Help with 1890's oversized cabinet
 

I am trying to find out more about this cabinet. Mark has helped me put the date in the 1890's based on catcher's mitt and batter's pants, along with face mask and chest protector.

Does anyone have any ideas on if this is a town team (well funded from looks of uniforms) or perhaps a higher level of play? Does the belt or hat of the batter provide any clues?

Thanks for any help that can be provided!

<a href="http://s69.photobucket.com/albums/i52/rman444/misc%20pictures/?action=view&current=IMG-1.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i52/rman444/misc%20pictures/IMG-1.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

I don't have the info in front of me, but the square shape of home plate will give you a good idea.

Home plate stopped being a diamond shape in 1893 so your photo predates that. I would guess right about there, 1890-1893.

I am not sure of the team but it is one of the cooler posed baseball shots from the era I have seen and it looks great.

Not that you asked, but I am sure you would have no problem getting $300-$500 for it whereas other cabinets from the same era are $50-$100 so yours is nice!

Rhys

Thanks for the info, Rhys. The cabinet measures 8x10" which, I believe, from David's website fits imperial cabinet dimensions. How common is a cabinet of this size from this era?

The photo portion on that size of a backer is not common. That's a very cool photo btw.

That is pretty big for that era and I think it would be worth a little more as a result. You dont see photos from the early 1890's that are that size very often. Most cabinets have a pretty standard 6X4 size so yours is a touch less than twice the size of a standard cabinet photo.

limited experience
 

There will be photo guys that can help more and I am sure they will but *I don't think 8x10 will be considered imperial size (I could be wrong :)). It is definitely bigger than normal but when I had the Beaneaters photo it barely met that criteria and was something like 19 x 11 (or somewhere in that range). Great looking photo!!

With a little bit of processing:

Thanks, Mark. I wish the original looked that dark!

I hear you, Leon, on the imperial dimensions. I thought imperial was much larger as well. I googled and found David's website mention a 7x10" dimension, but I will look further into exactly what qualifies. Not that it matters, but I just like saying the word "imperial" :D

Found this from the following website:

Mounted Prints
were very common before non-curling gelatin silver prints were perfected; the majority of mounted photos in the 19th century were thin albumen prints which needed a stout backing to prevent deformation. Types of early mounted prints included cabinet cards (4 1/2" x 6 1/2") which were mounted on heavy stock, and smaller, thinner cartes-de-visite (2 1/2" x 4"). Mounted prints in other sizes fall into a number of categories, including Imperial cards (9 7/8" x 7 7/8"); panel cards (7 1/2" x 13", 4" x 8 1/4" or 1 3/4" x 5 1/4"); and boudoir cards (5 1/2" x 8 1/2"). Studio portraits from the early 20th century are usually mounted gelatin silver prints; the cardstock backings on which these photographs were mounted were produced in a great variety of embossed designs. Most studio-made mounted photographs bear the imprint or stamp of the studios which produced them.

http://45semiotic.com/wia/glossary.html

I guess 8x10" actually do qualify as Imperial.

Must be playing in Oakland. Look at all that real estate behind the plate. lol

Love the image!

Rob M.

To my knowledge, imperial cabinets as well as mammoth plates don't have precise dimensions. Imperials are at least twice the size of a standard cabinet, but could be larger than that. Mammoth plates are as the name suggests very large mounted photos, but there are so many different sizes that there is no standard. I would say Leon's Beaneaters photo was closer to mammoth plate, or at least a very large imperial. It kind of straddled the line.