Bobby Mathews tintype (1888 uniform)
 

First I want to thanks everyone that assisted in the ID of this photograph to Bobby Mathews and to everyone that provided input under my posting titled "Gilbert and Bacon Cabinet Card".

I contacted the guy that I purchased it from and in fact he was the person that acquired many glass plate negatives and numerous prints of baseball players out of Vermont about 18 years ago.

My concerns with the image still center on it being a true view and not a mirror image. Most tintypes are mirror images.

This leaves two possibilities (more?):

1. The image is a copy of an image that was printed in reverse-- a photo of a photo, with corresponding less value. There is also the chance that it is a more modern copy.

2. The photographer used a reversing prism or mirror (not rare but usually not employed by 19th century photographers) to get a true image of the subject.

The quality of image (contrast and sharpness of details) are unusual if this is in fact a copy image.

Comparison to known images of Mathews batting COULD prove that it is a copy of another photograph printed from a glass plate negative.

Any thoughts or comments are appreciated.

Scott

Scott, if you just want to know if your tintype is vintage, send it to someone who has handled them and they should be able to tell you immediately.

Does not look like an original contemporary tintype to me

I deal in antique photographs! I have handled thousands of antique tintypes.

I am not certain.

Scott

I recommend sending it to someone who feels they would be certain. No knock on your expertise, but I can think of several instances when someone who had handled hundreds of examples of a particular item just wasn't sure, and in two cases the items were sent to me and I gave him an immediate answer. I can also think of instances where I wasn't certain about an item that I owned, but a fellow collector gave me a definitive opinion - so it could have something to do with being too close to the item.

Just from your scans, I agree with Scott.

Edited to add: a general rule of thumb is that if you aren't sure, it's no good.

Thanks Scott-- I appreciate your time and thoughts and agree completely with your last statement!

I am taking it with me to a show this weekend, so I can get a few second opinions.

Scott

Scott- I collected 19th century baseball photography for about twenty years, and I never came across an original tintype from the 1880's that pictured a major league ballplayer in full uniform such as the one you have. Given that fact, plus its originating from the Vermont find, and I would say with near certainty it is not period. Virtually every photo that came out of that find was reproduced, so the likelihood of yours being ca. 1888 is not good.

Of course, you should still try to get some additional opinions.

Sorry, have come in late, but has anyone pointed this out yet? An identical Matthews photo with the same orientation was sold as part of the Vermont Find for sure:

http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/...25.html#photos

THANKS sgbernard!

That is exactly what I was hoping to find. It confirms that the tintype would have been a copy image no matter what the era.

I really appreciate the assistance.

Scott

My opinion, as I said in your prior post, is that it is not period. Its' value is minimal.

Thanks for the input.

Scott

The links have confirmed that this is a copy photo and dates from the same time period as the other "Vermont finds".

According to the auction links, these photos are believed to be from 1902- 1920 from the photographer information that came in the grouping. This tintype is a contemporary of those photos.

Why some copies were done as tintypes vs. paper prints is not known.

I would think that the tintype has a value comparable to the paper images made in the early 20th century.

Scott

Based on the image provided in this thread, I don't think 1902-1920 is accurate.

What do you think and why?

Scott

It doesn't have wear consistent with that period. Tintypes were rare, but still being made in the early 1900's - you can find plenty of them on ebay. Check the back images - none of them look like this one.

Thanks.

Actual photo has wear on the front and discoloration blots consistent with age.

I handle thousands of antique tintypes each year and didn't have concerns with the back or wear (it is not pristine).

The non mirror appearance along with the white at the top/ edge were my concerns.

Two antique photo dealers have looked at the these jpg images as well. One thought it looked good and the other wasn't sure and wanted to see it in person.

I have some folks who are going to look at it in person this weekend.

Scott

My initial impression was based on the back - looks slightly pitted, and not as dark as all the ones I've seen. But it's hard to tell from a scan.

I thought it had been determined that the Vermont stuff was much more modern than 1902-20. It doesn't make sense to me that someone would have started forging tintypes and albumens during that period (1902-20), unless it was a hobbyist who was playing around with the old techniques. Not trying to be hostile or anything, as this doesn't affect me - just trying to give my opinion. I actually would probably prefer to find out that all of this stuff was legit.

No problem-- I wouldn't consider you or your comments hostile. It seems to me that there is a misunderstanding of what was determined about the "Vermont Find" and its actual age.

The link from post #9 (sgbernard) provides some information on the photos and the era of their production:

http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/...25.html#photos

Go to a few previous items and you will find the auction houses assesment on the Vermont Find. To summarize (how I READ IT): they (Robert Edward Auctions) felt that the photos of the Vermont Find were NOT from 1888. For this reason, they thought that an earlier auction resulted in unsupportable HIGH results.

Photographic documentation (paperwork and envelopes) from the lot were traced to a NY photographer who was in business, at an address on some of the paperwork, from 1902 until the late teens.

It was the feeling of RE Auctions and their consulted antique photograph experts that the items were from the 1902- early teens time period and SECOND GENERATION, although made from the original negatives.

I don't recall an explanation of the "WHY" they were made.

The auction results were in the range of about $1000/ image (lots with multiple images in one lot were divided to get a per image result BY ME).

From my conversations with the person who made the "Vermont Find", I believe that these were used for some sort of advertisement or display purposes in the early 20th century that the photographer (Wendel) was producing.

Of course the original glass plate negatives are out there (not sure where they ended up) and they could be used to produce additional images.

This tintype was purchased from the person who made the original "Vermont Find" and was one of a few photos that he didn't sell.

Scott

The above comment was based on my research and the research of RE Auctions in 2005.

If there has been any additional research or contradictory documentation on the "Vermont Find" in the intervening years-- I have not seen that evidence, but of course would be open to hear of it.

Thanks again for all the insight, thoughts and links provided by posters on this site.

Scott

In my opinion (and just my opinion) the 2005 auction was an inflated price. I've seen these proofs come up for sale many times and they typically sell for a few hundred dollars.

I was out of the hobby for a while, so missed all of the above - very interesting stuff. Putting a value on such items would be very tough. Generally when I have something like this, I just price it at a number that I could live with if anyone took me up on it...which means I get to keep it :)

If it's a very clear and well-composed image, on a tintype created from 1902-20, then I would personally value it around $200-300, unless it's a larger tintype, then it would be more. What's the size?

Thanks packs, I appreciate the pricing updates.

Maybe a function of skepticism due to the original negatives being out there?

Scott

Thanks Scott.

It is about 5 X 7.

It is appropriate that it turned out to be second generation or copy image-- I am currently writing a book on 19th century copy images.

Scott