Let the record show, I was first to bid on this Photo

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

I had no idea an item like this would go for such a high price. I placed the first bid, really just to keep it on the myEbay screen.

Since I am just now getting into vintage photography - any comments on this auction - would be cool.

Is the price one of those eBay enigmas? Or is it in line? Looked like a great photo, but in terrible condition.


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=260006369969&ssPageName=STRK:MEDW:IT&ih=016

[Archive]

Posted By: peter ullman

wow...wow. This is out of my realm of expertise...but...wow...such a price for a seemingly rare and unusual but poor conditioned photo! I'm sure others will shed some light on this one!

pete in mn

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

While I planned to put a fairly substantial bid on it, in the last few minutes it just got too expensive for something in that terrible condition. But let me tell you something about it: besides all the HOFers, as well as Jewish player Lipman Pike, I can say with 90% certainty that it was Harry Wright's personal photo, and was signed by him in the lower margin. I have seen another photo from his estate and he always labelled the players, and I am familiar with his handwriting. When he identified himself, he created an autographed photo. However, even with conservation it will never look good- it was badly faded, torn, and stained; it could be improved a little but in the end just too many problems for me.

[Archive]

Posted By: ramram

As Barry noted, the content is outstanding. This is an exremely rare shot from the infancy of professional ball. You start finding more images of this sort in the 1880's and later but rarely from the 1870's and earlier. It is quite possiby a unique image as well as I have not seen another like it. I figured that it likely was originally owned by one of those in the photo but hadn't put the connection with Harry Wright. However, I think Barry is right when looking at the writing. As with most everybody else, I just couldn't get past the condition issue.

This seller had another image of great rarity as well:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=016&item=260006366731&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&rd=1

Although it gave the appearance of a Harper's Weekly image, it was not. It's an exremely rare, and large, image of one of the great early teams. The photographic style is similar to that used in the 1888 Joseph Hall Boston team cabinet. The only other one that I have seen like this is in the NY Public Library Spalding Collection.

Rob M.

[Archive]

Posted By: joe brennan

I saw both those pieces early in the auction and knew that they were going to go for more than I could afford. Some great early pieces though.

A scared man can't gamble and a jealous man can't work.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I agree with Rob that the 1867 photo of the Unions of Morrisania was even more interesting, and my friend and I were the underbidders. It was $100 with half a minute to go and we bid $1777 and still lost. Pretty frustrating. It is not the exact duplicate to the Harper's woodcut but is so close it could be from the same photo shoot. I'm not sure if the offered photo was first generation; it looked touched up and then reshot. Perhaps it was rejected by Harper's in lieu of an alternate image. Nonetheless, that's the first Morrisania photograph I have ever seen. That dealer came up with two amazing rarities but they were not well cared for over the years.

[Archive]

Posted By: ramram

From what I have seen of civil war albumen images, I believe the Unions of Morrisania image was a photo of a touched up photo. I have seen several civil war albumens where the photographer would take a photo and then give it to an artist. The artist would then paint over the photo. Sometimes they would leave the face alone, or maybe just add some color to the cheeks, or sometimes they would paint the face as well. If the artist was good, it would become a beautiful color photo. Subsequent albumen photos would then sometimes be taken of this color image. Obviously, the resultant photo would then be just black and white, but it this photo would then look somewhat lost between a real photo and a painting/engraving. Not sure why they would do this as opposed to using the original but I have a theory. For those familiar with the 1888 Joseph Hall team photo of Boston, you can see a similarity with the Morrisania image. In this case (the Boston image) it is because the image is actually a photo of the Brooklyn team. If you look, the bodies are those of the Brooklyn players and the heads of the Boston players have been added (if I get some time I'll add them to this thread). An artist then painted over the Brooklyn uniforms and put "Boston" on the jersey fronts. This likely is one of two reasons for how the Morrisania image came to be. 1) The bodies may have been from another team and their headshots were added. Some artistic work then was added. Again, I'm not quite sure why an original image just wasn't taken but the team was probably not available so they used old headshots from other photos. Or 2) As Barry mentioned, it may have been for a publication. The Morrisania image is just slightly different from that which is used in the Harper's Weekly. An artist may have added his touch to the original image and then a photo was taken of his work.

