FS: 1887 Detroit Wolverines CDV (Pirated Copy)

[SetBuilder]

Detroit Wolverines, 1887 team CDV. The year they won the championship. Dan Brouthers in the top row, and Deacon White in the center behind the manager. On a thick Millard Detroit mount with a decorative gilt spiral back. Rare in this small format. Photo measures 3.75" x 2.375" with the mount being slightly larger. In superb condition except for what looks like a small stain to the top left and a very small tear to the bottom right edge, barely noticeable.

UPDATE: Likely a pirated version of the Tomlinson photo.

Off the market for now.

[SetBuilder]

That scan I posted is terrible. The picture quality is much sharper. The surface gloss has a way of bouncing back inside the scanner and affecting the image.

Here is a photo with my DSLR, next to a dime for size comparison.

[ramram]

Great image. Can’t say I’ve ever seen a cdv from the 1880’s. Odd that the photographer was selling cdv images in the era of the larger format cabinet cards. Unique. Best of luck.

Rob M.

[Joe_G.]

Originally Posted by SetBuilder

Detroit Wolverines, 1887 team CDV. The year they won the championship. Dan Brouthers in the top row, and Deacon White in the center behind the manager. On a thick Millard Detroit mount with a decorative gilt spiral back. Rare in this small format. Photo measures 3.75" x 2.375" with the mount being slightly larger. In superb condition except for what looks like a small stain to the top left and a very small tear to the bottom right edge, barely noticeable.

Price is $4,000, net via PP. Priority postpaid, insured.

Hello Manny,

I may have some bad news for you, hope I'm wrong. All the authentic Tomlinson images I've studied are found on Tomlinson mounts. That is the 1887 Tomlinson team picture, most commonly found in imperial format 16x20 or regular cabinet size (4 1/4 x 6 1/2). Kalamazoo Bats would be the exception as a non-Tomlinson mount. I've never seen an authentic 1887 team picture in CDV size. I suspect this might be a close relative to a fake that surfaced in 2013 at the door step of REA. Brian Dwyer was suspicious and quickly confirmed it was a modern creation. Similar to your copy, the fake was found on a non-Tomlinson mount. Does this look like an authentic albumen print to you? I hope I'm wrong, it would be real neat to see a CDV of the 1887 team (as strange as that would be).

[SetBuilder]

Originally Posted by Joe_G.

Hello Manny,

I may have some bad news for you, hope I'm wrong. All the authentic Tomlinson images I've studied are found on Tomlinson mounts. That is the 1887 Tomlinson team picture, most commonly found in imperial format 16x20 or regular cabinet size (4 1/4 x 6 1/2). Kalamazoo Bats would be the exception as a non-Tomlinson mount. I've never seen an authentic 1887 team picture in CDV size. I suspect this might be a close relative to a fake that surfaced in 2013 at the door step of REA. Brian Dwyer was suspicious and quickly confirmed it was a modern creation. Similar to your copy, the fake was found on a non-Tomlinson mount. Does this look like an authentic albumen print to you? I hope I'm wrong, it would be real neat to see a CDV of the 1887 team (as strange as that would be).

I looked it over carefully shortly after I bought it a few years ago and there is absolutely nothing modern about it. It is clearly albumen.

I too found it odd that it’s not on a cabinet card and was perplexed when I couldn’t find a suitable comp for pricing purposes but as I was researching it I read that it was common in that era to “pirate” other photographers’ images and use it was a kind of trade card for advertising purposes. Copyright laws didn’t really offer much protection (Mathew Brady is an example). This particular photographer was probably working on a smaller scale and reused old mounts for that purpose, or ordered cheaper smaller mounts. I suppose it’s possible also that they licensed the image for a short time. This would make sense since CDV’s were still around even in the late 1880’s and collected in albums. Even more so if there was 1887 “Championship Mania” in Detroit.

I’m sure this diminishes the value somewhat (or maybe a lot),, but it is still a neat period curiosity. .

