N172 “No Name” Cards
 

A post for the Old Judge junkies.

This topic has been discussed before, but always ending without consensus on who, beyond Con Daley (Dailey), can be found without a name. Previously, the no name Daley had been referred to as “Anonymous”, but SGC & I agreed to have the attached copy slabed as “Con Daley (Name Missing)” since it really isn’t anonymous. I have been watching for a copy of this card for years and was happy to obtain the attached example together with a corrected, albeit hard to read, variant. Both date to 1888 (Fb cards). I also included an 1887 (Gypsy Queen – Boston on Jersey) and 1889 example that shows how the image transformed over time due to team change (I do not own these cards). Con Daley has other poses that were also issued in 1887, 1888, and 1889 but in all cases, that I’ve seen, the name is present.

Back to the original question, who, beyond Con Daley, can be found without a name? There are a couple dozen 1889 cards (Fc) in which the name was written in script on the negative in large enough letters that it can be clearly read on the N172 card and therefore no block text name panel was provided. Examples of this include Bennett, Brynan, and Dolan (posted below). I suspect that these cards (1889 script) are sometimes considered “no name” because the script lettering is sometimes more difficult to make out than the more legible and common block text panel. Can anyone provide a copy of an Old Judge card that they believe is missing the player’s name (besides Con Daley)? Also feel free to post 1889 script cards in which the name is present but perhaps difficult to read.

I believe that the only “no name” Old Judge is that of Con Daley with his "no name" variation only found on some of his 1888 (Fb) cards of pose 112-3 (throw, R/hand head high). Prove me wrong.

Here is an example of an 1889 script card that isn’t the easiest to read. If this card didn’t possess a strong photo with good contrast, it would be hard to make out “Hoffman”. Goodwin would also issue this same pose in 1889 with a block text name panel perhaps after realizing the script was too difficult to read.

You can barely see Hafner's name at the bottom of the card. If the image wasn't enlarged you wouldn't notice the name unless you had a magnifying glass and someone told you to look for it.

http://www.net54baseball.com/attachm...1&d=1310915490

Edited to add the following comment: I always have fun trying to post an image here. I hope the link is working. Yes, it's that Hafner... the same one that Kevin posted.

Nice card Joe!! I was wondering who got that one, I got the Dolan :D

My guess is that this error happened during Con's team change which is why you've only found it on an 1888 card. Someone must have peeled Daley, Boston off and forgot to apply the new name. It's amazing to me that there is more then one of those still around.

Hey Fred, you picked a good one, assuming you posted an image of Hafner's 5th pose (207-5). This pose was issued in two versions in 1889, just like Hoffman above, one in script and one with a block text panel for name, position, and team. Can you try editing your post above to get it to show? I'm not able to see your attachment.

Matt, nice pick-up on the Dolan. Virginia (biggrandmama) has been listing some nice looking cards. Nothing that will grade high, but great photos.

Hafner
 

I think this is the card about which Fred was talking. I'vge done a negative image of the name and team and you can barely see "Hafner" and "Kansas City" above the ad box.

Fred sent me the image he wanted posted (thanks Fred) and I added a couple others for comparison (Fred's copy being far left). I agree that Hafner must be the toughest 1889 script card to read. Even with a strong image you have to strain to make out the name. I followed Kevin's lead and inverted the colors to help find the name "HAFNER, P. KANSAS CITY"; not sure it helps much.

Joe,

Thank you for posting the scan.

Gotta love the OJs!

Darnbrough
 

Just picked-up this Darnbrough script card on a BIN. I am not an OJ expert but the other examples of this pose I have seen have the name plate. Not sure why it's labeled as MC. Maybe PSA mistakenly thought the name was cut-off.

Hey Scot, yet another example of an 1889 pose found with both script and a block text panel. I used to own the attached example which would be the twin to yours.

Edited to add: A fairly large number of the 1889 Denver poses are catalogued as both script and block text. It is plausible that the first 1889 Denver cards originate from a 24 card photo/sheet that relied on the script names already present on the negatives, however, the card maker ultimately decided to add block text panels to make many of the cards easier to read, perhaps coinciding with a team change correction (team changes being common reason to re-shoot a 24 image/card matrix and responsible for many variations from minor cropping differences to more significant variations). By far, 1889 is the most common year to find minor card-to-card variations of the same pose.

As of yet, no other "no name" cards have been shared/revealed.

Joe, That's a beauty. If you had said that you still owned it you would be getting a PM from me right now trying to pry it away from you for my Denver collection! Scot

I just came across this while looking at old auctions... What do you guys think? ( another 1889 Denver pose)

http://www.19thcenturyonly.com/site/...etauctionid=60

Great work Matthew!, it looks to me like a 2nd "no name" card has been identified. I'm not surprised it is an 1889 Denver card. As stated earlier, it looks like many of the 1889 Denver cards were issued without a block text name panel for part of the production run even though the script name on the negative was tough to read (or in this case outside of the cropping imposed on the N172 card). Perhaps after realizing the script name on the negative was hard to read on the small N172 cards, they thought better of it and added the block text panels. This very McQuaid pose which has no name (or an extremely tough one to see), may have been responsible for the 24 image sheet to be re-created with the block text panels. I've attached an example of McQuaid both ways.

<b>No Name N172 Checklist:</b>
112-2 - Con Daley - R/hand on him, L/arm at side
318-3 - James McQuaid - Catch, hands outstretched head high on L

The Old Judge book actually shows the "no name" McQuaid (different example than the one posted below) but the image is a bit lighter and I previously thought the script name was there but difficult to see. The example you provided more clearly shows the name is not there.

Keep searching, perhaps we can add more poses to the list.

Now that I've reviewed an N173 of McQuaid (below), I wonder if the name is present on the N172 in question but very hard to read (similar to Hafner already discussed). The McQuaid N173 is a different pose (318-2) but clearly shows a very light name in script close to the feet. If the same location were selected on pose 318-3 (the card in question), it is present on the N172 card but extremely tough to read (very little contrast with background). A higher contrast N172 or the N173 of pose 318-3 would help to better determine if this is a "no name" card. However, until proven otherwise, I think we should keep it on the list.

Great info Joe, thanks! With all of these Denver cards relying on script... It seems with all of the cropping variances between the same pose... there has to be another one with no name out there to be found.

Not to de-rail this thread, is it possible that some posses (other then brooklyn) can be found with a different "zoom" ( larger or smaller ) ?

I have compared the card of Nagle below to others of the same pose. In mine, he seems larger. His head touches the top of the photo while his feet seems closer to the bottom. he also looks wider. Maybe someone can prove me wrong... I would really like to know. (This also may help us find another no name :) )

Edit: Would we be able to tell if the Mcquaid has a name with a reversed image? I dont have photoshop anymore so I cant do it.

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/u...e/scan0007.jpg

Matthew, I did try to invert colors on McQuaid and can see what looks like part of the "M" and "Q" but nothing more. I could give it a better attempt if I had the card in-hand, scanned it at 600dpi, and played with the brightness, contrast, and color inversion. I'm sure the name is there.

As for Nagle and many others, they can be found at slightly different sizes year-to-year and even within same year (physical size of player on the card). An extreme case of this is Bill Collins who was awarded two different poses based on same negative due to significantly different appearance. One card shows Collin's entire body, the other only "3/4 length". See poses 84-7 & 84-8.

The Brooklyn mini is why Brooklyn was discussed at length in the book (regarding production process that led to normal and smaller appearing players).