Harper's Woodcuts

[T206Collector]

I was in an antique book store in Poultny, VT today and came across a few volumes of
bound Harper's magazines from the mid- to late-1800s. I recognized some of the woodcuts
but I noticed that they appeared smaller than the ones I have, which were cut
from the magazines themselves. That raised my question: were there two versions of every
woodcut -- one big one from the magazine and one smaller one included in the bound volumes?

Any input would be greatly appreciated.

[barrysloate]

They should be the same size. A bound volume just includes a year's worth of weekly issues.

[FrankWakefield]

I don't know the answer to your question.

I do know I bought a bound volume that is MUCH smaller than the large front page I have that depicts Ewing. The bound volume is at my office. It covers a year when there were no baseball woodcuts. I'd wondered the same thing...

What I think is that Harper's changed sizes over the years. But that was just what I was thinking after seeing that there are definitely different sizes. I wonder if all issues were big during the years that baseball subjects were depicted.

TV Guide changed sizes...

[buymycards]

Weren't some of the Harpers reprinted in the 50's or 60's? Could your bound volume be one of the newer versions?

Rick

[rhettyeakley]

I just want to make sure everyone is aware of the difference between "Harpers Magazine" and "Harpers Weekly".

The "Weekly's" are the newspaper sized issues that included the Baseball Woodcuts. The Magazines were more like literary happenings of the time, and when bound (this is how they are almost always found) they make books roughly the size of a large Bible. The Magazines can often be found for $5-15 for complete years and (other than Bibles) are just about the cheapest books of the time to buy. Bound Harpers Weekly's are highly collected and can run you MUCH more than the smaller (Magazine) ones. I am unaware of any Harpers Magazine that featured any baseball related material (but I could be wron on that last part).

-Rhett

[drc]

The miniatures Harper's baseball woodcuts must have been reprints. As Rick noted in this thread, Harper's were reprinted at some point. As Barry noted, an original particular Harper's woodcut print is constant in size. The original wood printing blocks were hand carved, and you couldn't easily resize a picture like you could in the 1900s. To get a smaller version you'd have to have the craftsman carve a smaller image on a new block of wood.

Addressing Frank's topic, I haven't seen Harper's from every year so I don't know whether or not there were sizing variations over the years. It was printed for decades, so perhaps there were variations.

[FrankWakefield]

What Rhett says makes sense to me... When I get back to the office where the small bound volume is, I'll bring it home. I'll compare it to the full pages of baseball images I have. (Ewing on the front cover with catcher's gear comes to mind.) There may well be a "Weekly" / "Magazine" distintion.


FW

[T206Collector]

...I did not compare woodcut to woodcut; I saw no baseball woodcuts in the smaller bound volume;and I have no idea about what kinds of magazines/books were issued. I just saw small bound volumes from the 1800s and wondered why they were smaller than the pages containing the woodcuts I have at home.

[drc]

double post

[drc]

As I said, I haven't seem them all, but the Harper's Weeklies I've seen from the 1800s were all the large size. A lot of non-sport collectors collect Harper's so someone out there probably has an answer. Perhaps Harper's published more than one different magazine, and you saw a different magazine with Harper's in the title. That's just speculation on my part.

I've long heard that Harper's was reprinted, but know little about the reprints including which issues were reprinted. I've read that newspapers sometimes re-issued special editions-- ala the first ever issue--, but rarely the whole run of issues. For all I know, Harper's re-issued/reprinted only a few issues and not the entire run.

If someone here were to compile the info it would make a nice article. As I said, I've heard and read only fuzzy references about the issues and its reprints, but have yet to come across concrete issues, dates and sizes. If some wrote and published a detailed article online, I'm sure it would be read, referenced and quoted many times. The research may simply be interviewing the periodical experts and collectors who know the info and putting it down on paper. A standard reference book I once read said, "None of this information is new, but this is the first time its all been put in a single book."

[rhettyeakley]

David, that is precisely what I was saying above. There was Harper's Weekly that were giant sized (size of a newpaper) and they produced a completely different publication entitled Harper's Monthly Magazine that are MUCH smaller (the size of a hard-backed book).

"Harper's Weekly" was the one with the Baseball woodcuts and are pretty highly collected.

"Harper's Monthly Magazine" was largely literary in nature (it had excerpts of books, etc.) and unfortunately it never included any baseball material and are not very widely collected and are fairly cheap to buy today (nice copies will run $10-15 each, generally two bound books make up a years worth of issues.

Again, two totally different publications by the same publishers, I think this is the confusing part here.

-Rhett

[drc]

You've probably got it exactly. I just checked and you are correct, over the 1800s there was a Weekly and a Monthly-- distinct publications but each with "Harper's" in the title so as to confuse T206collector (but not me, I know along of course ).

My technique for watching Jeopardy is, when someone watching with you says the answer, repeat it right after them. That way people think you knew the answer all along, but just weren't quite quick enough in saying it.

[Joe Hunter]

Many of the Harpers were reprinted in the 1950's. I've had a few copies of them. However, I believe they do indicate on the front page in very small print that they are a "reissue". They are about two-thirds the size of the originals.

[FrankWakefield]

Here's an image of some stuff...

1- the front page of Harper's Weekly Journal of Civilization,
that is William Ewing, Captain of the New York Base-Ball Club, on
the cover of the NOv 9, 1889 issue. It is 16" tall, not the 12" mentioned
in Mr. Lipset's Encyclopedia.

2- to the right of that is a quarter I bought from Scott Brockelman who
assured me that it was once one of Leon's quarters.

3- and there's a Joe Doyle white border tobacco card for size comparison

4- and at the bottom is an opened, bound volume of Harper's New Monthly
Magazine, volume XLVI, December 1872 to May 1873. Pages are 9 1/4" x
6 1/4", there are no covers to the issues, just pages, 1 to 952. It is just
over 2" thick. There are woodcuts in it, as shown, but I find no baseball
woodcuts.


So I think there are 3 things out there: the original Harper's woodcuts from
the Weekly, the reprints that are slightly smaller and a confusion for some,
and the Harper's Monthly that won't have any baseball woodcuts in it.

FW

[drc]

I would imagine that Lipset's measurements are for the print and not the entire page.

[FrankWakefield]

Yes sir, I think you're right about that... Measuring from the top of the woodcut to the bottom of the page seems to be what Lew's measurments reflect. Mr. Lipset was right about most of his stuff... It seems a shame to cut away that great banner. Should I just use scissors, or dig around for a paper cutter?