Baseball "dag"??? Worth a look.

[Archive]

Posted By: ramram

Worth a look for discussion purposes. Very unlikely that it's baseball. As with any early image, it either has to have absolute proof in the image (a baseball or a bat) or have solid provenance. No rock solid baseball dags have come to light yet. Even the Cartwright dag is arguable as to whether the image contains other Knickerbocker players along with Cartwright. The Piersall image is questionable as well. No baseball equipment in the image. The "uniforms" could just be fireman, or similar, parade uniforms. We just don't have solid proof.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=6151436872&fromMakeTrack=true

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

All one has to do to is to ask the seller (or winning bidder) why he came to the conclusion that this is for certain a baseball player and not a valet or a doorman or maitre de or actor or circus juggler or theatre actor or traditional dancer or bell hop (etc).

[Archive]

Posted By: pete

yea those are all questionable...nice...but questionable!

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

The practical rule for those who wish to collect early baseball photos is that there's a baseball, bat, glove and/or similar equipment in the image it's a baseball photo. If there isn't a baseball, bat, glove an/or similar equipment don't always be so sure. Not every 1800s guy with a fancy shirt and striped knee high socks just stepped off the baseball diamond. He may have just finished reading Shakespeare sonnets to the Cambridge Ladies Club.

A sage collector's question to the this seller would be, "I don't see a ball or bat in the image. How can you tell that this is a baseball player?" ... And, to cut to the chase, I will tell you that he can't tell that this is a baseball player-- and he wouldn't be calling it a baseball player if baseball player Dags sold for 5 cents.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason

I considered this same dag when it came up on e-bay about 3 months ago - I think it sold for about $500. The original seller marketed it as a fireman dag and after consideration, I had to agree and did not go any further with my bidding. I have seen countless fireman dags over the years and this one looks like alll the rest apart from the absence of a helmet. To be a certain BBall dag, you need to have either a ball, bat etc. or be an known identifiable ball player like Adams or Cartwright. Still a nice image though!

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Rob,
I'm with you all the way. I just emailed the seller and told him that too many uniforms (fireman, policeman, sailor) look like baseball and without bat and ball it's a very long stretch. I agree the Pearsall is unconfirmed though intriguing, but I'm one who believes that the half plate dag does picture six Knickerbockers. Both Cartwright and Duncan Curry are confirmed, Adams is postulated as a third, and since all six are wearing straw hats (which were worn by the Knicks) there is enough circumstantial evidence to suggest it is correctly attributed. There will of course be some doubt since at least three who posed are unidentified and may never be.

[Archive]

Posted By: ramram

Barry - I didn't know that any Knickerbocker outside of Cartwright had been positively ID'd in his image. That certainly would make the arguement strong. I'm suspecting the Cartwright image came from his estate. Is that true? That would certainly solidify the provenance.

Rob M.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Yes- Alexander's great grandson William died in 1989. His wife, Anne, put all the remaining Cartwright photos and documents up for sale the following year (selling them much too cheaply, of course). Duncan Curry is positively in the photo (seated, lower left); I also spoke to the owner this morning and he said that someone in SABR believes Wheaton is one of the six men in the photo, but we don't know at this point how he came to that conclusion. I know there are many images in the hobby that have been misidentified and have come under public criticism, but I think this dag will prove to be the real thing. I know the owner is my friend, so I may be a bit biased, but I truly believe it is a photo of which most or all those pictured are members of the team.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike P.

Hi Mike,

Thanks for your interest in my eBay auction # 6151436872 - circa 1855 BASEBALL PLAYER Daguerreotype Photo.

I've been dealing in 19th century photography since 1970 and my particular passion is baseball-related images. I have sold to many dealers, collectors, and museums throughout the U.S. and in other countries. As my eBay description stated: There are only three known baseball-related daguerreotypes. The other two images are I.D.ed players but neither display a ball or bat. One reason for this is that to have a daguerrotype taken in the early years of photography was an expensive and serious matter. The exposure time (the time the poser must sit perfectly still to prevent blurring of the finished image) could take up to five minutes, so most photographers preferred that their patrons not hold anything that could possibly cause them to move, and in doing so ruin finished product.

Many of the 19th century baseball players have remained unidentifed through the years and to this date many are still nameless. It was not the practice in the 19th century to make annotations on the back of a photo as to who the person was. So you see not having a ball or bat in hand, or not being I.d.ed is not really criteria for determining if an image is baseball related. As I stated earlier, I've been selling 19th century photographs full time since 1970 and have seen MANY different style baseball uniforms on players from the 1850's and 1860's. I have a huge reference library to draw on for study and the uniform worn in the daguerreotype I offer on eBay has many of the nuances which match other images of early baseball uniforms. The type of fabric, style, fit, trimming used, color, etc. all ring true. In my professional opinion, there is no doubt that this is baseball player. However in a subject so rare that even the Baseball Hall-Of-Fame has no examples in their vast collection, it is impossible to state with absolute and unequivocal certainty that it is a baseball uniform. I can also add that it is NOT a fireman or policeman of the day..................they did wear similar type uniforms but ALL had numbers or other identifying lettering on the chest area. I have a spotless reputation in the antique photography community and would not publicly deem this a baseball player if I had any doubts.

I hope my insight and the information I provided helps you make an informed decision. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks again for your inquiry.

Best Wishes,
Dan

[Archive]

Posted By: ramram

I guess if you puff up your chest enough and pat yourself on the back a few times then you can turn water into wine.

I've seen this guy's material and he does know his stuff about early images and, I thought, baseball. However, he is stretching on this one. Without the provenance or the equipment you've got nothing. Could be a ball player or he could be a lot of other things as well.

Put it this way...Barry Sloate could be a millionaire many times over if he threw his reputation around like this guy does...put an image out there and say it's a baseball player "because I know a lot and I say it is" and let everybody throw all kinds of money at you. Only problem is...his reputation would be gone soon.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Can anyone say DiMaggio Streak bat? Although I'll have a much better idea just accurate they really were with bat in a few weeks.

Jay

Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming --- WOW, What a ride!

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Dan and I actually had a very cordial and professional series of email exchanges yesterday and while I respect that he is a long time and experienced dealer on early photography, I guess we will just disagree on this one. I explained to him that a genuine baseball dag would sell for five figures in a heartbeat- and I would be in at that level and wouldn't win it- so it will be interesting to see the level of confidence that the bidding audience has in his image.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason

Found these in my photo archives. It just goes to show that you do not need to have a number on the uniform to be a fireman.

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

check out the 2 other (known?)baseball dag's in his auction discription. the PEARSALL & HOLDER photo looks as if mr.pearsall is a "friendly guy".

[Archive]

Posted By: ramram

Actually, tons of images from this period show men with their arms affectionately around another man. Back then nobody thought much of it and it certainly didn't mean they were gay. What is really laughable is to look through all the ebay auctions at how many sellers label their image auction as "gay interest". Seems as if a man merely touches another man and the sellers try to use this as a means to make a few extra $ by selling to the gay community.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob L

It's done. Went for $ 1,651.00.