Probably not, but........
 

Posted By: <b>ramram&nbsp; </b><p>This daguerreotype (which would make it c. 1850's) was recently sold on ebay (<a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/ebayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3292140528" target=_new>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/ebayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3292140528</a>) and probably is a rowing team but can leave one wondering.......could it be base ball????<BR><BR><img src="http://home.kc.rr.com/ramram/baseball%20maybe.jpg"><BR>

Probably not, but........
 

Posted By: <b>Jimmy Leiderman</b><p>No it isn't

Probably not, but........
 

Posted By: <b>ramram</b><p>Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> This is supposed to be thought provoking. My basis is that this type of dag, based on the hand coloring and mat, would date around the early to mid 1850's. Of the few baseball dags and ambrotypes (which followed dags and were mostly from the lated 1850's to around 1860) that have surfaced, the players were wearing similar patriotic parade uniforms (two of these were in Rucker's auction, I'll have to dig them up and scan them). Also, photos and info from the Knickerbockers indicate that they wore straw hats during the 1840's to 1850's. <BR>P.S. Don't go trying to tell me Santa Claus ain't real either!

Probably not, but........
 

Posted By: <b>ramram</b><p>Two other known and identified early baseball images (one a dag and the other an ambro). Although uncolored these are likely patriotic colored parade uniforms as well along with lots of stars.<BR><BR><img src="http://home.kc.rr.com/ramram/1.jpg"><BR><img src="http://home.kc.rr.com/ramram/2.jpg">

Probably not, but........
 

Posted By: <b>Rob L</b><p>I blew up the one of the bibs with Photoshop and it appears to be crossed oars. The increased thickness at the end looks more like the shape of an oar than a tapered baseball bat.<BR><BR><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1087593604.JPG">

Probably not, but........
 

Posted By: <b>ramram</b><p>The transition doesn't look gradual enough for a bat does it.

Probably not, but........
 

Posted By: <b>Rob L</b><p>Hey Rob, it appears that it thickens too much at the end. Too bad, it is an awesome image, baseball or not.<BR><BR>Rob L

Probably not, but........
 

Posted By: <b>ramram</b><p>Anyway, I can think of a lot of better ways to spend $16,000. Let's see, I could have about 15 torn-out pages from a Harry Wright scorebook or own 0.13% of the copyright of a reproduction poster of the 1895 National League Captains or one corner of a T-206 Wagner or.........

Probably not, but........
 

Posted By: <b>Rob L</b><p>going for $61.5K now. Could make a nice downpayment with the $16K.

Probably not, but........
 

Posted By: <b>Jimmy Leiderman</b><p>Good one Rob. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><BR><BR>Have to agree that the ebay dag is a beautiful image.<BR><BR>Since we're talking 19th C. baseball imagery, check this one out:<BR><BR>1876 Lincoln BBC (?)<BR>Cabinet card photograph taken in Bonn, Germany (?)<BR><BR><BR><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1087598177.JPG"> <BR><BR>Rob, can you post closer scans of those gorgeous '69 Kearsarge cabinets you recently won?

Probably not, but........
 

Posted By: <b>ramram</b><p>Great image. What would those guys have been doing in Germany as a team?? I would only think a professional team would have the $$ to travel and play there.<BR> With regard to the Kearsarge cabinets, I haven't got around to scanning them yet but will try to do that soon.

Probably not, but........
 

Posted By: <b>Max Weder</b><p>In keeping with this thread, I bought this ebay item with the seller indicating it was an early baseball item. I had my doubts, but it was a nice Christmas present for Jennifer, who likes baseball (<a href="http://www.ettinger.ca" target=_new>http://www.ettinger.ca</a>) but on receipt of the present, immediately pointed out that she also likes rowing too. (At least she knew [unlike her husband] there are "4" on certain rowing crews and it wasn't Eddie Plank's or Frank Baker's locket) <BR><BR>Max<BR><BR><img src="http://www.ettinger.ca/series1.jpg"><BR><BR>

Probably not, but........
 

Posted By: <b>hankron</b><p>The rule for baseball Daguerreotypes, ambrotypes and tintypes is simple. If it's 100 percent clear the image is baseball (baseball, bat, catchers mask, other, known baseball player) it has the most financial value in the baseball genre. If it's not 100 percent clear, it doesn't.

Probably not, but........
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>To date there has never been a baseball dag found that shows equipment such as a bat and ball. The half plate dag of Alexander Cartwright is almost certainly a photo of some of his fellow Knicks, but no equipment shows and a few of the men pictured have not yet been identified. The other known Cartwright dags were taken in Hawaii in a non-baseball context. The image shown of two Excelsiors, one of whom appears to be Pearsall, has never been identified with certainty. Nothing else has even come close. Had this image of five gentleman been proven to be baseball, holding the two flags, one which certainly is the team flag, you would probably be looking at the most valuable known baseball photo, easily worth 150-200K. Baseball or not, it is aesthetically a masterpiece. What a find!