Posted By:
jasonIn the UK this would be described as ungentlemanly conduct. Why do people have to weigh in all the time and talk junk when they don't know the circumstances!
I actually own the lot and have had several debates in the past with Rob about the merits or lack there of regarding these images. Rob was merely furthering the debate on this issue in which he is perfectly entitled to do. I welcome debate on these matters because you can never have a cut and dry answer when discussing early baseball memorabilia - that is how we learn from the collective expertise on this board!
Everyone is entitled to their opinion but get your facts right first!
Just to clear up on the confusion with the image order (Mastro have promised to get this sorted out over the weekend).
1)Images 1-3 are of an 1860's tintype in a gutta percha case.
2)Images 4-6 are of a circa 1853 3 Boy Dag
3)Images 7-9 are of The 1848c Blue Boy Dag
4)Image 10 is of 2 tintypes.
The images are of an appalling quality but I can tell you that images 4-9 are definitely those of mirrored daguerreotypes. The 1848c Dag (this is the original case and 1848c mat)and the 1860's tintype exhibit definite lemon peel stitching while the 1853 dag is less certain.
