Honus Wagner Cabinet Card 1911
 

Got this at auction last year. It is known photo of Wagner mounted. Question is, do most agree this is a Cabinet Card? Was not advertised as such in the auction.
Auction stated 1911 Honus Wagner Type 1 original photo by Bain mounted.

Per definition of Cabinet Cards, a photo print mounted on a cardboard mount. The black color and the embossed design on the mount dating it to the early 1900's. Then this should be a cabinet card of Wagner. Cycleback opinion?

Lower right states Martin's Studio, Valleyfield, Quebec.

Anyone seen it before? Or does anyone own a similar one?

It would fit my definition of a cabinet card, except for the fact that I don't think that's its original mount. How would Wagner have taken that photo in Quebec?

I remember that auction well. I'm not sure how they could say it was a Type 1 given that it was mounted to a different studio's mount (i.e. not Bain). So, they couldn't see the back for specific markings, etc. Granted, "Type 1" and the like is just PSA vernacular, but still, it begged the question at least in my mind. To answer your question, I'd consider it a cabinet, but I think my connotation of that word is a photographic image mounted to a mat. I'm sure the denotation is quite different. Regardless of its catagory, it is a great image of the Flying Dutchman. Congrats!

If it falls within the accepted size range for cabinet cards, it's a cabinet card.

So, basically, you can glue a photograph to any cabinet card you find on ebay and it's technically a cabinet card. You can even glue the photo right over the existing one. Hopefully no one's doing this.

Seems to me for it to be a "card," more than one would have to have been produced (and sold?), and perhaps within a larger series. Otherwise, it's a mounted photo, which has its own desirability quotient if done at the time, but not a "card."

A cabinet card is defined strictly by its physical nature-- a photographic print on a sheet of cardboard of a certain dimension. It's not defined by how or when it's made or how it is distributed. I answered the question correctly.

I think you wanted me to answer questions that perhaps weren't asked. I stuck to the one asked, whether or not it is a cabinet card.

Perhaps the photographer from Quebec traveled to take the photo of Wagner wherever he was at the time, but then it could not be by Bain unless he worked at Martin Studios

it's definitely a cabinet card (as david stated), what you're describing Hank sounds more like a debate for whether or not it's a baseball card.

Here's the photo

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...entoryid=63144

It sold recently at Hunts to a Board Member.

http://www.huntauctions.com/phone/im...102&lot_num=79

You've got to be kidding. Someone trimmed an original Bain photo of Wagner, and glued it to an old mount? That's sick.

Here are 2 Timothee Martin studio cabinets for sale on ebay in Quebec...

www.ebay.com/itm/160946161454

www.ebay.com/itm/400311135233


The photos on the 2 ebay cards look like they were mounted differently than the Bain-photo Wagner. I wonder why the previous owner used a Martin mount.

OK. Where can I look up these definitions? Is there such a thing as a photo "cabinet," or is it always a "cabinet card?" If it's a "cabinet card" with a baseball theme, does that make it a "baseball card?"

So I wonder if the forum member destroyed it or they sold it and someone else did it.

Here is what the Board Member said.

The two photos appear to be two different prints.

So you think the little black and white spots were on the negative and not the print.

To me, they appear to be to different prints with variances in contrast... Unless the "halo" effect around his shoulders could be caused by a scan... That seems unlikely to me.

+1

They are two different prints. The mounted one was trimmed to fit the mount.

The mounted one looks really nice - maybe the guy who did it liked Pinkertons?

frank
 

congratulations!!!
the breadth and depth of your type collection is growing by leaps and bounds.
all the best, ole buddy


barry

Have to agree with Scott. Clearly looks like an original Bain photo that has been mounted to a rouge cabinet mount.

Joe T.

Hi Barry

Thanks for your words. Will try and keep in touch more often.

How is the health world up in your parts?

This thread has taken an interesting turn.

Question for me are multiple brought out via others here, as what I had hoped for.

Scott makes point about trimming down to fit mount. Does anyone know if this what was usually done for form a cabinet? Or at least sometimes? Afterall, how else would you make a cabinet, unless photograph was exactly a particular size to fit all cabinets. Doubt that based on different size cabinets and different studios producing them(at least for later cabinets). Hence, this Cabinet would be just another example of the many that exist.

How many examples are there of one cabinet card such as this? There could be more, from Quebec studio. Or from other studios also.

I haven't seen this kind of back and forth on whether particular example is a true cabinet? The consensus on a true cabinet appears to be not 100%, except that based on definition, this is one, a photo mounted on a board.

Agree, this a different print from one sold by Hunt. So how many type 1's are usually made from original negative? Would suppose, that few dating back 100 years. Therefore, few cabinets of any particular subject, such as this one.

Hope more info comes out.

As a collector, I would be considered less with 'how' a cabinet card was created, and more with 'who' created it.

