Old Judge Proofs?

[Archive]

Posted By: Donald Johnson

Question: This cabinet of Jack Glasscock closed yesterday on Ebay. I believe this is one of Glasscock's N172 poses but obviously the studio is not Goodwin & Co. Does this classify the cabinet as a N172 proof? Or is this just another cabinet that baseball fans could have picked up in the late 1880's?

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve M.

but I don't think it's a proof. I've been told that this is what a proof might look like:



Boyce, Washington. In my personal collection.

Edited to add:
Here are some Old Judges that utilize the same backround:

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Various photographers were used for the images on the N172 and N173's. After all, players were dispersed all over the country, so they would just have their photograph taken locally. I wouldn't call them proofs either, just photos that were probably purchased by Goodwin from other photographers. Of course, do we really have a precise definition of what a proof is? It's a term used rather loosely.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

The Old Judge proofs came in cabinet form (same shape mount as the regular N173s), and were shot by various studios with the studio's name on the mount. Many proofs have the Goodwin & Co embossment on the image for easy identification.

I beleive the local studio that shot the photo also sometimes sold their own Old Judge image cabinets to the public, which are neat pickups too. These will have the local studio name on the mount.

As Barry pointed out, the proofs aren't literally proofs, but were photos puchased by Goodwin & Co. in the creation of the cards. Perhaps 'production item' is better. Proofs is a convenient hobby nickname, and there's nothing wrong with a convenient nickname.

Proofs are test prints of the card (or whatever is being made) made during the creation of the card or before final printing to test for errors, colors, erc. The point is to catch errors and color/alignment problems before you print 50,000 final cards. It's much like proof reading your term paper to catch for errrors before you hand it in.

In fact, if you are making your family Christmas cards on your home comuter and you print out a few samples to see what they look like and make appropriate changes ("Don't like the font," "Crop the image better," "Use different color paper"), you are making proofs.

There are OJ fake proofs.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve M.

Could you please expand on this?

"There are OJ fake proofs."

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

As noted, the OJ proofs are on N173-style and shape mounts, except they have the locas studio name on the mount instead of Goodwin & Co/Old Judge. Proofs on usual mounts, unmounted or in tintype-form are suspect.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

for the studio that shot it to sell it too. Wood did it with many, many poses. Campbell shot some of the Newsboy images and sold cabinets with them. Here's one:

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe_G.

FWIW, that particular pose of Glasscock was never used by Goodwin & Co. However, a very similar batting pose likely shot during same session can be found in the Old Judge set.

Question I have is do we believe the original photo, negative and all, was shot in Boston by Gray Studio? It is believed that 1887 Old Judges (such as the Glasscock Indy cards) were shot by Joseph Hall. 1888 & 1889 Old Judges are another story with photos coming from all over the place, but 1887 OJs have been reported by Lew Lipset and others as being from the handy work of Joesph Hall. Would Hall use Gray Studio in Boston to take photos of the Indianapolis team?

Another possibility would be for Gray to get there hands on the negative or even just a photo and reproduce it. But why would a Boston studio take an interest in an Indianapolis player?

Seems strange to me. Nice cabinet none-the-less.

Best Regards,
Joe Gonsowski

[Archive]

Posted By: Donald Johnson

Very interesting; I actually picked up a different player from the same seller: Tug Arundel. This is the same pose as his Gypsy Queen. Does this reinforce the fact that Joseph Hall might have "outsourced"?

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe_G.

Upon further review, looks like the Indianapolis player is McGeachy, not Glasscock. But my questions above still apply.



Best Regards,
Joe Gonsowski

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Mathew Brady sold his negatives to fellow photographers who made their own 'Mathew Brady' cabinets and CDVs. These are easy to identify, as the backs have the non-Brady studio's name, with clear note that Brady's negative was used.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe Jones

I believe this is an example of what David has mentioned.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Perfect example, Joe.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

When doing early photo identification, particularly with CdV's, we usually assume that the city of the photographic studio is in close proximity to where the ballclub was located. But what I always question is did ballplayers and teams only have their picture taken in their home town? Couldn't a ballplayer with free time on a road trip take a photograph in another city? For example, in my current auction I have a team CdV with a photographer's stamp from Bonney, Indiana. For that reason I've described it as a team from Indiana. But the only thing I know for sure is where the studio is located. The team's location is merely conjecture. And with a lot of these cabinet photographs we can see that ballplayers may have had their pictures taken in cities other than where they played.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Goodwin picked a handful of studios to shoot the photos. I beleive a particular studio was assigned to photograph certain out of town teams when the team visited to play a game (Though I don't own the book, I may have this info in my memory from Lew Lipset's Encyclopedia #1, so giving credit if due). The town of the studio can be different than the town of the team. When the team got to the city to play ball, they likely new they were also going to have their photos taken.