Ed Delahanty Photo - what did I miss?

[h2oya311]

I was watching this item on eBay back in August, but didn't think much of it until I saw the hammer price. Yes, this photo sold for over $4,400!!

Given that the HOFer Ed Delahanty died in 1903, I find it hard to believe that this is his ghost from 1925. If it is a pre-death image of Big Ed, it is one of the most stunning pre-1905 photo images I have ever seen before.

That said...what did I miss??

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1925-Basebal...vip=true&rt=nc

[Manny Trillo]

The stamp date of 1925 was probably put on there much later than the actual photo was taken. That's typical with press photos, I don't know why it could be some inventory thing I have a photo from World War II that's vintage with the a similar-looking stamp dated 1965. Having said that the photo doesn't look that, the photo doesnt look old, almost looks like it was taken recently

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530AZ using Tapatalk

[Manny Trillo]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530AZ using Tapatalk

[Manny Trillo]

I think this answers it: http://www.cycleback.com/photoguide/stampstags.html

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530AZ using Tapatalk

[h2oya311]

Manny - I'm not too worried about the date stamp. I too have many photos w/ date stamps much later than the actual photo was taken (and printed). I guess I'm trying to figure out why it sold for over $4k.

Anything w/ Big Ed is a "Big Deal", but I just want to get other member's opinions on the hammer price, the subject (is it even Delahanty?), and its importance.

Perhaps the notation on back asking that the photo be returned to the Delahanty family is of interest... what made this photo worth over $4k?

[Manny Trillo]

Oh, ok.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530AZ using Tapatalk

[Leon]

I was the underbidder.....I think it is real and a great piece. SABR has it on their site, I believe.

[gnaz01]

Originally Posted by h2oya311

(is it even Delahanty?),

Absolutely IS Delahanty

[slidekellyslide]

It is definitely Delahanty and it is from 1898.

[Bicem]

Complete steal in my opinion. Wish I had seen it.

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by gnaz01

Absolutely IS Delahanty

Ok. Now that we have established that it IS Big Ed (which I had already surmised) is that the only reason for the Big price tag? Or is it because Leon and the winner set their snipes too high? Or was this a steal at $4,400?

I am legitimately trying to understand. Image clarity? Historical relevance?

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by Bicem

Complete steal in my opinion. Wish I had seen it.

Sorry Jeff. It wasn't a postcard! 😀

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by h2oya311

Ok. Now that we have established that it IS Big Ed (which I had already surmised) is that the only reason for the Big price tag? Or is it because Leon and the winner set their snipes too high? Or was this a steal at $4,400?

I am legitimately trying to understand. Image clarity? Historical relevance?

It was a steal. A cabinet card of Delahanty in a full body batting pose in uniform is about as good as it gets. Only thing that would have been better (other than condition) is if the studio had been identified.

Wish that I had seen it.

[Bicem]

What would an n173 of Big Ed go for these days?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Bicem

What would an n173 of Big Ed go for these days?

I would think it would go for more than a regular cabinet as it's part of a set. Everyone thinks everything is a steal until it comes back up for auction. Then, not so much....Reminds me of a Chickering I once bought.

[Bicem]

I think it would go for more as well, but curious as to what ballpark price one would bring. Would think this cabinet would at least be 60-70% of an n173.

(I'd personally rather have the more unique cabinet but that's just me)

[drcy]

Haven't seen it in person, but I don't think that photo is from the 1800s.

[Bicem]

Why David?

[D. Bergin]

It looks good to me, but I think David is noticing a lack of silvering, if it's a silver print, and a lack of proper aging or toning if it's an albumen print.

I'm sure he could speak better on it then myself however.

If it's good, I'd also consider it a bargain, especially when I see what PSA 50's cards are going for nowadays, inflated market or not.

[drcy]

I haven't seen it in person, so withhold judgment.

[slidekellyslide]

I don't know about the photograph, but the image is 100% for certain from 1898.

[prewarsports]

It looks to me like the photo is real, but I bet it was mounted later so that it could be preserved in a newspaper archive (possibly even in 1925). So I bet it is not a "cabinet" but an original photo mounted on thicker cardboard. Notice the dots at the top, seems to look like a recycled piece of newspaper art board to me. As such I think $4,400 is probably at the top of the market but still a really cool piece. I am glad I didn't see it, I would have lost by about 2 grand and then been mad!

[Leon]

See my comment above ....been there done that.

Originally Posted by prewarsports

It looks to me like the photo is real, but I bet it was mounted later so that it could be preserved in a newspaper archive (possibly even in 1925). So I bet it is not a "cabinet" but an original photo mounted on thicker cardboard. Notice the dots at the top, seems to look like a recycled piece of newspaper art board to me. As such I think $4,400 is probably at the top of the market but still a really cool piece. I am glad I didn't see it, I would have lost by about 2 grand and then been mad!

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

It looks to me like the photo is real, but I bet it was mounted later so that it could be preserved in a newspaper archive (possibly even in 1925).

If that is the case, then I agree that it went for all of the money.

It is very hard for me to tell if I do not have it in hand. The size of the mount is listed as 4-1/4" x 6-1/2" which is right on for a 19th century cabinet mount. Also, the corners looked as though they are rounded by the manufacturing process consistent to cabinet cards.

