Incredible Baseball Tintype Auction Yesterday
 

Hi-

What does everyone think about the incredible baseball tintype auction that happened yesterday morning? Below is a link to the auction.

https://www.auctionzip.com/auction-c...log_TYJP3649QZ

There were some amazing tintypes but unfortunately, I did not win anything. Even though it was outside of the hobby, I thought the prices were fairly strong. Did anyone win anything? I was amazed that the Cap Anson cigar box went so high but it was a beautiful example (I can't remember seeing another). There were a few tintypes with purported major league players and a Cap Anson team tintype sold for a similar price as the cigar box.

Alan

New Haven
 

I was aware of the auction and was the underbidder on the cigar box that went for $5k more than I thought it would or should. I did win the inkwell piece. I was not interested in the tin types but did see that the Cap Anson tin type went for $13kish.

That’s the largest number of baseball tintypes I’ve seen in an auction.

Rob M

Wish I would have known about it. If the Anson winner would like to flip for profit then PM me.

Which lot is the Anson tintype?

I found it. What is the ID based on? The description mentions the Burns association, but absent some provenance or other evidence, how de we know this is Anson?

+1

There was no clear provenance and it was on eBay at some point prior to this auction. The same image is also in the Rucker Archive.

http://theruckerarchive.com/projects...ucker-archive/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don’t know about the Anson, but I do not think the one described as 1869 Cincinnati red Stockings is accurate. Hat, bib front and “C” are all wrong, aside from unidentifiable face.
That said, an amazing group, very interesting. Thanks Alan.

Bob, The inkwell was one of my favorite items in the auction; congratulations on the acquisition! I too was curious how Anson was identified in the Marshalltown tintype. The auction site said it was used in Ken Burns' documentary, but I believe I have read in other board threads that the photos used during that show were not always properly identified. I agree there were more tintypes (at least quality ones) in this auction than I have ever seen before. I remember REA had a number of them about five years ago but the quality of these seemed better. Bruce I wish that tintype was a Red Stocking player but I am glad you got a chance to review it.

Alan

For purposes of full disclosure, I am the person who purchased the Anson tintype.

In regard to how one knows it is Anson, I too asked the same questions. I did not take into account at all that Ken Burns identified it as such, as I have no information how he came to that determination.

The basis for my ID is the extraordinary resemblance of the person identified as Anson in the tintype compared to two closely-dated images of him – the c. 1868 Marshalltown team shot and the 1874 Studdards & Fennmore cabinet. Yes, I am aware how easy it is for different people to resemble each other, but I simply could not get over the resemblances in this instance. Anson’s hair and the way he parts it is distinct, and they match very well. His eyes are a distinct blue, which when one has the tintype in hand show perfectly. In sum, I (and all others I showed it too, most of whom never heard of Anson) thought the images matched. Other corroborating aspects are his central position in the photo (middle of the front row), exactly where one would expect to see the team’s most important player, and the strong familial resemblance of the person in the middle of the back row to Anson, something I regarded as noteworthy as Anson's brother was on the team.

As to whether other players match up to players in the c. 1868 Marshalltown, that is a difficult comparison to make because in that image the other players are not wearing caps, which they are in the tintype (though Anson is not, thankfully). Also, because Anson played on Marshalltown for several years, the images could be from different years when the team composition could have changed.

At the end of the day each of us makes collecting decisions based on his/her subjective comfort level, and with this image I felt really good it was Anson.

To be totally transparent, SABR’s pictorial committee newsletter several years ago concluded the image does not depict Anson, something I was well aware of when I reached the opposite conclusion. The flaw with the newsletter’s analysis is that it does not take into account the tintype is a reverse image, so all the comparisons it makes to the corresponding features on the comparison images were based on the opposite-side’s feature. The human face is not symmetrical, thereby IMO rendering the analysis flawed. I also strongly believe that even if done properly, between the fact that certain facial features change over time (e.g., ears) coupled with the difficulty in taking exact measurements due to resolution and distortion effects, the comparison is simply not precise enough to rule out Anson.

Hi Corey, that's the most important part. What are your thoughts on the dating of the tintype?

c. 1870

Congratulations Corey! The facial matching process is beyond my knowledge. I am glad you did your own research and am sure you are excited to add it to your collection.

