Ed Delahanty Photo - what did I miss?

[drcy]

Nearly all 1800s photos were mounted. Early 1900s photos could come either way.

[Bicem]

Right, but was it common to take a late 1800's unmounted photo and mount it in the 1920's as a way to preserve it?

[drcy]

No.

Offhand, I can't think of an 1800s baseball paper photo that wasn't originally mounted. There are 'skinned' and remounted photos, but those are rare.

Culver put original prints on manilla mounts years later, but those are 1900s photos.

For the record, if the Delehanty is indeed mounted (I can't tell for sure from the pic. When I first looked at it I thought that might have been the white borders), I don't see anything errant with the mount. If it's mounted I don't know why people would say that's not an 1898 mount.

[Leon]

They might say it isn't a correct mount as it has no identifier for the photographer AND those pesky dots on the front at the top.....Both of those observations leave questions to me.

Originally Posted by drcy

No.

Offhand, I can't think of an 1800s baseball paper photo that wasn't originally mounted. There are 'skinned' and remounted photos, but those are rare.

Culver put original prints on manilla mounts years later, but those are 1900s photos.

For the record, if the Delehanty is indeed mounted (I can't tell for sure from the pic. When I first looked at it I thought that might have been the white borders), I don't see anything errant with the mount. If it's mounted I don't know why people would say that's not an 1898 mount.

[kkkkandp]

I'm just going to throw this out there...maybe those "pesky dots" at the top are really supposed to be at the bottom.

Why couldn't the photo have been mounted on a cabinet cardboard from a studio that didn't shoot the subject? The person who mounted the photo simply flipped upside down the mount he had handy for some reason to purposely obscure the studio ID and several of the dots from the logo were just not covered up.

Just a thought...

[Leon]

Could have been but that would still decrease the value to me, somewhat. Any guess is a good guess on this one. For me personally, it's probably good I was the bridesmaid.

Originally Posted by kkkkandp

I'm just going to throw this out there...maybe those "pesky dots" at the top are really supposed to be at the bottom.

Why couldn't the photo have been mounted on a cabinet cardboard from a studio that didn't shoot the subject? The person who mounted the photo simply flipped upside down the mount he had handy for some reason to purposely obscure the studio ID and several of the dots from the logo were just not covered up.

Just a thought...

[the-illini]

Surprised that no one has mentioned that the back says "Return to W.J.(?) Delahanty, 3001 Payne Avenue" Family-owned at one point perhaps?

I think it is an amazing piece.