N173 Question

[Archive]

Posted By: david 

has anyone seen an OJ cabinet with this type of text on the front. i thought this type was only used for the N172's

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2771983425&category=31719

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom Boblitt

...........

[Archive]

Posted By: Adam J. Baxter

David,
This Fred Mann had been up on eBay the week before as an N172 and apparently nobody met the reserve. According to Jay Miller's article "How Old Judges Cards were produced" from VCBC # 13 Goodwin would take a negative, produce N173's from it, then apply the ad banner info on the bottom and then rephotograph it to produce an N172. I haven't had a great deal of experience with N173's myself, but I can tell you that I have NEVER seen an N173 with a N172 ad banner across the bottom. The only way I think this would be possible is if this was an N173 cabinet with an N172 ad banner from the stage of the process right before the photos for the N172's would be taken. If that were the case, this would be pretty rare. Essentially like a production proof or something. The picture looks like an N172 to me, but if the seller says it measures as an N173 then it could be. Jay Miller may have a more accurate theory on this.

Regards,
Adam

[Archive]

Posted By: Adam J. Baxter

When David posted about it I was kind of hoping it was something new. It was a little suspicious, especially when I saw the picture. It does look too much like a garden variety N172. If it was something rare or unique, it would've been snagged already.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

Other than size, the main and most obvious difference between the cabinets and little Old Judges is that the cabinets have the photographic print affixed to a much larger cardboard mount, while the little guys have a photographic print the exact same size as the mount.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

I guess that may be a little confusing when looking at an online images, as the little guys often have various designs as part of the photographic print that look like a the border of a mount. So I change it to that the main difference is that, other than the player images, the N172s and N173s don't look like each other.

One quick aside: other than those little trading cards and some abnormally large examples (i.e. 15x15" or larger), almost all untrimmed 19th century albumen photographs will have the photographic print affixed to a larger mount (you can see the borders of the mount surrounding the photo). And, due to the thinness of the paper used at the time, almost all Pre-1895 albumen photographs had to be mounted to something-- though in some cases a photographic print might have been mounted in a book or on a scorecard, rather than a sheet of cardboard. So, as a collector, one of the first things you look for is how that 1880 photograph is mounted, because, unless it was skinned or otherwise removed, it has to be pasted to something substantial.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

For example, on this typically-styled cabinet card you can see how the rectangular photographic print is pasted to the larger carboard mount. And, as is common, the photographers found the extra space at the bottom suitable to put a little advertisment/credit for the studio. The mount and photographic print will come in wide variety of shapes and styles, but the mount will usually be larger.

In the 20th century, the photographic paper slowly became thicker and sturdier, so mounting wasn't neccesary. The cabinet card and simularly mounted photographs were continued in the early 20th century (ala 191? T5 Pinkerton Cabinets), mostly for style reasons ('mounted photos are fancy'). So, by the 1910s you will find both mounted and unmounted photographs.




Early 1900s: An unmounted (no cardboard backing) Ty Cobb photo and a mounted (cardboard backing) Joe McGinnity

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

That ebay item is not a cabinet. The way the small cards were made, I believe, was when a 6x4 pattern of cabinet sized photos was attached to a "board". Under each photo a banner/banners were attached with the player's name, position and team and some Goodwin & Co. advertising. This banner/banners were attached by what look to be some form of pins(look closely at some Old Judge cards and these pin heads appear as small circles). The group of 24 cards was then rephotographed, attached to a backing, and cut into cards. The rephotographing reduced the individual photo size from cabinet size to N172 size.
That ebay item could not be the precursor of a card which was cut from the cabinet board. As stated above such an item would be a photo with some material tacked onto it. It would not be one photo including both the player photo and the text.

[Archive]

Posted By: jw

just had to comment on the Cobb photo---fantastic!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

the emulsion has been so disturbed in one corner that it has doubled back over the rest of the photo--for about 1/ 16th to 1/8th inch. This emulsion is so thin, I would be hard pressed to even call it paper.

More: A Korean artist, now on display at the Asian Art Museum of San Francosco, prints her very large photos on mulberry paper. Not phtographic. So she has to paint the photographic emultion on herself, with a large brush--which sometimes even leaves marks on the finished photo.

So: with albumen prints (like all OJs are), is the emulsion added after the paper is manufactured, or does the paper come that way? Jay?

One other thing: I have never seen a N173 that did not have the copyright written in handwriting as part of the photo. I think it's always to the (our)left of the figure, but I'm not sure.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

Cobb is fixing you with his steely blues, while McGinnity looks much friendlier, gentler.

That's one peach with no soft fuzz...Cobb.