Alan

Thank you Alan. In all my years in the hobby, I have never seen an auction with the quantity and quality of baseball tintypes as in this auction. And too there were other items, some absolutely spectacular.

Congrats on the pick up. amazing!

Inkwell
 

Nice pick up Bob. That had you’re name on it.

Mark Rucker’s auction a few decades ago was as close as I’ve seen to this one. It was an absolutely fantastic collection but the one fault was that several images were identified with very weak provenance and were later disproved. That aside, it was the singular auction that stoked my interest in 19th century base ball.

Rob

Historical
 

Love the San Francisco Earthquake photo sales box. $240 seems like a steal for that. If I'd have known about the auction, that might be going on my wall!

Inkwell
 

Here is an image of the inkwell

Wonderful piece, Bob.

Bob- I have a bell using same batter figure on top of the bell. I think the maker is James W Tufts.

so many auctions
 

easy to miss a couple along the long and winding road to a collection. I would have liked to add a couple of special examples to go along with Mark's book. There were quite a few images I would have chased. Likely I'll go back and register so I can see the prices realized for the hierarchical perspective.
Not likely I'll see such an accumulation again at auction :( I'm too old.....

Seems an odd place to have this auction. How do you guys who saw it think it went? I imagine REA, Heritage or any other house that specializes in baseball would have done better.

I was wondering the same thing. There were several of the tintypes that sold <$200 which is obviously low but then again, it's likely that they would have been sold as a lot of 3 or more in REA or Heritage. I do think that perhaps a subset of the tintypes (particularly the ones that appear to be 1860's) may have gone for more in a different AH. It was neat though to see the variety of tintypes and memorabilia that were available...you'd be hard pressed to not find at least 1 item that peaked your interest. I was watching over 20 items (some non-baseball), put bids on 2 items and won 1.

Dan, I think prices were pretty strong across the board for the tintypes, so I'm not sure if a different venue would have increased the final hammer prices. They might have been even stronger with one of the big guys though like REA. As mentioned, an accumulation like this is rarely if ever seen.

Henry, you don't have to register to see the prices realized, just click on any item you want to see, the final price is listed.

They had the Jack Ryan photo (which is pretty awesome) id'd as Dan Brouthers until I shared some research to demonstrate to them it is Ryan. To their credit, they changed the listing.

I only ended up with one photo - I thought these guys were too fun to pass up.

They were all really nice. I tried for this one but didn't win it. I really liked this one.

https://www.auctionzip.com/auction-l...ts_803458DA39/

Regardless of the auction house, prices would be kept down with so many offered at one time. This is a thin market. I experienced a similar result when I sold a large portion of my baseball cdv collection over a couple auctions a number of years ago. The top examples brought strong results, the more common examples not so much. Also, I think the perception is that the images being auctioned are more common than they really are because so many are auctioned at the same time. This of course is not true. However, I do believe a sports auction would have brought more eyes to the tintypes.

I would have raised some of those bids had I seen the auction. Not a big deal. I have plenty to concentrate on.

I was watching for someone to post something about this auction, didn't think to look on the memorabilia side. I too was very impressed with the auction offerings.

I bid on four lots, won three. Nothing in the auction was directly within my collecting scope but I couldn't help myself, guilty of scope creep.

Lot #1 - Loved the Civil War tax stamp. A 5 cent tax meant this tintype cost between $0.51 - $1.00 which was a healthy sum for a single photo. The tintype is tinted (green pants) and likely purchased with a frame, both driving cost up (current frame could very well be original to tintype). Most canceled stamps lack a date but this photographer had a cancel stamp much like the post office with a clear March 10th, 1865 cancel. Neat cross-over collectable of early baseball image that can be precisely dated via a legible canceled Civil War tax stamp.

https://www.net54baseball.com/pictur...ictureid=28549

https://www.net54baseball.com/pictur...ictureid=28548

Lot #18 - While advertised as "circa 1869 Cincy", I too had and have some doubts. However, as I studied the 1868-1870 Cincinnati teams I found some of the 1870 uniforms are good match for the "C" but the bibs are not outlined as shown on tintype. This could be a good match for the 1871 uniform had the team not dissolved . . . Nov 1870 newspaper mentions a new traveling uniform for 1871, maybe striped cap? I'm interested enough to keep researching, not sure anything conclusive will turn up. At a minimum, appears to be a well financed club, great looking early uniform. PS - I reversed the image left-to-right to correct the image.