Rob M.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Rob- I always knew that the Boston Joseph Hall had that odd look with the heads of the players free-floating, but never made the connection to the Brooklyn Joseph Hall. It is similar to the rare N172 Anson in uniform, which is Anson's head superimposed onto Ned Williamson's body. I believe the reason photos were touched up and reshot is that sometimes the original had areas of lightness, and by the time it was developed the players had already dispersed. If the photo was to be used for publication, it might not show up well. By darkening the light areas and then reshooting, it becomes more useable. The 1875 Hartford CdV was originally shot with the studio background visible but the players in the back row were blurry. It was reshot with the background taken out and the players in the back row retouched and looking much sharper. I also agree it was done to the 1867 Morrisania image and was just a recurrent problem in early photography.

[Archive]

Posted By: ramram

Below are the Joseph Hall cabinets that I spoke of. As you can see, the Boston image is actually of the Brooklyn team with the Boston player's heads superimposed onto the Brooklyn players.

Rob M.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

I noticed that auction as well, but didn't find it nearly as appealing an item. Is that a photo? Because it doesn't look like one. Looks more like a drawing, or some sort of conversion of a photo.

I am a rookie at this... so maybe I am way off base -

but I had no interest in that image and didn't consider it a vintage photo at all.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I would assume that the studio just wasn't able to set up an appointment to photograph the Boston team. What an odd way to do it. A few notes: 1) Brooklyn is misspelled on the cabinet mount; 2) some of the Joseph Halls give a studio address of 50 Fulton Street, which is a few blocks from where I live. Today Fulton Street is a pedestrian mall, not especially appealing. I remember walking down there years ago looking for #50 as if I might find a leftover carton of cabinet photos lying around, but I think I was a little late for that.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Joe- it was in fact a vintage photo, but touched up and reshot to add clarity. Read some of the posts above for more information. And while you may not have heard of the team, it was a very significant find.

[Archive]

Posted By: ramram

Here is the NY Public Library, Spalding Collection, version of the Morrisania image:

http://images.nypl.org/?id=56521&t=w

Rob M.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom Boblitt

Joseph Hall Cabinets.......

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

I guess my reason for questioning the item is one of print production.

When I think of a photo, I think continuous tone image.

The image looked more like lithography than photography to me.

But, not being too familiar with vintage photographs / the process of creating them / and the process of creating images to be used in a publication at the time.... of course makes me concede that I just don't know!


Any way... from a personal preference perspective... I would much rather a photo look like a photo!

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Rob- I've probably seen the Spalding Collection a dozen times, but don't recall ever seeing that one. That's a first generation image for sure.

[Archive]

Posted By: ramram

You know, one of the odd questions I had about the Morrisania image that was up for auction was that the player names and the Morrisania title were both on thin paper and glued to the image. Typically, that kind of printing was done on the cardboard backing and would be expected to be thick cardboard. However, looking at the NY Public Library version it appears that the cardboard mount is not cardboard at all. Oddly, it looks more to me like the albumen image is attached to paper. That is probably why the glued on title and player names look so thin on the ebay auction image.

Rob M.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Those labels struck me a little odd too and I think they were just added after the fact. I don't know why they were attached right on the image, but if you noticed some of the top and bottom was trimmed away, and we don't know what is missing.

[Archive]

Posted By: ramram

In hindsite, I think they were just clipped from the original, very thin, mount (notice in the NY Public Library image the wear and apparent "thinness" of the mount) and attached directly to the image in order to be able to frame it.

[Archive]

Posted By: ramram

Hey Tom B.-

Would you be interested in trading your Joseph Hall images for mine (see my images above)? I guarantee mine to be real or your money back (less shipping & insurance, handling and destination charges). They were my great grandfathers...

...sorry, I just returned to the computer after taking a break. The loss of my great grandfather was very traumatic. Anyway, he had kept them in the attic in a mayo jar all of these years so, needless to say, they are in pristine condition. In fact, they almost look as if they came straight out of a magazine.

Please let me know ASAP as I'm sure that other greedy bastards that are reading this post might get to them first.

Rob M.