Mile High Auctions

[bcbgcbrcb]

The latest auction preview is now up, looks like some really nice stuff in there. How does everyone feel about the ID's and photo date of the below lot:

http://www.milehighcardco.com/LotDet...st-Known-Image)

[gnaz01]

Phil,

Don't know the answer to your questions, but there is some quality stuff in Brian's auction!! Can't wait to bid!!

[slidekellyslide]

Not sure how they could say "Without question this is the earliest known image of Cap Anson in a baseball setting.". Why not show a close up scan of who they believe to be Anson?

I'm almost certain I've seen this photo before, but not sure where.

[barrysloate]

First off, the description states that it is without a doubt the earliest known image of Anson. Well I will doubt it. Even if Anson is pictured here, which I don't believe is true, there is a well documented photograph of him with the Marshalltown team taken around 1867 or 1868. And Anson would not have attended college until about 1870. I think there are at least two glaring problems with the text. I would be okay with this if it were in fact the second known photo of Anson, as that would still be significant. But I don't see anyone in this photo who I feel confident is him.

[barrysloate]

Dan- a few years back Leland's had some early Notre Dame photos. Is that where you saw it?

[oldjudge]

Also, to bring up a point I brought up before, I don't believe the Yum Yum in lot #1 should be considered an Anson card. On Old Judges the identity of the photographed player determines whose card it is. This was the convention adapted by the British Cartophilic Society. I believe the reason for this is the way the card was produced. The names were added in the production process after the photograph to identify the player pictured. I believe that Yum Yums were made the same way. Thus, for consistency, in my mind this is a Dalrymple card that has been misidentified as Anson. Still a great card, just not an Anson card.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Also, to bring up a point I brought up before, I don't believe the Yum Yum in lot #1 should be considered an Anson card. On Old Judges the identity of the photographed player determines whose card it is. This was the convention adapted by the British Cartophilic Society. I believe the reason for this is the way the card was produced. The names were added in the production process after the photograph to identify the player pictured. I believe that Yum Yums were made the same way. Thus, for consistency, in my mind this is a Dalrymple card that has been misidentified as Anson. Still a great card, just not an Anson card.

Do you think this was an intentional wink at the Yum Yum card?

another Anson with Ned

[Runscott]

You guys really have a short attention span.

The auction was pulled. I think the cabinet is legitimate, for more reasons than what I posted previously. Perhaps this topic is too esoteric to warrant more than a day of discussion, but I think if the photo can be proven to be Anson, it's kind of an important bit of baseball history.

Barry, I would have called you, as I'm sure you would be interested to hear what I have to say, but could not locate your number.

Edited to add: I'll post my thoughts in my website blog over the weekend.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Dan- a few years back Leland's had some early Notre Dame photos. Is that where you saw it?

I just don't recall Barry, but I'm almost certain I've seen the image before.

[oldjudge]

His grandfather's name was Frank Crap? I wonder if that is a clue about this piece.

[benchod]

More auction hyperbole
I love how lot #1, yum yum Anson, has a 1000 word write up about how fantastic a card it is without mentioning the obvious; It's not even Anson's photo. Most have been an oversight


whoops, Jay beat me to it!

[barrysloate]

Jay- isn't it Ned Williamson on the N403?

And shame on SGC for labeling that Anson. They should know better than that.

[oldjudge]

Barry-You're right. Sorry. Dalrymple is the body on the Anson in Uniform.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Looks like our suspicions have been confirmed on Lot # 985, zero bids thus far with a starting price of $1,500. Wouldn't you think that an original photo containing the first baseball image of Anson likely already be at $10K - $20K (i.e.-Marshalltown photo)?

[benjulmag]

"All that being said, the presented piece is without question the earliest known image of "Cap" Anson in a baseball setting, and is absolutely deserving of a place in the collection of even the most discriminating memorabilia enthusiast." (emphais added)


Those are the words from the Mile High catalog description. WOW!!

Hard to know where to begin on this one. For starters, how to we know it is even the Notre Dame baseball team? From an inscription added 80 years later?!

Second, even if it is that team, how does one date it to the specific period Anson was on the team?

Third, resemblance alone, in the absence of detailed photo facial comparison (most of which end up being inconclusive even if through external means there is known to be a match), is insufficient to make a positive ID.

Fourth, there's no provenance.

Fifth, doesn't the description say that Anson played at Notre Dame after playing at Marshalltown? So since there is a known image of him with Marshalltown, even if this was Anson with Notre Dame, how could it be his earliest?

And with all this it's described as being the earliest known image of Anson without question?!

[Runscott]

When I saw the post about this photo, I got kind of excited - I've been looking for early team photos with Anson, in an attempt to locate another player who I have photos of, due to ties he had with Anson as a player. I immediately looked for this other person in the 'Anson' Notre Dame photo, and here's what who I found, standing right next to 'Anson'.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it's a pretty damned big coincidence:

[oldjudge]

Mile High, in my opinion, has done a poor job with this lot. They have taken a questionable piece (and I think I am being kind) and tried to finesse the description. Both this lot and the Williamson Yum Yum are lots that can mislead the uninformed collector.

[bmarlowe1]

I was hoping they would provide a better scan. Given what we have I can only make one point.

In most of his photos Anson appears to have very light hair (his eyebrows are often hard to see). In other photos it may appear somewhat darker, but it is still on the light side. Darkness or lightness of hair in these photos can sometimes be difficult to judge, but for the guy in the Mile High photo the hair appears too dark.

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by benchod

More auction hyperbole
I love how lot #1, yum yum Anson, has a 1000 word write up about how fantastic a card it is without mentioning the obvious; It's not even Anson's photo. Most have been an oversight


whoops, Jay beat me to it!

They do the same thing with the E90-1 (Cleveland) and E98 Cy Young cards (lots 48 & 89). They even specifically say that the E98 is "Denton True 'Cy' Young".

What I would really like is for the grading companies to identify these as incorrect photos. It seems it would be simple to indicate on the flip that the cards actually picture Irv Young. The same thing should be done with the T3 Frank Baker (Jack Barry photo) and the N403 Anson (Williamson photo), as well as any other card that is known/verified to be an incorrect photo. I believe PSA does it with the 1987 Donruss Barry Bonds that actually pictures Johnny Ray, so why can't they do it with other cards?

Steve

[barrysloate]

That N403 is a fantastic card. It's a rare Yum Yum, it pictures an important 19th century player- it's terrific. The only thing it's not is Anson. Why can't one person who is selling it say that? Then the buyer can determine how significant it is to him. It will still sell for a ton of money.

Of course the thread has digressed from Phil's original point- is Anson in the Notre Dame photo? I don't understand why PSA is deemed the place to go to make that determination. This board alone has many advanced 19th century collectors who could be asked to look at the image and make a determination. So what can PSA do- decide if it's a type 1 or type 2, which in this case is absolutely irrelevant? Sometimes I just don't get this hobby.

[bmarlowe1]

I guess it would have been funny if they used the Yum-Yum as the comparison image for Anson.

[Bicem]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

I guess it would have been funny if they used the Yum-Yum as the comparison image for Anson.