Misidentified "1880 Boston NL" team photo in Mile High Card Co. auction

[RUKen]

The image below is a photo that is available in the current auction being run by Mile High Card Company: http://www.milehighcardco.com/Except...-LOT35220.aspx

EDITED TO ADD: Thanks in part to the detective work done by the contributors to this thread, this photo has been withdrawn from the auction. Read on...

It is described as "Exceptional Photograph That By All Appearances Features The 1880 Boston Red Caps (Beaneaters)", and includes IDs for some of the players. The photo bears the Chickering stamp, and appears to have "1880" written on the edge of the matte.

Do the identification experts on this board agree that this is the Boston baseball team of the National League and that the photo can be dated to 1880, or is this just an unidentifiable Boston-area team from sometime during the active years of the Chickering studio? If it is the NL Boston team, can more players be identified?

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by RUKen

The image below is a photo that is available in the current auction being run by Mile High Card Company: http://www.milehighcardco.com/Except...-LOT35220.aspx

It is described as "Exceptional Photograph That By All Appearances Features The 1880 Boston Red Caps (Beaneaters)", and includes IDs for some of the players. The photo bears the Chickering stamp, and appears to have "1880" written on the edge of the matte.

Do the identification experts on this board agree that this is the Boston baseball team of the National League and that the photo can be dated to 1880, or is this just an unidentifiable Boston-area team from sometime during the active years of the Chickering studio? If it is the NL Boston team, can more players be identified?

I don't believe that is the NL Boston team...David Cycleback has that exact photo on his website and he identifies it as a Boston minor league club.


http://www.cycleback.com/1800s/laterphotos.htm

[GaryPassamonte]

I do not see Jim O'Rourke in this photograph.

[drcy]

I posted that photo and description on my website perhaps 15 years ago and minor league team is how the photo was described in the catalog by an auction house those years ago. I don't have a current opinion on the team identity, but that is how an auction house originally described it. Their description is what I used at the time.

[RUKen]

Thanks for your responses. I've found a couple of online sources that state that Elmer Chickering opened his Boston studio in 1884. If that is correct, then the "1880" date on this photo was probably added by someone at a later date, who was just guessing. Let the buyer beware!

If anyone else can contribute information such as a positive ID for the team or any of the players, it will be much appreciated.

[drcy]

Actually, I do think it's probably later than 1880. Black mounts usually came later. But there's no set rule, and there were black mounts in the 1880s.

[bmarlowe1]

" It should be noted that the bib style jersey worn in the offered collectible as well as the style of "B" employed on the bib is consistent with the uniforms that the Beaneaters wore from the mid 1890's through the early part of the century...."

Well, that appears to be an "R" on the uniform, not a "B", and where is Harry Wright?

They were a number of well-known faces on that team, and not one can be verified as present in that photo. When that happens, you know it isn't what they are saying it is. $4000 min bid! - Ludicrous really.

[spec]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

" It should be noted that the bib style jersey worn in the offered collectible as well as the style of "B" employed on the bib is consistent with the uniforms that the Beaneaters wore from the mid 1890's through the early part of the century...."

Well, that appears to be an "R" on the uniform, not a "B", and where is Harry Wright?

They were a number of well-known faces on that team, and not one can be verified as present in that photo. When that happens, you know it isn't what they are saying it is. $4000 min bid! - Ludicrous really.

Earlier today I emailed Mile High with the proper identification of this photo. It depicts the 1884 Beacon club of Boston, a purely amateur organization that forbade professional players. This image appears on Page 51 of the March 23, 1913, Boston Globe in a retrospective on the Beacons, who produced countless doctors and lawyers but no major leaguers. However, Hall of Famer George Wright was given reinstatement as an amateur (perhaps through his golfing connections) and actually played once or twice for the Beacons, but does not appear in this picture.
Bob Richardson

[bigfanNY]

Great work Bob Thank You.

Jonathan

[orator1]

From the March 23rd 1913 Boston Globe article that Bob referred to.
The photo caption reads: BEACONS BASEBALL CLUB OF 1884

[bmarlowe1]

So it must be a "B". I guess I have to improve on my Olde English script interpretation.

[scooter729]

Wow, the detective work this board shows is amazing!

Wonder how long until the lot is pulled or modified.....

[gnaz01]

Originally Posted by scooter729

Wonder how long until the lot is pulled or modified.....

Hasn't been pulled yet

[drcy]

They don't have to pull it, but modify the description. No one's bid yet. Though the min bid is a lot. Whatever the team, it is a a quality photo due to the unusually large size for the period.

I'll have to modify my web page some time too

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by gnaz01

Hasn't been pulled yet

I just contacted them will a link to this thread...I'm sure it will be down soon, or completely modified.

[RUKen]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

I just contacted them will a link to this thread...I'm sure it will be down soon, or completely modified.

It has been withdrawn.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by RUKen

It has been withdrawn.

Good detective work in this thread...this board does it better than any other forum out there.

[bcbgcbrcb]

The original write-up showed that Mile High had their doubts if you read the title and description closely as I did. Surprised that a major auction house would move forward in a situation like that. REA, for one, would never even entertain the possibility of listing something that they were not 100% sure of. However, I have seen many others do so, even refusing to take down the item when it has been proven to be falsely described or a fake.

[drcy]

Duly note it was and is still a legitimate 1800s baseball photo of value. It's not as if it was a forged autograph, counterfeit or 1980s reprint. It was a legitimate vintage item that was misidentified.