[SetBuilder]

Originally Posted by ramram

Great image. Can’t say I’ve ever seen a cdv from the 1880’s. Odd that the photographer was selling cdv images in the era of the larger format cabinet cards. Unique. Best of luck.

Rob M.

Well, they’re still selling vinyl records today in the era of streaming music.

[SetBuilder]

The mount is from Charles A. Millard's (b. 1834 - d. 1890-91) studio. He was in business as Powelson & Millard until Powelson left the studio sometime after 1880. The 1880-81 Detroit business directory lists Millard at 224 Woodward Ave. It just so happens that the Wolverines played at Recreation Park, which would be just a block east of Woodward.

[oldjudge]

Are you sure it's not a salt print?

[SetBuilder]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Are you sure it's not a salt print?

No, this has the distinct look and feel of a high end studio CDV.

[SetBuilder]

To update: I took the CDV to a well respected auctioneer near my house to get a second opinion and he said he doesn't specialize in baseball but he strongly suspects that it's a pirated version not from the original negative (what I suspected). He said that pirated versions usually have blank mounts but not always. It could have either been authorized by Millard himself or perhaps the creation of a rogue employee. I asked him how he would price such an item and he said he's not sure about this particular subject, but that it should be worth significantly less than an original, but it depends on various factors...

Definitely a huge bummer.

[Leon]

This was copied from the correct BST section because it has some good information in it. An informed collector is the best collector.

[ramram]

I gotta admit, it appears to pass the eye test and apparently passes the nose test. Interesting image to say the least.

Rob M

[Joe_G.]

Originally Posted by SetBuilder

The mount is from Charles A. Millard's (b. 1834 - d. 1890-91) studio. He was in business as Powelson & Millard until Powelson left the studio sometime after 1880. The 1880-81 Detroit business directory lists Millard at 224 Woodward Ave. It just so happens that the Wolverines played at Recreation Park, which would be just a block east of Woodward.

Detroit photographers during the late 19th century has been a longtime interest of mine, so please excuse me going overboard on this response. I began studying them while researching Tomlinson Studio for an article in OC magazine (2007) and have continued to learn more as time and resources permit. Over 1/3 of the 34 photographers with a Detroit address during the late 1880s were located near each other on Woodward Avenue including Millard and Tomlinson. With respect to Recreation Park, these Studios were 1.4 miles away from Detroit's ball park.

Regarding the history of Mr. Charles A. Millard, he purchased his studio from Powelson in 1879 and would run it until his passing in January of 1891. Millard Studio would continue under his brother-in-law Mr. Lyman B. Avery until 1894 when the Studio, equipment, and negatives were purchased by Huntington & Clark.

I have a great image from 1894 that shows several of the studios.

The image captures the businesses from 212 Woodward (far right) to 240 Woodward and beyond (240 Woodward being the six story Schwankovsky music store bldg. at left).

So in this image you can see following Photographers / Photographic Supplies Store:

• 212 Woodward: Alfred G. McMichael - Photographer (Directory indicates McMichael at 210 but moved to 212 by time photo was taken)
• 214 Woodward: Joseph Kirsch - Photographer
• 216 Woodward: George R. Angell - Photographic Supplies
• 222 Woodward: Charles H. Smith - Photographer
• 224 Woodward: Huntington & Clark - Photographers (Store front reads "Millard Photographer" with "Successors To" added above)
• 236 Woodward: Edwin H Husher - Photographer (has "Tomlinson Photographs" sign on side of store)

Close-Up (with a little higher contrast). . .

You can see C. H. Smith advertising "Life Size Picture Free with Purchase of Dozen Cabinets". You can also see a guy making prints if you look close at the middle of the image. That could be Charles H. Smith himself. Next door is 224 Woodward, home of Huntington & Clark Photographers (Proprietors of Millard Studio).

Circling back to your CDV . . .
Tomlinson sold the Detroit team pictures across North America, advertised in various papers after Detroit won the Championship. They marketed the images well and sold quite a few (many survive in the hobby today). Your 2nd gen print (picture of a picture) could have been created in secret by someone at Millard prior to 1894 (when the Millard name ceased) or could have been created sometime later (late 19th century, early 20th century) and simply placed on an old mount from a Detroit studio (in this case, an old Millard CDV). It is a neat piece but many collectors shy away from such items (similar to the non-period prints created from Goodwin negatives). Albumen paper was last commercially produced and sold in 1929 although photographers can still create albumen prints following the same 19th century procedures with similar but different paper.

