Women's baseball CdV

[GaryPassamonte]

Here is the reverse. Wilkes Barre Pa location. It is difficult to read from my scan, but the reverse says W Ogilvie successor to SS Hull.

[swarmee]

Gary; they probably didn't do color printing at this time, and the red and blue coloring was added outside of the printing process (many things from the Victorian era are labeled "hand-colored"; my guess is these dark colors were added later, and may be obscuring useful parts of the photograph. It looks like a bouquet because the "flowers" were painted in, but it may not be....?

Still love the piece, but it is a confusing one.

[Wite3]

Gary,

You might want to contact Joann Kline...she used to post here in the old days and if I recall, she had extensive collection and knowledge of early women players, teams, photos, etc. I don't have her email anymore but you can find her on facebook or she still might have her email linked here if you search for her. Just an idea...

Joshua

[GaryPassamonte]

John- The coloring may have been done in the 1860s or later. I still think the bouquet is the key. Why would someone add a bouquet to a photograph if the players weren't women? It just doesn't add up. As I said prior, we will probably never know with certainty the gender of these players. However, all factors considered, I believe there is a better chance these players are women than boys.
Joshua- Thanks. I will try to contact her.

After researching the history of women's clothing in the 1850s and 1860s, we can't rule out that the trousers may in fact be bloomers. There was a feminist movement at this time and the wearing of trousers or bloomers was done. Any woman "bold" enough to play baseball in the 1860s may have "bold" enough to wear trousers.

[1880nonsports]

photographs of women base ball players in uniform after seeing a boudoir sized mounted photo of Ginter's Women Base Ball players at a show (still hold to the belief they were Ginter's factory workers just as with the presidential head's series) - possibly at a table by the Profiles in History guy. 1100.00 was out of my league but it started me off on one of my many tangents. Years later I eventually ended up with a set(!) but that's another story. I didn't have a great deal of luck after the first 6/7 acquisitions over the course of a couple/three years - even after attempting to add the "N" cards. I ended up with a couple of postcards, 8/9 unique true cabinets (most with equipment and none with flowers ), 4 or 5 of "The Polka Dot Nine" "Black stocking Nine" cabinets, perhaps as many as 30 of the sepia and litho'd "N" inserts, and zero CDV's as would be expected. Not enough to keep me interested so I moved on.
CDV's had their day in the 1860's although there use continued into the 1880's - most often at a circus or fair - nothing but "Teflon" and my money at a blackjack table disappears within a day. Your CDV is clearly mid-1860's at the earliest with the addition of the double gold trim. The act of congress info and perhaps a copyright date would likely be on the mount on an earlier cdv as well as being simpler. I assume the relationship between mount and photo is original but unknown from a scan. I have seen similarly poorly cut and mounted pictures before - most often on pirated pix - this time perhaps the result of inexperience or a harried photographer with too much else to do as the photographer has at least suggested ownership by the backstamp.
Old engravings, daguerreotypes, ambrotypes, CDV's, cabinets and even the most recent of the group - tin types - can be encountered hand-colored although infrequently in all of these categories. Most often accomplished contemporaneously with development of the picture and sale by the artist or his studio - in the case of engravings people are still hand tinting them today. Of course sometimes a kid gets a marker a brush and..... No idea as I don't have it in hand but the blotching reminds me of when the registration is off on a print - although obviously not the case here. It just seems so sloppy and not the result of "running". From my somewhat limited experience the hand coloring can be most primitive looking on CDV's. Certainly the cap, flowers, and uniform embellishments look to be period and neatly done. As for the red blotched area - who knows as it appears to match the red in the caps making it contextually consistant? As a crazy thought and keeping with the sloppy application of the lower color - perhaps it was an attempt to cover-up something showing of such a scandalous nature for the era?
Very interesting photo - I think the question boils down to men or women? I mean they LOOK like women (although some a bit er um manly). I have seen a couple of photographs of women playing base ball prior to 1880 although they didn't appear as part of a team nor were they in uniform. They were wearing dresses. Of course there were the Bloomer Girls but I believe that was later.
I suppose it's the flowers that are helping drive the idea they are women - why were the women presented flowers? I would doubt that to be a custom at the time except perhaps on a stage and doubt that as well - especially without places to shop like edible arrangements and FTD. Would they have taken that bouquet to the studio from the field or was it a studio prop? I don't think that it matters in any event as men were not likely to be the recipient of flowers either except at a gay wedding or the ballet. So we are left with six women choosing to be pictured in a studio with a bat on an 1860's attributed CDV with a hard to explain bunch of flowers OR 6 guys who like to get funky when they go clubbing. I'll side with Gary and give him props for the earliest known picture of a group of women in uniform with a bat. That's fairly close to a closed case but not quite. IF GARY DOESN'T KNOW about cdv's -WHO DOES?

[buchner]

Is the bouquet there in the first place or are they just painted (colored) on the photo, say by a young girl back in the day?

Originally Posted by GaryPassamonte

John- The coloring may have been done in the 1860s or later. I still think the bouquet is the key. Why would someone add a bouquet to a photograph if the players weren't women? It just doesn't add up. As I said prior, we will probably never know with certainty the gender of these players. However, all factors considered, I believe there is a better chance these players are women than boys.
Joshua- Thanks. I will try to contact her.

After researching the history of women's clothing in the 1850s and 1860s, we can't rule out that the trousers may in fact be bloomers. There was a feminist movement at this time and the wearing of trousers or bloomers was done. Any woman "bold" enough to play baseball in the 1860s may have "bold" enough to wear trousers.