a 2. If from a copy negative, a type 4.
One of the things that really drew me to it was the image quality. It certainly doesn't look blurry, like a typical copy negative print.
The price was right, so it isn't that important to me that it has to be a type 2. Any opinions?

[GrayGhost]

My friends Super talented daughter when she was 15 did this for me. Kinda goes w the previous post

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

I picked this one up off ebay.
I'm not sure if I should call this a type 2 or 4, and would like some opinions.
The earliest date stamp combined with the paper mean the pic was not printed near the time of the even, Hence type 2 or 4.
The thing that trips me up is the detail in the picture. If the print is from the original neg, it would be a 2. If from a copy negative, a type 4.
One of the things that really drew me to it was the image quality. It certainly doesn't look blurry, like a typical copy negative print.
The price was right, so it isn't that important to me that it has to be a type 2. Any opinions?

I've put mine side by side with yours Mark, so you can compare them.

1939LGDayRetirementTears.jpg1939gehrigday2.jpg

[David Atkatz]

My Kreindler:

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

My Kreindler:

David,

I don't believe that I've seen your Kreindler Iron Horse before, but it's nothing less than spectacular! Congrats!

You must love displaying it on your wall...

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

I picked this one up off ebay.
I'm not sure if I should call this a type 2 or 4, and would like some opinions.
The earliest date stamp combined with the paper mean the pic was not printed near the time of the even, Hence type 2 or 4.
The thing that trips me up is the detail in the picture. If the print is from the original neg, it would be a 2. If from a copy negative, a type 4.
One of the things that really drew me to it was the image quality. It certainly doesn't look blurry, like a typical copy negative print.
The price was right, so it isn't that important to me that it has to be a type 2. Any opinions?

Mark,
Great photo regardless of what Type it is. Congrats!

[Brian Van Horn]

I love flea markets:

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

I love flea markets:

Brian,
Isn't that HOF Ernie Lombardi receiving the trophy?

[Lordstan]

Yes it is Scott.
Also 2 people to the right of him is Mel Ott.
thanks for the nice words about Lou.
Mark

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

Brian,
Isn't that HOF Ernie Lombardi receiving the trophy?

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

Yes it is Scott.
Also 2 people to the right of him is Mel Ott.
thanks for the nice words about Lou.
Mark

Geez, Lombardi was sure one beast of a guy. Retrosheet has him listed as 6'3" 230 lbs, but he looks 7' tall in this photo. Lots of short guys on both teams.

Was the trophy he received for winning a batting championship, or what was the occasion if you know?

[Lordstan]

After a little investigation, I think it is him getting his batting championship trophy.
In 1942 he won the batting Championship with the Boston Braves. In April 1943, he was traded to the NY Giants for Hugh Poland and Connie Ryan.
The first game of the year was against the Brooklyn Dodgers, followed by 5 against Boston and another 4 against Brooklyn (some funky scheduling).
The Giants finished the year 55-98 in 8th, 49.5 games behind.
It was commonplace, at that time, for players to receive awards the first game of the next year.
Based on the uniform, it certainly appears to be c/w 1943 Giants.

So, put all this together, and I think the pic is opening day 1943 showing Lombardi getting his 1942 Batting Championship award.

BTW Scott, he was huge!


Mark

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

Geez, Lombardi was sure one beast of a guy. Retrosheet has him listed as 6'3" 230 lbs, but he looks 7' tall in this photo. Lots of short guts on both teams.

Was the trophy he received for winning a batting championship, or what was the occasion if you know?

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by thekingofclout

I've put mine side by side with yours Mark, so you can compare them.

Attachment 67692Attachment 67693

Jimmy,
I looked at yours a couple of days ago to compare. I think it's pretty close. I focused on 3 spots. I looked at the pinstripes, the forehead, and the thumb of the hand by his face.
My pic's pinstripes a crisp and sharp as are yours.
Both foreheads have great detail in the wrinkles. Mine has more brightness washout by his hairline. Is this because it's a picture of a picture or differences in the way the pictures were developed? I don't know.
In your pic, the wrinkles on the joint of his thumb aren't very clear. On mine, you can each one. How could a copy image have more detail than the original?

As I said, it doesn't matter to me as a collector which it is, I am just looking for some education on this.

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

My Kreindler:

David,
This is a great painting. I think you showed a pic of this on your wall, a couple years ago.
How big is it?

Best,
Mark

[David Atkatz]

Thanks, Mark. It's 12" x 16". I love it.

[GrayGhost]

I love that David. But, I paid a lot less, haha.