Tobacco company Photographers

[Archive]

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

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Lots to speculate about. First, I believe there were photographers all over the country that were hired to photograph the ballplayers. Joseph Hall was among the most famous but if you lived and played in Kansas City, Brooklyn wasn't all that convenient. We see numerous N173 designs on various studio photographs from different cities so it was a matter of getting the ballplayers to go to a convenient studio to be photographed. Remember, if you were in the business of selling tobacco, you probably didn't want to also be in the picture taking business. You paid somebody else to do it.
Regarding your second question, the daguerreotype would be an interesting example to study. The photographer started with a large plate that fit in his camera and if he used it to take only one photo, he created a full plate dag. If he covered half the plate, took a photo, then covered the other half and took a second photo, he created two half plate images. Likewise, he could could cover various parts of his plates and use it to take four quarter plates, six sixth plates, or even cover nine different sections and create nine ninth plates. Hope that isn't too confusing. In other words, he always started out with the same size plate; it just depended how many pictures he wanted to get on it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom Boblitt

that MULTIPLE studios shot the same teams. At least for the Louisville team as I've had 'proofs' of Louisville from the N173 set that were on Scholten (sp?) Studios from St. Louis and from Wybrant studios in Louisville. The Tomney poses I've seen were on Wybrant and were basically in a studio with no background. The Scholtens had fake grass and bases.

[Archive]

Posted By: scott brockelman

On all but a few of the back east teams local photographers were used and the Goodwin and Co. mount was then used. Many, many can be found with the same N173 image on the local photographers mounts as well.

Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Regarding the Joseph Hall team cabinets, the photos were taken either outdoors at a ballpark or in a studio. I assume the studio was the one on Fulton Street, and if a team was visiting Brooklyn they would make a stop to have their picture taken. Likewise, I assume the outdoor shots were taken in Brooklyn or perhaps NYC. Does anyone recognize any team shot that looks like it may have been taken outside the NY metropolitan area?

[Archive]

Posted By: ramram

Just an interesting note - It's been a while since I studied the Joseph Hall team images, but as I recall several of the photos have the same props in them. They consisted of large blocks and some chairs. These props show up both in the studio images and in some outdoor shots within the stadiums. Apparently, Hall would throw these big ole props in his wagon and take them all over for his photo shoots.

Rob M.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe_G.

Thanks for the replies but I think I need to clarify the questions a bit.

The 1st question was simply verifying that it is appropriate to consider an Old Judge card or similar as a small piece of an imperial cabinet. Barry, your (and Mark Rucker's) early VCBC articles on photos are well done, I've referenced them many times together with David Rudd's work. But back to the card discussion, an Old Judge card is 1/24th of a large albenum photo. An uncut sheet would fall into the category of an imperial cabinet hence my statement that an Old Judge is a small piece of an imperial cabinet.

We also know it required a skilled photographer(s) to develop such photos which led into my second question as to whether the tobacco companies hired out all the work or hired some skilled photographers to work for them under their roof.

I did and do realize that the tobacco companies used many other studios to take the original photos for them. We know that Joseph Hall took all the 1887 '0' numbered photos for Goodwin & Company (505 different poses split amongst 117 different subjects). And then in subsequent years, many other studios were hired to take the oringal photos and send them to Goodwin. My question is whether Goodwin & Company themselves then took these photos, arranged them into a 6x4 matrix, doctored them up with advertising/numbering/player identification, re-photographed, developed, mounted the imperial photo onto a cardboard backing and lastly cut it into individual baseball cards? Or did the tobacco companies hire all this work out to Studios? That in essence is my question. Everyone assumes an Old Judge is the product of Goodwin & Co. but was all the work contracted to possibly a local studio or two? It sure would be neat to know who did this as we give lot's of credit to the few studios that are recognized to produce 19th century baseball items. But the largest volume of material, N172s & N173s for example, were produced . . . . . where?

Best Regards,
Joe Gonsowski

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay

Joe--The second question is one that I don't believe anyone knows the answer to. I would be amazed if Goodwin & Co., a cigarette maker, did their own photography but I have never seen any definitive proof of that. Since some of the early companies shared images: Brown's Champs on Lone Jacks and Old Judge, Spotted Ties on S F Hess and Old Judge there could have been one photographer who did the work, possibly for several companies. Which one? Since Goodwin & Co was in New York it would have made sense for it to be a New York photographer---maybe Jos Wood.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve M.

but this item has a Goodwin & Co. copyright and the scene appears on many east coast teams most notable New York and Philadelphia. Size of this item is 4 1/2 by 6 1/2.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Joe- two thoughts: 1) are you saying that an uncut sheet and an imperial cabinet are one and the same? They are roughly the same size but I'm not sure of the importance of the semantics; 2) not only do I agree with Jay that a cigarette company wouldn't take their own photographs, but it is even possible that after the photographers laid out the uncut sheets they farmed them out to someone who could cut them. What would a photographic studio be doing with a cutting machine that could slice a large photograph into 24 equal parts? I doubt they kept those lying around. Of course, I am just speculating. P.S.- the best article ever done on how these photos were cropped and cut was by Jay and Joe about the N172 minis.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe_G.

Excellent speculation Jay, Joseph Wood copyright can be seen on some of the earliest OJs, The script cards which many suspect began to circulate in 1886 can be found with a Joseph Wood copyright. I've seen Spotted Ties and King Kelly cards with the Joseph Wood copyright (small text under photo) along with plenty of boxers (both in photo area and under photo). By 1887 however, Goodwin & Co. is shown as having copyright ownership perhaps because they wanted only their name/business to be associated with the card.

Best Regards,
Joe Gonsowski

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe_G.

Thanks again Barry, it is sometimes difficult to put these questions into words and that is why I end up writing a small novel to ask a question or two. About the Old Cardboard Brooklyn mini article, I'm the Joe in "Joe & Jay". Too many Joes on the board, especially those collecting Detroit material

The 1st question about OJs being a small piece of an imperial cabinet isn't so much a question as a statement. The OJs are in fact cut from a mounted photograph of which the shear size catagorizes it as an imperial cabinet. Right? Furthermore, we know developing these thin and delicate photos required skilled labor with less than undamaged crisp images easily possible if everything didn't go right. This could partially explain why many OJs have original photo blemishes.

About the cutting of the individual cards, I hope Goodwin didn't pay the cutter with his "specialized equipment" too much as they didn't practice much quality control I don't think the OJs were cut using any device that yielded 24 equal size cards. I envision something more along the lines of a simple paper cutter but I could be wrong (that would be a lot of manual labor).

Best Regards,
Joe Gonsowski

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

That was exactly the kind of cutter I was picturing, sort of guillotine style. Did they have to cut it a row at a time, and then a column at a time? If so, that would account for the generally poor cuts on the cards, because the sheets would move, and you would have to picture at least six sheets stacked one on top of each other to save time. It's a set with beautiful photography but less than stellar cutting.