Manny, can you share how you obtained the CDV?

[tiger8mush]

Originally Posted by Joe_G.

Circling back to your CDV . . .

Impressive research Joe!

[1880nonsports]

research should be your middle and last names When do you begin on Jimmy Hoffa and his Detroit connections?

BTW - I have run into quite a few pirated images from the 1880's while collecting women base ball players and non-sport images of luminaries and hooligans. Not at all uncommon.

[drcy]

The CDV is from the 1800s. The microscopic images are of an albumen print.

[Joe_G.]

Originally Posted by drcy

The CDV is from the 1800s. The microscopic images are of an albumen print.

Hello David, thanks for chiming in. I'd agree that the mount is likely an original from Millard and dates to the 1800s. But the albumen print, is there a reason you definitively date it to the 1800s when albumen paper was sold through 1929? Just curious.

[kkkkandp]

Originally Posted by Joe_G.

Detroit photographers during the late 19th century has been a longtime interest of mine, so please excuse me going overboard on this response. I began studying them while researching Tomlinson Studio for an article in OC magazine (2007) and have continued to learn more as time and resources permit. Over 1/3 of the 34 photographers with a Detroit address during the late 1880s were located near each other on Woodward Avenue including Millard and Tomlinson. With respect to Recreation Park, these Studios were 1.4 miles away from Detroit's ball park.

Regarding the history of Mr. Charles A. Millard, he purchased his studio from Powelson in 1879 and would run it until his passing in January of 1891. Millard Studio would continue under his brother-in-law Mr. Lyman B. Avery until 1894 when the Studio, equipment, and negatives were purchased by Huntington & Clark.

I have a great image from 1894 that shows several of the studios.

The image captures the businesses from 212 Woodward (far right) to 240 Woodward and beyond (240 Woodward being the six story Schwankovsky music store bldg. at left).

So in this image you can see following Photographers / Photographic Supplies Store:

• 212 Woodward: Alfred G. McMichael - Photographer (Directory indicates McMichael at 210 but moved to 212 by time photo was taken)
• 214 Woodward: Joseph Kirsch - Photographer
• 216 Woodward: George R. Angell - Photographic Supplies
• 222 Woodward: Charles H. Smith - Photographer
• 224 Woodward: Huntington & Clark - Photographers (Store front reads "Millard Photographer" with "Successors To" added above)
• 236 Woodward: Edwin H Husher - Photographer (has "Tomlinson Photographs" sign on side of store)

Close-Up (with a little higher contrast). . .

You can see C. H. Smith advertising "Life Size Picture Free with Purchase of Dozen Cabinets". You can also see a guy making prints if you look close at the middle of the image. That could be Charles H. Smith himself. Next door is 224 Woodward, home of Huntington & Clark Photographers (Proprietors of Millard Studio).

Circling back to your CDV . . .
Tomlinson sold the Detroit team pictures across North America, advertised in various papers after Detroit won the Championship. They marketed the images well and sold quite a few (many survive in the hobby today). Your 2nd gen print (picture of a picture) could have been created in secret by someone at Millard prior to 1894 (when the Millard name ceased) or could have been created sometime later (late 19th century, early 20th century) and simply placed on an old mount from a Detroit studio (in this case, an old Millard CDV). It is a neat piece but many collectors shy away from such items (similar to the non-period prints created from Goodwin negatives). Albumen paper was last commercially produced and sold in 1929 although photographers can still create albumen prints following the same 19th century procedures with similar but different paper.

Manny, can you share how you obtained the CDV?

Joe:

As always, amazingly thorough research!

Kevin

[drcy]

Originally Posted by Joe_G.

