California Photographer CDV - Late 1870s?

[drcy]

If it's a cabinet card, that's rarer and more valuable than a CDV. The bigger the better.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by drcy

If it's a cabinet card, that's rarer and more valuable than a CDV. The bigger the better, especially in the 1870s.

David - I showed you this item when it first arrived. You actually held it.

[drcy]

After about my second or third post, I remembered it.

[drcy]

Another dating detail is the small and simple photographer's stamp on back. In the 1860s-70s, studio stamps were small and simple. In the 1880s-90s they became much larger and ornate, often filling up the entire back.

The more I think about it, the more confident it is 1870s.

[bgar3]

The Church, History of Base Ball 1845-1871 (1902) references a Eureka club from Santa Monica existed in 1867 at the very least. not saying this is from then, or even the same team, just adding a reference to a Eureka club in California prior to the newspaper references. see pages 43-45.

[Old Hoss]

Originally Posted by drcy

If it's a cabinet card, that's rarer and more valuable than a CDV. The bigger the better.

I don't think this is accurate. There are so many other factors to consider in valuation. Size may add value. But it may not. It totally depends. And as for rarity, baseball cabinets are far more common than baseball cdvs.

Finally got a chance to view some of the LOC newspaper archives articles about the "Eureka Baseball Club". Here's the 1883-84 line-up:

J. Sullivan, captain 1883
T. Meagher 1883
W. Renfro 1883-84, pitcher
W. McLaughlin 1883
E. Furness 1883-84, 2nd base
R. Barry 1883-84, 3rd base
T. Costello 1883-84, short stop
J. Leonard 1883-84, 1st base
G. Hilbert 1883-84, rightfield
Crone 1884, centerfield
Mack 1884, catcher
Perry 1884, leftfield

This may have nothing to do with your image, but I found it interesting. It's possible the team in Sacramento was known as the Eurekas but I can find no record of it.

Anyways, managed to piece this together from a Sacramento Daily Record-Union article August 8, 1883. "The Eureka Baseball Club held a meeting last evening, and organized with the following members....". They played before as Eureka Baseball Club in May so I don't know why they "formed an organization" in August. And another July 21, 1884 SDRU article about a 14 to 0 victory over the "Peruvian Bitters". No stats, or particulars about players, but think I can find more info on players through 1880 census, or by searching names in archives.

[aaroncc]

Originally Posted by Old Hoss

I don't think this is accurate. There are so many other factors to consider in valuation. Size may add value. But it may not. It totally depends. And as for rarity, baseball cabinets are far more common than baseball cdvs.

I agree was thinking the same thing.

[drcy]

I meant, and should have said, that when all other things are equivalent (age, condition, subject, etc), the bigger the more valuable. I was comparing 1870s to 1870s, not 1870s to all other eras. It's true that baseball cabinet cards are relatively plentiful, but over 90% of them are from after the 1870s. In the 1860s to 1870s, CDVs were more common overall as a form of photography.

I originally was going to say 'all other things equivalent,' but assumed people wouldn't think I was saying that size is the only quality that matters. Clearly, an 1860s CDV of James Creighton will be worth more than a 1890s cabinet card of an anonymous barn, and a 1920s 3x2" snapshot of Babe Ruth will be worth more than an 8x10" digital photo of my dog. But the same Ruth or Creighton photo except in 8x10" form will be more valuable than the smaller versions.

And I know valuation bets can be off with baseball card collectors, as they sometimes prefer items that most resemble a baseball card. But I try not to submit to irrational points of view, such as with baseball card collectors who pay $1,000 for a $50 cut signature (with 3 of the player's letters cut off) just because it's on a Upper Deck baseball card with '1/1' stamped in corner Hell, some card collector paid $600 for a scissors cut out magazine picture of Nolan Ryan, just because it was in a PSA holder and listed the PSA set registry. My valuation calculations don't include prices paid out by the insane, because they might start taking their medication or run out of money. Any good statistician knows you can't base your longterm valuation tables on the manic phases of the bipolar and those not legally allowed sign a contract.

Besides, I was claiming Leon's photo was even better when I found out it was bigger. I wasn't putting down anything.

[Old Hoss]

Thanks for clarifying. In general, I understand and agree with you.

I think that whether or not it is a cdv can be potentially important in dating this photograph, which is why I pointed out the Heritage Auction description.

To me, if it were a cdv, that might be one contributing factor (not dispositive) that it is on the earlier side of things. If it were a cabinet (which the measurements indicate it is), that is one factor (of many) that could indicate that it is not quite as early.

I agree with you and think it is a fantastic photo!

[GaryPassamonte]

You sure know how to hurt a guy, Leon.