https://www.net54baseball.com/pictur...ictureid=28551

Lot #21 - Not even sure which club this would be but again a great image of a well dressed early player. Success for me on this tintype would simply be to identify possible team(s).

https://www.net54baseball.com/pictur...ictureid=28550

Lot #47 - Jack Ryan - This was the 4th and final tintype of interest but I bowed out. Would have been very different if he were a member of the Detroit Wolverines. I too sent images to auction house on this lot. I didn't know it was Jack Ryan until auction house updated the listing, well done Bryan!

Corey, I believe the same gal who helped me out with phone bids called you at about lot #46 as I recall her saying "hello Corey" and she then put you on hold until Anson came up a few lots later. Great items in this auction, too interesting to pass up.

thanks for the info Brent
 

Joey boy - that first image is sweeeet!! I'm going to have to find something you need badly! More interesting than the stamping to me is the irony of the angled pose the man took with the righting stand behind him that serves to keep him still AND those green tinted pantaloons - well 'nuff said. Obviously it's more about the aesthetics to me.

a prediction....
 

Joe, congrats on the pickups! Wasn't this an amazing auction?!

Funny no one posted this auction it until it was over.

Thanks Henry :) I was very happy to win lot #1, it is an interesting and well preserved tintype. I'm sure we both have great items to trade, let's keep those items safe for a bit and talk later :)

Yes indeed Corey, great auction material. I likewise had some interest in the Anson tintype as Marshalltown is about 40 miles from my home, neat little town. Congrats on the pickup!

Hey Mike, probably several reasons but I too was surprised it received no mention. I did share it with a couple friends but the response was "not interested in tintypes". Some likely didn't want competition, others feared retaliation for outing auction, not a paid advertiser, etc. I would have missed it myself had a couple friends not brought it to my attention.

Hi Joe, I wasn't interested in buying any either, but the items were very interesting and collectable. I only have one tin type, and that is of Sy Sutcliffe.

Please share . . . Is Sy with Detroit, Cleveland, or other? :)

Great pick ups! Your top 4 were also among my top lots - I guess that means we share great taste. :cool:

I am just relieved they changed the Ryan listing. If that had been sold as Brouthers, who looks quite a bit like Ryan in that photo, it would have gone for a ton and probably been impossible to return.

Corey-For what it is worth I agree with the SABR guys, I don’t think it is Anson. Anson has a weak chin and the subject in the tintype does not. Could easily be a relative though.

It is Anson or at least looks like him to me.

[QUOTE=Joe_G.;1995479]I was watching for someone to post something about this auction, didn't think to look on the memorabilia side. I too was very impressed with the auction offerings.

I bid on four lots, won three. Nothing in the auction was directly within my collecting scope but I couldn't help myself, guilty of scope creep.

Lot #1 - Loved the Civil War tax stamp. A 5 cent tax meant this tintype cost between $0.51 - $1.00 which was a healthy sum for a single photo. The tintype is tinted (green pants) and likely purchased with a frame, both driving cost up (current frame could very well be original to tintype). Most canceled stamps lack a date but this photographer had a cancel stamp much like the post office with a clear March 10th, 1865 cancel. Neat cross-over collectable of early baseball image that can be precisely dated via a legible canceled Civil War tax stamp.

https://www.net54baseball.com/pictur...ictureid=28549

https://www.net54baseball.com/pictur...ictureid=28548

Due to the date stamp it is possible that the person was or had been in the military. Even though the rest of his outfit does not suggest it there were several military units during the Civil War that wore green pants, usually with piping:

1st U.S. Sharpshooters aka Berdan's Sharpshooters
Troy (N.Y.) Citizen's Corps
Portland (ME) Rifle Corps

The pants being short leads me to think that they have been re-purposed for baseball. I do not know how common piping was in civilian clothing back them but it was a bit more common in military uniforms.

The green pants tin type is possibly from Ludlow, Vermont according to Langdonroad.com. Photographer may be Horatio N. Roberts, Ludlow, VT 1860's.

Its Anson, and Corey you can sell it to me if you agree with Jays opinion.