Hello David, thanks for chiming in. I'd agree that the mount is likely an original from Millard and dates to the 1800s. But the albumen print, is there a reason you definitively date it to the 1800s when albumen paper was sold through 1929? Just curious.

Whatever the theoretical possibility, the photographer of such a photo wouldn't make an albumen print in the 20th century. Many theoretical possibilities and arguments are pie-in-the-sky, meaning they are so highly improbable that they can be dismissed in the real world situation. I'd bet that a 20th-century baseball albumen photo doesn't exist.

[insidethewrapper]

Joe: I don't know much about photography, but couldn't anyone take the photo from one mount and place on another mount (ie, off Tomlinson and place on another mount )? Looks like the same photo that has the Kalamazoo Bats mount. .

[Joe_G.]

Thanks Rob, Henry, & Kevin.

Originally Posted by drcy

Whatever the theoretical possibility, the photographer of such a photo wouldn't make an albumen print in the 20th century. Many theoretical possibilities and arguments are pie-in-the-sky, meaning they are so highly improbable that they can be dismissed in the real world situation. I'd bet that a 20th-century baseball albumen photo doesn't exist.

I always defer to you on such matters. You've been a great resource for many of us over the years including when you inspected my old large format "Champions of the League" composite some 13 years ago . . . you concluded it was a mid-20th century creation. I've read that albumen paper was the most widely used photographic printing material through 1895 and didn't realize it would become so rare by the time 20th century rolled around.

Out of curiosity, in your opinion, how close could someone come to creating an authentic appearing (circa 1880s) albumen print today?

Originally Posted by insidethewrapper

Joe: I don't know much about photography, but couldn't anyone take the photo from one mount and place on another mount (ie, off Tomlinson and place on another mount )? Looks like the same photo that has the Kalamazoo Bats mount.

This is possible but not recommended if soak the print as you will incur irreversible damage (more cracks, lower strength). I found this article interesting: http://albumen.conservation-us.org/science/

Manny's CDV is not the same variant found on K-Bat card. There are two 1887 images that were taken perhaps a minute or so apart.

Here is one of the two variants courtesy of NYPL, this imperial cabinet matches Manny's CDV. The imperial cabinets from Tomlinson have unbelievable clarity (consistent high quality seen from all the 1886, 1887, and 1888 photo shoots). Manny's CDV is a 2nd gen print (photo of a photo) and will lack this detail.

Here is the K-Bat (not mine), a slightly different image. NYPL has this 2nd version as an imperial cabinet as well (BB HOF also has both variants). Note that the K-Bat and Manny's CDV lack the clarity of the Tomlinson cabinets.

[drcy]

Artists today do all the old processes today-- albumen, salt print, tintypes ambrotypes--, but it's for artistic purposes (often of obviously modern subjects), and the photos can be identified as modern by inspecting the materials. Some of the ambrotypes, tintypes and daguerreotypes are HUGE, WAY larger than 1800s versions would be . . . Just a note.

I know of a woman in South Carolina who makes tintypes of people who pay people at Civil War recreation festivals. Her own 1800s photobooth.

[Leon]

I never knew there were fakes of Ambros and so forth. I have only seen those crappy looking, very large Goodwin tintypes....with their names NOT reversed. Good to know. I am also surprised albuman wasn't used in the 20th century. Learn (or remember again ) something new every day....
.

Originally Posted by drcy

Artists today do all the old processes today-- albumen, salt print, tintypes ambrotypes--, but it's for artistic purposes (often of obviously modern subjects), and the photos can be identified as modern by inspecting the materials. Some of the ambrotypes, tintypes and daguerreotypes are HUGE, WAY larger than 1800s versions would be . . . Just a note.

I know of a woman in South Carolina who makes tintypes of people who pay people at Civil War recreation festivals. Her own 1800s photobooth.

[drcy]

I wouldn't call them fake, but modern art using old processes.

I know a bunch of art photographers across the world, and they do it all the ways, from digital to daguerreotypes. These days you can digitally print on metal sheets-- and some artists do this--, but the modern dags, tintypes, etc are the real deal. The digitally printed metal sheets are usually do not remotely resemble old photos, but are color.