The color of the mount threw me off a little bit and the dot printing at the top and left borders is also peculiar.

[Bicem]

Was it a common practice to mount 19th century photos years later as a way to preserve them? Seems like there would be better ways to preserve.

[drcy]

Nearly all 1800s photos were mounted. Early 1900s photos could come either way.

[Bicem]

Right, but was it common to take a late 1800's unmounted photo and mount it in the 1920's as a way to preserve it?

[drcy]

No.

Offhand, I can't think of an 1800s baseball paper photo that wasn't originally mounted. There are 'skinned' and remounted photos, but those are rare.

Culver put original prints on manilla mounts years later, but those are 1900s photos.

For the record, if the Delehanty is indeed mounted (I can't tell for sure from the pic. When I first looked at it I thought that might have been the white borders), I don't see anything errant with the mount. If it's mounted I don't know why people would say that's not an 1898 mount.

[Leon]

They might say it isn't a correct mount as it has no identifier for the photographer AND those pesky dots on the front at the top.....Both of those observations leave questions to me.

Originally Posted by drcy

No.

Offhand, I can't think of an 1800s baseball paper photo that wasn't originally mounted. There are 'skinned' and remounted photos, but those are rare.

Culver put original prints on manilla mounts years later, but those are 1900s photos.

For the record, if the Delehanty is indeed mounted (I can't tell for sure from the pic. When I first looked at it I thought that might have been the white borders), I don't see anything errant with the mount. If it's mounted I don't know why people would say that's not an 1898 mount.

[kkkkandp]

I'm just going to throw this out there...maybe those "pesky dots" at the top are really supposed to be at the bottom.

Why couldn't the photo have been mounted on a cabinet cardboard from a studio that didn't shoot the subject? The person who mounted the photo simply flipped upside down the mount he had handy for some reason to purposely obscure the studio ID and several of the dots from the logo were just not covered up.

Just a thought...

[Leon]

Could have been but that would still decrease the value to me, somewhat. Any guess is a good guess on this one. For me personally, it's probably good I was the bridesmaid.

Originally Posted by kkkkandp

I'm just going to throw this out there...maybe those "pesky dots" at the top are really supposed to be at the bottom.

Why couldn't the photo have been mounted on a cabinet cardboard from a studio that didn't shoot the subject? The person who mounted the photo simply flipped upside down the mount he had handy for some reason to purposely obscure the studio ID and several of the dots from the logo were just not covered up.

Just a thought...

[the-illini]

Surprised that no one has mentioned that the back says "Return to W.J.(?) Delahanty, 3001 Payne Avenue" Family-owned at one point perhaps?

I think it is an amazing piece.

[drcy]

"Dots?" I looked for and just notice those dots. Perhaps much ado about nothing (or little). They cause me no particular concern.

I deal with non-sports photos too, and original mounted photos are found with no text on them anywhere-- other than any handwriting on back, I mean.

Original mounted photos could be made hastily (as anyone who collects T5 Pinkerton Cabinets knows) and baseball card collectors are people who tend to notice the smallest seemingly out of place detail.

[prewarsports]

For the 19th century in general, almost all were mounted because of the fragility of the photos. By 1897-98 though you can find thousands of unmounted snapshot style images that were developed and never mounted. I probably have 2000 of them here at the house (not baseball subjects) so for 1898 I think it is absolutely a possibility that this photo was developed and never mounted, of if it was it was an amateur job. Whether it was mounted in 1898 or mounted in the 1920's I don't think really matters much, what is important is that "cabinet" just means photo glued to thick paper and there are many levels of quality. To me, this is a photo taken by a family member or teammate and then mounted by Delahanty, a family member, or maybe even the newspaper later on but it is not a professional quality cabinet photograph which limits the value. I think $4400 is probably what it is worth and it is super cool, but I doubt there is much left on the bone for someone looking to flip it for a profit. The fact that it is a "cabinet" doesn't really matter when you are dealing with "amateur mounting jobs"

[the-illini]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

For the 19th century in general, almost all were mounted because of the fragility of the photos. By 1897-98 though you can find thousands of unmounted snapshot style images that were developed and never mounted. I probably have 2000 of them here at the house (not baseball subjects) so for 1898 I think it is absolutely a possibility that this photo was developed and never mounted, of if it was it was an amateur job. Whether it was mounted in 1898 or mounted in the 1920's I don't think really matters much, what is important is that "cabinet" just means photo glued to thick paper and there are many levels of quality. To me, this is a photo taken by a family member or teammate and then mounted by Delahanty, a family member, or maybe even the newspaper later on but it is not a professional quality cabinet photograph which limits the value. I think $4400 is probably what it is worth and it is super cool, but I doubt there is much left on the bone for someone looking to flip it for a profit. The fact that it is a "cabinet" doesn't really matter when you are dealing with "amateur mounting jobs"

Doubt it is a family photo - here is a copy of a photo of Ed Abbiticchio standing in pretty much the same spot.

[the-illini]

And here is Elmer Flick standing in the same spot - note the piece of paper/trash behind and to the left of Flick's left foot - looks to be the same piece as the one in the Delahanty image.

[slidekellyslide]

This is a professionally taken photograph by someone who did this for the whole team in 1898. Maybe the cabinet was mounted to something else at some time and given to players. Looking at the damage on the reverse it does look like it could have been mounted and removed.