This isn't from the Quebec studio. Someone took a Bain photo, trimmed it and glued it to a Quebec mount - I can promise you that this was not done at Bain's studio. I have a bunch of Bain photos that I could also trim down and glue to cabinet mounts. They would technically then be cabinet cards, and each would be one-of-a-kind. A 'Bain' cabinet card (if such a thing existed) would be created by someone at Bain's studio creating a print and gluing it to a Bain studio mount. Bain could print and trim as many original photos as he pleased, back in 1909, to create cabinets from...if he chose to create cabinets.

As I said, I think it's a very attractive creation.

I would classify this as a homemade creation, AND in all probability the photo used may not be more than a nice laser copy(I doubt any photo collector would cut down their Bain to mount it on an unknown photographers common mount). Perhaps if they were a bit more knowledgable and used a Horner or the like.

These type of "cabinets" are usually found on Ebay and eventually some will filter into the more mainstream auctions.

Definitely Buyer Beware

Agree with the Scott's
It's a cabinet just not an original from the time period

By the way, my opinions can be encapsulated along with a small slip, for a nominal fee. Each comes with a voucher for one free small cup of drip coffee.

It's not unheard of to see a photo of a popular subject mounted and sold by a different photographer; I had a Horner photo of a famous bicyclist mounted and sold by another photographer on his mount. I'm sure the same thing happened with other popular subjects, actresses, baseball, etc. Possibly unauthorized copies and sales, but 'legitimate' cabinets from the time.

But you don't see that often, and 1911 seems a little late for that, I associate it more with the "golden age" of cabinets, 1880s, 1890s. Because of that -- and also some things going on with this Wagner photo, like the thin white line at the right edge and the x-acto-sharp corners of the image -- I'd be skeptical that this is real.

Did some looking around -- you can get a giant high-res file of this image from the Library of Congress:
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2008677272/

You can see that the "cabinet card" has less detail, muddier blacks, a flatter tone, and is in general a worse print -- which you might expect with a recent print rather than a vintage silver print. No smoking gun, just my two cents.

David

Appreciate the opinions here.

Certainly brings more questions. Probably never know the exact truth to this.

But what the heck, makes this whole collecting specialty more interesting.

I still own my copy of this photo, btw. Ariev from eBay was the one who consigned that one to Mile High along with some of his other big sets like play all and e121. You may be able to ask him how he got it.

This is almost certainly a case of a current collector wanting a Pinkerton-style cabinet of Wagner, and simply gluing a trimmed Bain photo to the nicest dark grey mount he could find.

Basically, if you plan on keeping it and you like it, then it doesn't matter. Otherwise, you are going to have a tough time convincing anyone that back in 1909 a photographer in a studio in Canada picked up a photo from Bain, trimmed Bain's name from the bottom of it, and then glued it to his own mount, with his own studio's name printed on the mount. While some here may think that was commonly done, it wasn't.

Personally, I consider it a homemade cabinet card and would value it accordingly. Nice pose though...

My opinion is putting an original old photo on a modern (or in this case, different) mount isn't inherently or always a a bad thing. I've seen valuable antique photos mounted on clearly modern mounts as part of restoration, and Culver photos are often pasted to modern manilla cards-- I don't think the Culver cards devalue the photos on the market. It's the trimming that would be the problem for me. I'm not saying I'd like a Conlon photo to be pasted to a different period mount, as I wouldn't, but that isn't a huge issue for me.

But an original Conlon photo of Wagner would still have value, even if trimmed and remounted.

I take the 'acceptability' and 'value' of remounting on a case by case basis. I won't give a blanket rule. And I believe there are cases where attractively mounting an old photo will not lower the value at all. Though I think it's best done if the mount is clearly modern.

Hey guys

Love the honesty here.

A bit demoralizing about the "homemade" cabinet business, but again, what the heck. I like the thing.

And no matter what the opinons here, I know they are opinions as we will not know the real truth about this cabinet(or whatever it is).

Like so much that occured 100 years ago or so, not enough of a paper trail or info to really know the absolute history of a card(or cabinet or whatever).

Personally I realy like the piece and think it presents very well.

I haven't given a real opinion on it. In part, because I haven't thought about it too hard. I think there's a good chance homemade, however famous images were traded and borrowed by professionals in the old days so I won't say for certain.

I don't think putting a vintage Conlon on a period mount ruins the value, in particular if it was done many years ago. For these types of situations, I'd want to know what you paid before I make an assessment.

The only other question is if the print is original/vintage.

Clearly what you should do is send me $100 so I can write a letter that sends inconclusive. For $75 it can be upgraded to a full letter of inconclusivity, which will include picture and hologram. No, wait, just the picture, I'm out of holograms.

I'm still curious to know how the AH came to use "Type 1" when describing the piece. Any liability there?

We see them all the time - they are on plain mounts without a studio name. I have several.

How nominal are we talking Scott?

Mind you, the coffee is served in Scott's condo and you have to drink it the bathroom.

gazillions, but I accept Monopoly money.

Not anymore - now I have dark brown carpet.

Brian

That is an interesting question. And I guess it would apply to many Cabinets out there.