Women's baseball CdV

[swarmee]

Love the card; just got my first ever photo with an IRS stamp on the back, dating it to the 1960s. However, it was just a woman sitting in a chair. Yours is much cooler.

[barrysloate]

Gary- Are you sure they are all women? In most of the early images I've seen the women are wearing dresses. Knickers are unusual. But that's a pretty amazing image.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Gary- Are you sure they are all women? In most of the early images I've seen the women are wearing dresses. Knickers are unusual. But that's a pretty amazing image.

yeah, some of them look more 60/40

[Econteachert205]

So it looks to me as if the cdv was trimmed at the bottom, likely where the photographers info would have been. I take it there is nothing revealing about the back. Am interested in players back left and back right, they look young and boyish. Also that bat looks huge relative to the players. A curious and fascinating piece..

[ooo-ribay]

I'm ignorant.....how do you know it's 1865-69?

Totally out of my realm, but I'd love to learn more about it. How/where did you find it?

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by ooo-ribay

I'm ignorant.....how do you know it's 1865-69?

Totally out of my realm, but I'd love to learn more about it. How/where did you find it?

My guess is that it has an IRS stamp.

Here is a site that explains. http://histclo.com/photo/guide/chron/pgc19-phoi.html Ignore the login screen; it will still let you read the page.

Tax on Photographs (1864)

Congress passed another revenue act specifically on photographic images (June 30, 1864). The tax was applicable on all "photographs, ambrotypes, daguerreotypes or any other sun-pictures". It was paid by buying a revenue stamp which ws then attached to the back of the photograph. The tax was pro-rated based on the cost of the photograph. Which thus gives us an idea as to what photograohers charged at the time. The charges were 2 cents and up. The 2 cent stamp was for photographs costing up to 25 cents. The 3 cent stamp was for photographs costing 26-50 cents (figure 1). The 5 cent stamp was for photographs costing $0.50 to $1.00. Photographs costing over $1.00 required another 5 cent stamp for every extra dollar or fraction of a dollar. Of course not all photographs were CDVs, cabinet card, or other formats on which revenue stamps could wasily be afixed without spoiling the image. Other photigraphs such as those being bound into books could not have stamps afixed to them. This occurred because lithography was not yet suffucently advanced to actually reporoduce photographs by printing. There were also photogaphs such as thse put into lockets which were too small for stamps. The reveune act for these formats enacted a 5 percent tax which the client paid directly to the photographer.

I just found one the other day:

[btcarfagno]

One of the clearest parts of the CDV is the shoes. Is there anything that we can see from them that could point to these being women and not men? I am by no means an expert in civil war era footwear but perhaps that could something worth exploring.

Tom C

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by ooo-ribay

I'm ignorant.....how do you know it's 1865-69?

Totally out of my realm, but I'd love to learn more about it. How/where did you find it?

The double gold line around the mount that "frames" the image was used exclusively in the mid to late 1860's.

[rman444]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Gary- Are you sure they are all women? In most of the early images I've seen the women are wearing dresses. Knickers are unusual. But that's a pretty amazing image.

Agree with Barry on the women in dresses prior to the 1880's, but a fantastic image nonetheless!

[Jobu]

Can you please post a high res scan instead of a photo? I would like to get a better look. Thanks.

I also second the questions on how one dates something like this.