Women's baseball CdV

[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

[GaryPassamonte]

I looked at the shoes and can't definitely distinguish whether they are more likely men's or women's.

Henry- the depth and breadth of your articulation is unsurpassed on this board, with apologizes to the learned Barry Sloate, of course.

[packs]

Personally they look like a group of surly women to me. You would expect at least one of them to have facial hair if they were a group of guys from the period. Even with the lack of detail, I can still make out some fairly feminine features in the faces and each of them appears to have their hair tied back, at least to me.

[1880nonsports]

I've been told I could be more succinct. I started out with a simple response and just got carried away. Sorry about that. I think I'm honored to share space with the likes of Barry - although you might just have insulted him?

[autograf]

Henry.....? Articulation....? Can you use both of those in a sentence? Joking of course. Does look like a really large, long bat.....hard to tell from the sitting position the subjects are in. Great CDV though.....conceivable it could be something other than BB? That coloring is interesting but does obscure things that could definitively tell you more about the photo.....

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by 1880nonsports

I've been told I could be more succinct. I started out with a simple response and just got carried away. Sorry about that. I think I'm honored to share space with the likes of Barry - although you might just have insulted him?

Agreed....interesting and informative posts always, but not succinct.

[Runscott]

They have the appearance of women to me.

There is an old cabinet on ebay currently, of a baseball player, and he also looks like a woman, in terms of body shape and soft features. See if you can find an 1860's cdv of 4-6 baseball players, and compare features to yours - could they also be mistaken for women?

[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.