Very nice Joe especially the VT tintype.

Here's the one I picked up. It was a unique horizontal pose and I liked the fact that it was a quarter plate. Based on the frame and the photographer mark, my hope was that it was an ambrotype but it's not. I'm still very happy with it and I think it's pre 1870 although could be wrong.

Looking similar to someone doesn’t make you that person. I’ll stick with my opinion. I think the best you can say is that it might be a relative; it’s not Cap Anson.

George - It looks like it found its way into that case more recently considering that mat is from an 1850's daguerreotype. I'd agree that the image is most likely late 1860's based on their "uniforms". It does present very nice as a horizontal pose and the case just adds more to the presentation. Nice pick up.

Rob M

Corey is quite right in pointing out that when I wrote the article in 2016, I did not know the image in question was a tintype. I saw it in a John Thorn article - indeed I had it flipped the wrong way . However with the image in question oriented correctly, each and every argument I made still applies. The tintype does not depict Anson. I will post a revision here.

>> certain facial features change over time (e.g., ears)...

They don't change in such a gross manner as would be required to support this guy being Anson. Ear changes in men of baseball playing age are extremely hard to see in photos.

>> difficulty in taking exact measurements due to resolution and distortion effects...

The differences are gross - sub-millimeter resolution is not needed and I would not attempt it. Exactly what has caused the claimed very large distortion?

revised:

Mark,

I have no dog in this fight. It makes no matter to me if it is Anson or not. You seem to have developed a very good method for analyzing facial features. As a long time photographer (40+ years) and photo collector (35 years) sometimes it is easy to lose sight of the forest for the trees. Looking at the photo that is/is not Anson the one feature that jumps out to me even more than the ears is the eyebrows and forehead. That is clearly not discussed. However, from how I view it I don't see how a person who is known to be Anson could go from very arched eyebrows and bulging forehead over the bridge of the nose to very straight eyebrows and a less pronounced, almost flat forehead. I doubt he was tweezing or had a facelift. Just an observation. I could NOT care less one way or the other as it would not fit in my photography collection.

Mark,

This appears to be an instance where we are going to agree to disagree.

To respond briefly to your revised analysis:

1. Comparison of ears from images 30 years apart means little. Ears change. An analogy would be analyzing handwriting; exemplars made years apart from the sample at issue have little value and are not used.

2. Your analysis of ear location is dependent on identical angles of the comparison faces, something that can be easily demonstrated when looking at yourself in the mirror and then noticing the changes in the separation between the eye and the ear as you change the tilt of your face. The face in your comparison image has a different tilt angle.

3. The distinctiveness of a shadow below the lower lip would depend in large measure on the light source used and its location, something we have no information about in any of these images.

I dated the Marshalltown tintype as c. 1870, because in it Anson seems more developed than in the albumen image dated c. 1868. The question rises, even if the images are from different years, whether there are any overlap of players, as one would reasonably expect at least a few. Logic would suggest starting one's search by focusing on the players sitting to Anson's right and left, as by their prominent positions in the front of the photo adjacent to Anson they would seem to be good candidates to be team veterans. The person on the front right in the tintype bears a strong resemblance to the person standing in the middle of the albumen image. Among its consistencies are a comparable tilting of the lips when the reverse image of the tintype is factored in.

I have long surmised that the bearded person in the c. 1868 image next to Anson is his father, who was known to be on the team. That person resembles the person at the top left in the tintype (next to "Anson's brother"). Because in one image he is bearded and in the other clean shaven, comparison is fraught with error. But the person does look older than the other players, and in each instance is standing next to a person who very well might be his son, as one would expect when father and son position for a group photo.

As I said in my earlier post, collecting is subjective, including one's comfort level. Based on all I know and have seen, my view as to whether Anson is depicted in the tintype is unchanged. That others may differ I totally respect.

Hi Corey,

1) It is well known that ears change little from young teens (or some say even younger) until old age (some say age 60, some say aged 70 at which point lobe droop may accelerate for some). Ears are not autographs.

2) I am comparing horizontal ear location, not vertical ear location to which your argument does apply.

3) I am not arguing about the distinctiveness of the shallow below the lower lip but it's location which is considered to be a key identifying factor.

There are quite a few known images of Anson, all of which as far as I know do not have these problems.

