E90-1 Bailey and E101 Miller "Big Glove" cards

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

I've always assumed that the disportionate size of the gloves in these cards was an artistic anomaly - nowhere near representative of the actual size or even that there were oversized gloves in use.






But last week I picked this up from the BST (from 1913 - still need to post this and a few others in the RPU thread). Check out the gloves on the two players on the ends of the back row. These look to me to be about the size I thought gloves were then. Now look at the one on the player seated far right, front row. Wow. It's an actual big glove!





It is definitely not the same as the others on the team. Proportionately, I think it looks about the size of her forearm, similar to the Bailey and Miller cards. I assume some of the major leaguers also used gloves this size. Does anyone think that the cards with big gloves are actually that way because the gloves were big, or were they just drawn that way?

I suppose I should leave the question as to what these may have been used for to the Memorabilia side. The fingers weren't laced together, as far as I know, so I don't think I see the utility of having the gloves be that big.

Joann

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

Hi Joann,

The Gus Getz in the M101-5 Famous and Barr set has also got the big glove you mention. It also shows the separated fingers. The neat thing is that set is photographs so it sort of confirms that there were big gloves. Getz's card lists him as a 3rd Baseman. Unfortunately, I can't creat a scan.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason L

I would like to start off by first saying that I work under the impression that size doesn't matter.
Second, if you look at the top of your photo, the answer is right there: These women are Giants!

Ok, sorry for those...I cannot definitively help you at all, but for what it is worth on a Friday afternoon while I am struggling to maintain my enery level...I have seen this range of gloves in several similar photos, and I would hazard a guess that they were used at the time that the deadball era card images were created, and perhaps in existance as eqpt mfrs tried to provide a range of product in hopes of something new "catching" on...

They look just as silly in real photos as they do on those cards!

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Mosley

Thanks for posting that Joann,

It definitely does look like some of the gloves in that picture are significantly larger than others, good catch

p.s. - I've always loved the Miller Fielding card. Its got an almost 3D quality to it where the glove looks like its coming off of the card to make the grab.

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

what is that thing on bakers hand!

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul S

Not that I know the old equipment that well, and not sure how detailed this is in the scan, but on his left hand he wears what appears to be a catcher's mitt (for protection?) or some cross between catcher and fielder (hard to tell from it's back) and on his right hand someting that may be modified -- it's got 5 fingers and what appears to be a extra-padded thumb.



edited to add scan

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Joann, that's a great picture. Look at the faces! As an aside, look at the woman in the front row, bottom right -- doesn't she appear more modern looking than the rest of them? Am I the only one that thinks she doesn't fit in that picture?

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

Jeff,

That was the very first thing I noticed when I saw the picture. And I took it to work and showed it to a few people (it's headed there permanently in a frame next week), and our Plant Manager said the same thing. She definitely stands out as someone modern looking.

Joann

ETA: It's either the hair style or big smile - I don't know - but I've been trying to pin down what it is exactly that makes her look so different.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhett Yeakley

Scott, here is a scan of the Getz card.
-Rhett

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

She's the only one smiling; her hair, her face, etc. Bizarre.

I have a collection of 19th century photo intake pages from western American prisons. The faces are very haunting and styles 'dated.' Hundreds of faces. I've never seen a face that was as out of place as that woman in your pic.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Pomilla

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

I believe Nick Altrock had the biggest glove.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

Bob - what a great great site. Thanks for posting the link. The 19th Century Photo Archive is so cool.

J

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason L

My eyes kept coming back to that same woman a few times as well as I scanned that picture, looking primarily for the gloves...thought it so odd for the reasons you mention.

She looks more modern, slightly better tone to her skin, something about her looks far healthier than the others

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I think all of those girls in the picture from Joann look a little Appalacian (not that there's anything wrong with that) except for that girl on the far right bottom ya'll are talking about. She's sort of hot....also, for the record there is a common rule not to post other chatboards on this forum.....we give mild warnings and it's not the end of the world but in general we don't allow it....As for E101 Miller I think it's a very cool card...kind of weird that all 3 of my Millers have scarce backs.....I generally don't have multiples of a common but what can I say..?? addiction sets in...






edited spellin'

[Archive]

Posted By: Andrew

Here is my Miller, also a tough back: