Since this is a cabinet, I'll ask for some help on this board...

[thekingofclout]

I recently acquired this Mordecai Brown Charles Conlon Cabinet. The uniform is a one year only issue (1910). As the scans show, an absolute period Conlon stamp on the verso.

My question is... has anyone ever seen a Conlon Cabinet before? I'm hoping you guys can shed some light on it for me.

Thank you and my best regards, Jimmy

threefingerBROWNbyCONLON.jpg

threefingerBROWNbyCONLONverso.jpg

threefingerBROWNbyCONLONSTAMP.jpg

[Matt]

Jimmy - that is a phenomenal piece!

[thekingofclout]

Thanks Matt. Just about flawless condition, especially considering it's a hundred years old! I'm pretty stoked.

[drc]

I recall seeing a Conlon cabinet of Joe Jackson several years back, but that's it cabinet wise.

[D. Bergin]

Looks like a mounted photo. Not a cabinet card.

[aaroncc]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Looks like a mounted photo. Not a cabinet card.

I agree looks like a mounted photo.

[ethicsprof]

gorgeous piece, Jimmy-- congrats.
i've never seen a Conlon cabinet.
i own 4 conlon's myself: paskert, moeller,mowrey, l. tannehill and am now captured by the monsterian Conlon.

best,
barry

[E93]

Awesome piece!!!
JimB

[uffda51]

A great item, especially for Brown collectors.

very nice piece.

[3-2-count]

Jimmy, all I can say is -

[Kawika]

Awesome pickup, Jimmy!

[thekingofclout]

Now, can some one please tell me, what is the difference between a mounted photo and a cabinet?

Thanks to everyone for all for your comments. Especially Mr. Mac for creating the bookend for my Gehrig piece!

My best, Jimmy

[Marckus99]

Jim,

Very nice piece....

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Looks like a mounted photo. Not a cabinet card.

Originally Posted by aaroncc

I agree looks like a mounted photo.

I'm confused guys. What is the difference between the two?

In the book "A Portrait of Baseball Photography" on page 334 in the Glossary, under "Cabinet Card" it states:

"A print photo affixed to a thick paper backing, or "mount," with dimensions typically ranging from 5" x 7" to 8" x 10", but possibly even exceeding 11" x 14" in order to fulfill the intent of being prominently displayed in a "cabinet" - hence the name."

Once again, is there any difference and if so, why would my Brown photo not be considered a cabinet?

Thanks in advance.

Sincerely, Jimmy

[ramram]

Really there's not much difference, more so it has to do with the time period. "Cabinet cards" were predominant from the late 1860's to the 1890's. Later photos, such as this, are typically considered "mounted photos". Cabinet cards were often displayed "as is". Mounted photos were made so that they could be placed in a frame if desired.

Rob M.

[JeremyW]

Didn't rman444 post a photo of Joe Tinker that had a similar mount somewhat recently? I wonder if it might be part of a Cubs set or something?? If I remember right, his photo corresponded with the Tinker T206 (hands at knees) pose. If you search here under "Tinker cabinet" it comes up on a Goodwin pick-up thread. Sorry, I don't know how to link it.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by thekingofclout

I'm confused guys. What is the difference between the two?

In the book "A Portrait of Baseball Photography" on page 334 in the Glossary, under "Cabinet Card" it states:

"A print photo affixed to a thick paper backing, or "mount," with dimensions typically ranging from 5" x 7" to 8" x 10", but possibly even exceeding 11" x 14" in order to fulfill the intent of being prominently displayed in a "cabinet" - hence the name."

Once again, is there any difference and if so, why would my Brown photo not be considered a cabinet?

Thanks in advance.

Sincerely, Jimmy

It looks like another one of those things that the definition has really been loosened up recently to qualify as a "card".

A Cabinet mount is generally around the 4 1/2" x 6 1/2" size.

I guess it would technically qualify as an Imperial Cabinet.

Still it looks like one of those pieces in which a photograph was attached to a generic "Mount" in order to preserve the photograph.

You could have done that with any photo of the era.

The stamp on the back seems to indicate it was part of Conlon's files. I'd be hard pressed to call it a "Charles Conlon" Cabinet card unless there was a Conlon imprint or raised seal distinctive to the mount itself. Looks more like an ownership stamp, even if it was Conlon himself who took the photo.

Just my two cents and I could very well be wrong.

Still a great piece though, regardless. I didn't mean to downgrade or be dismissive of the item. It's still a wonderful vintage photograph either way.

If it were up to me, it wouldn't make a difference value-wise. I think it's ridiculous sometimes that something is deemed more valuable then something else, just because someone decided whether or not it was technically a "card" or not.

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

It looks like another one of those things that the definition has really been loosened up recently to qualify as a "card".

A Cabinet mount is generally around the 4 1/2" x 6 1/2" size.

I guess it would technically qualify as an Imperial Cabinet.

Still it looks like one of those pieces in which a photograph was attached to a generic "Mount" in order to preserve the photograph.

You could have done that with any photo of the era.

The stamp on the back seems to indicate it was part of Conlon's files. I'd be hard pressed to call it a "Charles Conlon" Cabinet card unless there was a Conlon imprint or raised seal distinctive to the mount itself. Looks more like an ownership stamp, even if it was Conlon himself who took the photo.

Just my two cents and I could very well be wrong.

Still a great piece though, regardless. I didn't mean to downgrade or be dismissive of the item. It's still a wonderful vintage photograph either way.

If it were up to me, it wouldn't make a difference value-wise. I think it's ridiculous sometimes that something is deemed more valuable then something else, just because someone decided whether or not it was technically a "card" or not.

Thanks so much for clarifying that for me Dave. Being a photo collector, I wish I would have found it in its original state.

There is no question that Conlon was behind the camera for this shot.

The only cabinet I've owned was Sherry Magee t206 by Horner which was about the same size. The Brown image is 4 x 6 which was a very common size for Conlon at that stage in is career.

So I was thinking... how could the Magee be a cabinet and not the Brown?

That's why I brought it to this side cause I knew you guys could clear it up for me.

Thanks again, Dave.

My best, Jimmy

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by thekingofclout

Thanks so much for clarifying that for me Dave. Being a photo collector, I wish I would have found it in its original state.

There is no question that Conlon was behind the camera for this shot.

The only cabinet I've owned was Sherry Magee t206 by Horner which was about the same size. The Brown image is 4 x 6 which was a very common size for Conlon at that stage in is career.

So I was thinking... how could the Magee be a cabinet and not the Brown?

That's why I brought it to this side cause I knew you guys could clear it up for me.

Thanks again, Dave.

My best, Jimmy

Yeah, I would guess Conlon himself probably placed it on the mount for preservation purposes since much of the photo stock from that time period was so thin.

Percy Dana did the same with many of his Boxing photos, though they can be found in both mounted and unmounted format.

[Matt]

Jimmy - if you ever want to part with it...