Please help me I.D. this Jimmy Collins cabinet

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

I recently picked this up from a board member. It measures about 5 3/8" x 6 3/8". I believe the photo is the same as the M101-1 Sporting News. Engraved on the photo is the name Chickering, along with a copyright date of 1899. The mount is thick, but the gray color on the mount is just a thin layer of gray paper that has been glued to the thicker mount. The bottom of the photo was cut pretty irregularly before being attached to the mount.

I know Chickering made a famous series of cabinet photos, but this obviously isn't one of them. Anyone know what it is? Anyone seen one before?

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

The mount is consistant in style to when Collins was a player.

Many mounts had thin front and back layers, and if you tear off a corner the middle is often a different color. If the front has an embossed texture, there's no reason to beleive it isn't an vintage mount.

I can't comment on the photographic print itself from an online image.

Chickering did a variety of Boston sports photos. He probably photographed the Harvard football team. The cabinets of his I've seen have had his name on the mount.

The photographic prints on genuine cabinet cards sometimes have crooked cuts. They usually are straight, but sometimes have a bit of a handcut-- especially oval prints.

[Archive]

Posted By: scott brockelman

the cabinet is the same photo used for the the E107 card, I would assume chickering issued this even though the mount does not have an imprint, It is from the 1899 team photo session that Chickering did.

Chickering did not do the Harvard photos, Pach Brothers did all of the Yale, Princeton, Harvard photos, yearbook and otherwise, they had a studio set up at each campus.

Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

One thing I would add is that for photographic print to be a period photographic print, it should have no dot pattern and the paper should be very thin-- much thinner than the snapshot on your refrigerator. If there's no dot pattern and the paper is very thin, you're in good shape.

The thinness of the photo paper is a reliable dater, as the early photo paper was much thinner than later.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jimmy Leiderman

A couple of decades before the Pach brothers worked with known schools, photographers like John Adams Whipple and George Kendall Warren were already competing for this photo market niche.

Pach Bros. were Gustavus, Gotthelf, Morris and Oscar.
Known works from the following colleges: Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Vassar, Columbia and West Point.

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

Thanks. The paper is very thin. But there are also dots visible in the grey (shadowy) areas of the uniform under magnification. Is that the death knell?

Also, if it helps, when I peel back the gray layer of the mount to expose the thick underlayer, it has the same embossing pattern as the grey layer.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

My advice is to quit poking and picking at the mount.

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

Agreed. But are the dots a sure sign of a problem?

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Ordinarilly, a cabinet card will have a real photo (no dots) image. But there are genuine vintage cabinet cards that have photomechanical prints instead of photos. For example, those oversized 'Horner Cabinets' of MLB players have photomechanical prints. Usually, cabinets with photomechanical prints were distributed commercially and will have popular subjects, like Buffalo Bill and Sitting Bull. A star baseball player would quality as a popular subject.

I can assure that the mount itself is from the correct period.

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

Thanks, David. Then I guess I'll tell myself this was a commercially available cabinet and therefore a genuine baseball card, not just a studio photo. I'll be happier that way.

If anyone has seen any others of any players, please let me know.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

I don't beleive those big 'Horner Cabinets' have any photographer's or advertising stamping on them. They're called Horner Cabinets simply because many of the images were originally shot by Horner.

[Archive]

Posted By: scott brockelman

I have had the opportunity to look thru what is probably the largest Carl Horner cabinet collection and almost all of the them had his imprint, on a variety of mounts. As I recall only a couple were on plain mounts.

One thing that bothers me on the collins is the rough cut of the photo all the way around. These bigtime photographers would not have put anything that rough on a mount.

Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Horner's cabinets made in his studio have his name embossed on the mount. I was referring to the large mounted images that use Horner's and BJ Falk's images.

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

I took another look at my M101-1 Collins and the photo is identical, right down to the Chickering copyright. The E107 is also the same photo, but cropped differently to avoid the copyright notice.

I agree with Scott that the rough cut is a little troubling. But, for there to be a problem, someone would need to have or make a copy of the Chickering photo and then glue it to a period mount. Certainly, that's very possible. But you'd think the forger might select Cy Young, rather than Collins, and would not have trashed the photo so bad.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

The rough cut is troubling. Though I wouldn't think the average modern forger would make such a rough cut either.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

We saw a collection of Chickering Boston player cabinets about five years ago - I don't remember the auction house that had them. I remember this because after seeing these I started taking a closer look at non-baseball Chickering cabinets that I ran across, hoping to stumble on a player out of uniform.

edited to add: David, let's get together sometime - I'm in Belltown and work out of my apartment, so I'm free almost anytime. Currently sitting in Uptown Espresso with my dog Angie.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rich klein

And Roger Neufeldt found the cabinets and got them into the market after much work.

Rich

[Archive]

Posted By: scott brockelman

I don't think this is the same size, this appears to be a standard cabinet size, which chickering did as well. The aforementioned ones that Lew sold were all Imperial cabient size. However, it now appears this image above was mounted on the cabinet within the last few weeks.

Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

My long standing opinion on buying memorabilia is the most important question
isn't whether or not the item is authentic, but whether or not you should purchase it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan Long

Scott,
Are you saying that someone has posted this picture of the period mount and that the cabinet is in one or another a fake? I'm just curious.

.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim Manos

Paul bought it from me for $100 dollars. I told him it looked goofy and he can return it at anytime. I am not a photo expert but I thought it is a home made photo on a mount. I will gladly take back. I just read this thread. I e-mailed Paul to that affect as well. I bought with a bunch of stuff cheap so I passed it on as unknown but if he get's it in his hands and doean't like I will gladly refund the $. Hope this helps.

Edited. I told Paul this at the time he purchased. Not after.

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

I just wanted the group to know that I did NOT start this thread to question in any way Jim's integrity, or even to question the authenticity of the Collins cabinet. My only goal was to find out more information about the card. Jim has been totally above board with me throughout, and is absolutely correct that he offered me my money back up front if I wasn't satisfied. I wouldn't hesitate for a second before dealing with Jim again.

Paul