Posted By:
Joe_G.I'd like to discuss several aspects of something I've been mulling over about photographic cards; cards that themselves were actual developed photographs. This would include many of the 19th century issues I enjoy collecting and researching like Old Judge, Kalamazoo Bats, SF Hess, etc. I realize I may not get any replies due to the speculative nature of some of the questions, but hope something can be gained.
Sticking to the 19th century photographic cards, we know the cabinet card's popularity was 2nd to none, long overtaking the smaller CDV, by the 1880s. The cabinets such as N173, N566 Newsboy, etc. all measure in at 4 1/4 x 6 1/2 (mount size) with larger formats being considered "imperial cabinets". These larger imperial cabinets are recognized as special pieces in our hobby due to their rarity and beauty. David Rudd has shared with us that is was difficult and expensive to make imperial cabinets as the very thin albenum paper was fragile and developing process demanding.
1st Question
We know that most of the baseball card issues discussed above were individually cut from a larger photo depicting 24 or similar baseball subjects. These uncut sheets were far larger than a normal size cabinet card thus making them imperial cabinets about the size of a standard 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of paper (some might even argue mammoth photos). So would it be accurate to say Old Judge cards are small pieces of imperial cabinets? Is it not true that due to the difficulty of developing these larger photos that it was typical to have varying quality? That is, some areas over or under developed while other areas of the photo would be crisp, near perfect? This could partially explain why it is a special treat to find a crisp and clear Old Judge (not to mention the issues from taking pictures of pictures, reusing same photos for years, and surviving the elements for ~120 years).
2nd Question
Many of the Studios that issued cabinet cards with baseball subjects are well known and studied. Stevens in Chicago, Hall in Brooklyn, etc. but none of them can hold a candle to Goodwin & Co., Charles Gross & Co., S.F. Hess & Co. and others in terms of producing and distributing baseball photos. Or did some (or all) of these tobacco giants contract a Studio to produce these photos for them? In other words, did Goodwin & Co. hire a skilled photographer(s) as an employee(s) to mass-produce photos/cards under their roof or was an outside studio contracted to do the work? It probably doesn't matter to most, but I wonder if a majority of the 19th century baseball material originates from within the tobacco companies or if they simply contracted to some of the well-known studios of the time.
Any insight?
Best Regards,
Joe Gonsowski