1860s baseball team photograph (CDV)

[TNcollect]

Originally Posted by GaryPassamonte

That's a beauty. Could you post a scan of the reverse?

Here is the backmark.

Scott

[GaryPassamonte]

Thanks. That mark is more elaborate than the other Warren identifiers I've seen.

[1880nonsports]

Neat photo. Gary about your last comment - do you think that in terms of a chronology in general that things like the photographers attribution/back stamps became more elaborate just as the mounts would become more embellished? It would seem that way to me. I had studied cabinet mounts a little when I collected images of women ballplayers but moved on before I got to the next class dealing with the studios and such.......

[TNcollect]

Originally Posted by 1880nonsports

Neat photo. Gary about your last comment - do you think that in terms of a chronology in general that things like the photographers attribution/back stamps became more elaborate just as the mounts would become more embellished? It would seem that way to me. I had studied cabinet mounts a little when I collected images of women ballplayers but moved on before I got to the next class dealing with the studios and such.......

Actually, the backmarks tend to get more elaborate and larger as you get later in the 19th century.

The card itself is also a key indicator of era. Civil War era cards are on thinner stock, with square (vs. rounded) corners.

Scott

[1880nonsports]

one would think as the aesthetic appearance of the mounts evolved that the backmarks, lettering, typography would likely mirror such changes (evolution) and become more elaborate as a general rule.
I know Gary has a lot of experience at least in regard to the base ball cdv's and figured I'd ask as "good" knowledge is king :-) I had no question specific to the CDV shown although I'm happy to listen......

[TNcollect]

Originally Posted by 1880nonsports

one would think as the aesthetic appearance of the mounts evolved that the backmarks, lettering, typography would likely mirror such changes (evolution) and become more elaborate as a general rule.
I know Gary has a lot of experience at least in regard to the base ball cdv's and figured I'd ask as "good" knowledge is king :-) I had no question specific to the CDV shown although I'm happy to listen......

I deal in antique photographs and handle a lot of antique images, so I feel fairly confident in dating images and can usually make a quick (and accurate) call. I am always willing to provide assistance in dating antique photographs.

BTW I just did a search on ebay and found this image dated 11 FEB 1865 that carries the SAME Warren backmark:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/251214546838...%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

Scott

[GaryPassamonte]

There's no question the backmarks on cdvs became more elaborate as the 19th century progressed. Interestingly, the Ross Barnes cdv I have taken by Warren has a simple "Warren Cambridgeport Mass" marking situated diagonally on the reverse, which is less elaborate than the cdv that is the subject of this thread. This is an exception to the norm.
Also, based on the mount style and uniform style, this cdv is certainly dated to the early-mid 1860s.

[TNcollect]

Originally Posted by GaryPassamonte

Thanks. That mark is more elaborate than the other Warren identifiers I've seen.

This type of backmark is fairly typical of Civil War era cdvs.

Were the photographer's markings that you saw on later photographs?

Scott