A few months back I posted a great Christy Mathewson photo I purchased a while back from RMY and asked for any intelligence anyone on the board had on photographer or origin of the photo. One of the favorite things I own. (Been my screensaver for going on a year now. . . .) Was it Charles Conlon or someone else? Possibly Van Oeyen as some had suggested? Or someone else altogether?
https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.co...-conlons-work/
Amazing, the mystery seems to have been solved. I probably spent 30 hours searching in vain for any info on the origins of the photo and turned up nothing useful. Zero. Not a shred. Yesterday fellow Board member Andrew Anonstein (TCMA) reached out with info he came upon solving the mystery in my mind. I was dumbfounded and am extremely appreciative. Andrew, most sincere thanks imaginable. Made my July 4th.
Rather than paraphrase Andrew's DM to me, I've copied it below. Amazing to me to solve the mystery of this amazing photo after I crapped out after so much effort. For those who care, keep reading......
---------------------------
After seeing the initial discussion some time ago about your photo in the Conlon thread, I set out to try and get a definitive answer. I figured the photo was just too good NOT to have been used somewhere. That initial search came up empty, then I got on to other things but it's always been in the back of my mind.
Today, after search for something else, I stumbled across the images below from the 1906 edition of Napoleon Lajoie's Base Ball Guide, which only existed from 1906-1908.
Your photo is CLEARLY attributed to Louis Van Oeyen, which makes sense considering the connection to Lajoie and Cleveland. That second page also solves the mystery of WHY Van Oeyen would be shooting Matty. Underneath the images it's noted those images were shot at the "New York-Athletic Series," which is a reference to the 1905 World Series, of course.
I also found that another of those Matty shots sold in 2016 through Christies.
WOW WOW WOW. I am thrilled to have this info. Is there some chance it was improperly attributed to Van Oeyen? I guess so. But I'm going with him as the photogtrapher. The links are there.