Thanks Rob! I carefully took it out of case and confirmed that it's a tintype. It has been in that case for a long time.

Anyone else pick up items from this auction?

Mark,

As I said we are going to agree to disagree. I disagree with your view how ears can change over time. And I do not believe you fully understand how light and photographic process can impact facial comparisons. I respect that you see differences; rarely does one not when comparing two images. But I vigorously disagree that scientifically the tintype can be proven not to depict Anson, as you claim. That type of conclusion is very much the exception when one does comparisons of faces that resemble each other. My view, and my view only, is that you present but one factor of many, and when one weighs it against the plethora of others consistent with it being Anson, I am comfortable it is.

This was an incredible auction to bid on and watch, some of the other items I bid on had been the bats – no wins after bidding and watching for two hours!
Thanks for pointing this auction out Alan – hope you had a good 4th!

Jimmy

Hope all is well with you. My view as to how little ears change is based on the scientific literature on the subject and experience comparing at least few thousand photos over the years and seeing results that are consistent with that literature.

Mark,

We have a difference of opinion on this issue. My statements are based directly on what Jerry Richards, the expert I hired to do the Knickerbocker analysis and with whom you spoke at its conclusion, told me. Mr. Richards hasn't seen a few thousand photographs over the years; he has seen tens of thousands, and is as respected an expert in facial ID based on photographic analysis as exists. This was his profession for close to half a century. His conclusions about how ears can and often do change differ from yours, something he told me after he spoke with you. He also stressed to me ad nauseum the margin of error in doing photo ID based on images taken years apart under different photographic processes and under unknown lighting conditions, and that much more often than not the results are inconclusive.

So there is no misunderstanding as to what I am saying, I do not believe your analysis, taking into account how certain facial features can change over time, coupled with the margin of measurement error caused by photographic process, resolution, lighting, changes in appearance during different photographic poses, proves the person in the tintype is not Anson. And that unless it can, other factors can and should be legitimately considered, which when I do make me comfortable Anson is depicted in the tintype.

It's not Anson
 

but I've got better news for you, it's Larry Fine

The very same Jerry Richards appeared on an episode of a memorabilia show on the history channel and quickly concluded that a photo of an old man could not depict Jesse James because the ear did not match that in a photo of a young Jesse James.

Forensic professionals can be hired to either tell you what they think or to take a side (like a lawyer). The arguments you made, in my view, are kind of boiler plate when the photo details aren't supportive of your point of view. Also they presume that I have no aptitude for visualizing how the appearance of complex 3-D objects are affected by lighting and shadow. As to aptitude, I think I have proven otherwise. My first career choice was commercial art and I did take lessons.

>>taking into account how certain facial features can change over time, coupled with the margin of measurement error caused by photographic process, resolution, lighting, changes in appearance during different photographic poses,...

So, if pose, shadow and unspecified distortion can so easily fool the eye, couldn't that make someone who is not Anson look like Anson?

What I would love to see is a photo of the earliest known Cap Anson, compared to those taken of him 20 - 25 years later. Using similar grid lines and the same analytic techniques, it would be interesting to see how the comparison (young vs. old) stacks up.

I can definitely see how the angle of the camera and the differing lighting conditions could produce results that are not exactly "apples to apples".

And it does not need to be limited to Anson... it would be interesting to see how these same comparative techniques stack up for any well-known player (with the initial image being from the player's teens, and the final image being from his early 40s).

As for the comparison at hand, I believe Anson's most defining feature is his deeply inset eyes and protruding brow. The photo from the tintype does not seem to confirm or deny this trait, but I would not be too surprised it it is indeed him. Either way... a very interesting debate!

Mark is the preeminent facial recognition expert in th hobby. I am glad that his opinion coincides with mine, or else I would just assume I was wrong. The good news is that this photograph will probably remain in Coreys collection for a long time and he can call the kid in the image anyone he wants.
JC-You still want to buy it?

Mark's Post # 53 nicely illustrates how the facial features remain static over time, especially with regard to the ears.

Mark, can you tell us Anson's approximate age in those 2 photos? And if not, how many years likely passed between those two images?

Great stuff!

In the above post #53, the younger Anson is from an 1885 Chi NL team composite. The older I am not sure.

