Quote:
Originally Posted by perezfan
That Denkert Mitt is pristine.... makes you wonder how it withstood all those years, untouched by time.
Here's one that I picked up in Mears... not Mint like Jimmy's, but still in great shape considering its age. It's a turn of the century Buckskin Workman's glove. Rare to find these still in tact, without the asbestos lining chewed to shreds (or missing completely...)
|
It's a nice looking glove, but a full-web about 10-15 years past turn of the century, and definitely not a workman's glove (who's time of production was long over by the time the turn of the century came along). I hate the semantic games sellers and auction houses play in descriptions. The definition of "turn of the century" is open ended, but a decade after, to me, is not 1900. More importantly, "workman's style" is NOT a workman's glove. Workman's gloves do not have webbings of any kind. MEARS' photo, it appears, tried to hide the fact that there is a full web on this glove. I truly hope you noticed this and weren't fooled by the camera angle.
The other misrepresentation that's too prevalent in glove descriptions (though not in this case) is calling any crescent glove a workman's. Workman's gloves do not have crescents, they predated them. The chronology of glove production through the early part of the century is:
Fingerless
Workman's (no web and no crescent)
Webless Crescent
Crescent with a Web
Full Web (no crescent)
One Inch Web
Even this outline could be further defined. Webless crescents are perfect examples. Earlier specimens are narrower and taller compared to squatter, shorter models that followed.
In any event, be careful with auction descriptions as they don't always correctly represent the the item. The MEARS write-up was not untruthful, but semantics were played with to make the glove appear more desirable than it truly is by loosely throwing terms around.