another Astoria Giants Postcard

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

Thanks to a tip by Dan K - I picked up the 1999 book "Baseball Postcard Collection" by Ron Menchine.

In the book Ron Menchine spotlights the 1903 Giants Astoria Postcard by Falk -
calling it the earliest known postcard to show a major league team.

I didn't notice it right away -
but the book shows a postcard different than mine.

Apparently there is a 1905 version of the Astoria Postcard (even though the book calls it the 1903 Version).

Some of the differences you will notice....
--The banner on top was changed to 1905 (mine says 1903)
--an extra player was put in the top row middle (Davis, S.S.)
--an extra "Photo by Falk" was placed on the right bottom of the photo
--"Published by D Silberer" was put in by the name captions.
--The names in the caption are much clearer in the 1905 version (different type and color)
--The photo in the 1905 version is cropped right by the feet (with a hard line) and the caption names are just on the paper stock (whereas the names on the 1903 version are actually in the image area of the photo).


Here they are side by side....

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Looks like the postcards book needs to be updated. Yours is much nicer IMO. That guy they added in the 1905 version just looks "odd" to me.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Masson

notorious contract jumper around that time. Played briefly for the Giants before taking the year off while the various teams he was under contract with fought it out. He returned in 1904 to Chicago in the peace settlement between the American and National Leagues.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Odd that he would be added to this photo for a "1905" team photo since he hadn't played with them since 1903.

[Archive]

Posted By: J Levine

The version with the extra player looks like a reprint and a poor one at best. The odd player stuck in, the odd choice, the cropping difference, the typed names, the other copyright....just fishy to me.

Joshua

[Archive]

Posted By: arcade

What a cool mystery to get to unravel here.

My only comment here is that the published postcard dated 1905 has a crisper image with far more details.
That's partly why the added player sticks out so bad. My guess is there's some other elements touched up as well, since we get all the details on the ferns, but barely any trace of fixtures in the hallways above them, which are noticeable on the 1903 version here. Maybe it was just touched up for the book, or wasn't taken from a postcard at all.

I wonder if the 1903 has aged, or if it's just a more contrasty printing.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Joe- yours is the original photo and the second one is a reshoot. The photographer placed the extra player on the top row and then reshot the image. He didn't even do a good job of it as Davis looks like a cardboard cut out just pasted to the background. Plus yours is a real photo and the reshoot is a printed one. Yours is better by a wide margin.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

I scanned the 1905 Astoria card out of the Postcard book that I mentioned (I don't have the actual postcard).

It may actually be nicer in person / but my scan is from a printed book which itself should be considered a 'reprint'.

I don't particularly like that they cut the photo by the feet... but they had to add a player's name / and wanted to add a credit for the publisher -- so its much easier to reset the whole block of type rather than trying to match the old type.


I have to say the extra player in the middle kind of looks aweful - very fake looking (pasted in).

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason L

that the "added" player looks frighteningly familiar....can't believe no one else caught it...but I would venture to say that it's one of guys from Guinness commercials ..."Brilliant!!"

honestly, though...very interesting differences between these two PCs...thanks for sharing

Jason L

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

I'd hoped it was a serious study of postcards but it turned out to be nothing more than short bios of the card subjects with often incorrect information about the postcards. Not worth the purchase price IMHO.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve M.

I do not think it to be a reshoot. It is a cut and paste job, plain and simple. I do however agree with you that Joe's is a far superior example of the image.