But here is Anson from the 1881 Chi NL team composite, and a much older and fatter Anson from the HoF library. The head angles are a bit different, and the HoF photo is higher res (with more apparent detail), but the ears look substantially the same. Of course in life there were very small differences in the ears to be sure, but not that can easily be seen in a photo. This is virtually what you always will see.

Hate to add one more component to this discussion, but here goes...

It must just be the lighting or shading... but the older/fatter Anson in post #60 appears to have a cleft in his chin. Since none of the other Anson images even hint towards this, I'm guessing it's just a shadow or something else making it appear that way. :confused:

My experience is that a very shallow chin cleft can appear or disappear depending on photo resolution.

I have a couple of other Anson scans where you can barely see it, others where you can't see it at all. I have never been able to find anything written about how stable a shallow cleft is. Of course a very deep cleft should be visible (unless it was washed out which was sometimes done in the 19thC).

Corey and Mark are both heavyweights in the hobby, and I respect their opinions. I think it looks like Anson, because of the hair. It's very distinctive hair. Notice I say it looks like Anson, so many people look alike. Rob

Jerry Richards was hired to tell me what he thought without any skewing of his opinion. In regard to another item on which I hired him to opine, he told me that one was not what it was represented to be. He also told me with respect to the item for which he supported my conclusion that had he collected that sort of thing he would have bought it. It is my view he was being honest when telling me this.

Photography as applied to photo ID is very different than art applied to photo ID. IMO a background in one does not give one expertise in the other.

And yes, just as factors that can make one appear not to be someone he/she is, those same factors can make someone appear to be someone he/she is not. My point is that there is uncertainty when one does this kind of photographic comparison, and the results typically are not either "it is" or "it isn't", but scales of probability in between that then invite one to consider other factors. That is all I have ever said about this comparison. You are the one making the absolute statement of a definite conclusion, that respectfully I do not agree with.

>> but scales of probability in between that then invite one to consider other factors...

My understanding has been that the guy holding the ball in these earlier 19thC team photos is THE pitcher (or maybe I should say "probably" the pitcher.) Your "Anson" is holding the ball and I can only find mention of him playing 2nd base at Marshaltown. I can't find mention of him being the team's pitcher, though my 10 minutes of research has not been exhaustive. So how does does this factor into your probabilities?

“I dated the Marshalltown tintype as c. 1870, because in it Anson seems more developed than in the albumen image dated c. 1868. The question rises, even if the images are from different years, whether there are any overlap of players, as one would reasonably expect at least a few. Logic would suggest starting one's search by focusing on the players sitting to Anson's right and left, as by their prominent positions in the front of the photo adjacent to Anson they would seem to be good candidates to be team veterans. The person on the front right in the tintype bears a strong resemblance to the person standing in the middle of the albumen image. Among its consistencies are a comparable tilting of the lips when the reverse image of the tintype is factored in.”

Corey-if you date the tintype as two years later than the albumen photo how do you account for the fact that the majority of the players in the tintype are younger looking than the players in the albumen photo? Why would Anson be playing with younger players as he aged?

He's holding a ball and a bat, the props of the game, as one would expect the team's best player to do. Interesting coincidence, by the way, that the team's best player happens to be an Anson look-alike.

We can go on and on about this. But, to repeat my main point, photo ID in this instance is inconclusive. We are in the area of shades of gray. To some it could be a dark gray, to others a light gray. Once you transverse out of the area of science to the area of art, subjectivity comes in and different people can reasonably have different opinions. You made a comment earlier about your aptitude. I don't question that you have knowledge in this area.
But, and I say this respectfully, you might want to consider that another sign of increased knowledge is an increased appreciation of what you don't know and the limitations of what available evidence can conclusively tell you.

And while other aspects may be interesting to talk about, I believe the face ID evidence here is conclusive. I don't expect us to agree.

Not the first time that has happened. Truce? :)

Yes - stay safe.

Thank you. You as well.

To the members who posted items they won, great pickups! Joe, I especially like the 1865 one. No one posted it, but the caricature tintype of the pitcher throwing underhanded was pretty cool. It went for about 400+ which I was surprised about.

What do you think of the Athletics player? A friend of mine bought it. The uniform does not match the 1874 woodcut but it is close. Do folks think it might show a Philadelphia Athletics player?

Alan