1848 Baseball Daguerreotype on Mastro..

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob L

Has any of the photo experts out there seen the 1848 daguerreotype of a boy holding a baseball on Mastro? Could this date be correct? If so, where does this place this as one of the earlier images with a baseball related theme.

Rob L

http://mastronet.com/index.cfm?action=DisplayContent&ContentName=Lot%20Information&LotIndex=51724&CurrentRow=1

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

...

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I've been looking at that lot and the picture of the child looks more like an ambrotype, which would date it to about 1860. A daguerreotype has a mirror surface and is reflective; the image you attached doesn't have that look. There are no known dags featuring anyone young or old holding baseball equipment; a child holding a ball is in itself pretty remarkable. But I'm not sure they know the difference between a dag or an ambro. The lot needs further research.

[Archive]

Posted By: ramram

That brings up a question that I've always wondered about. What kind of a ball did kids play with back then (I'm just talking about playing with...nothing to do with base ball)? I would certainly suspect balls were made back during that time that were just for playing with. Would they be made any differently than a baseball? Conversely, wouldn't it be expected that the balls, for casual play, came first. I mean, I certainy doubt that somebody came up with the game of baseball and then just invented a baseball at the same time to go with it. My thinking would be that balls came first and don't necessariy mean baseballs. Any thoughts?? Barry??

Rob M.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

...

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

There were dozens of games in the mid-19th century that could be played with a ball, and most would have been homemade. Someone, such as a child's mother, would stuff the ball and stitch it and and give it to her child to play with. I don't think the images are dags, and the chance of them being baseball is extremely small. Nevertheless, early cased images showing children holding balls is still special and is as close as one is likely to find relating to any outdoor game played with a ball.

[Archive]

Posted By: ramram

I agree Barry. Not only does it not look like a dag, if it is original to that mat and case, it is not an early dag. That thin brass mat and design is typical of the 1860's. Dag mats were thick and very plain and are very different. The only thing that throws me is that I think I know the seller and he certainly knows the difference. Maybe it's not who I think or maybe the auction house messed up???

Rob M.

[Archive]

Posted By: ramram

Oops. The first image that comes up is actually the c. 1868 tintype. The dags in this lot are: 1) the one with the three kids and 2)the image with the standing child that looks more as if they are dressed like a girl (unfortunately, they dressed the poor boys this way sometimes back then). I guess the order of the photos leaves a little to be desired. Anyway, I do believe the two are dags now. I would place the one that is claimed to be from c. 1848 to be actually mid 1850's based on the mat style.

Rob M.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

In the twenty or so years that dags were in fashion (1839-ca. 1860) the copper mats that were used to house them evolved, with the plainest ones originating from the 1840's and the more elaborate filigree ones from the 1850's. But not all cased images that survive today are in their original holders; I for one keep spare dag cases and mats to use when I purchase uncased images. So that by itself is misleading. But those images don't look like dags, they are not baseball, they are misdated, etc. However, they are still attractive and as I said it is seldom one finds even an ambro with a child holding a ball, so that's pretty neat in itself. Further, there are two tintypes in the lot and in both cases no equipment is showing, so those two may not be baseball either. In short, five nice images with a description replete with errors. But it is what it is.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I just went back to the lot and the first image is definitely an ambrotype; the second one with the three children is a dag but it's very hard to see what the child is holding; I will say though that the third image is a dag and it is definitely a ball on the table; and interestingly despite the long hair and dress that is a boy. But none of them are baseball; only the presence of a bat would confirm baseball. The third one is quite nice, however. As to value, haven't a clue.

[Archive]

Posted By: R.D. Cook

Hey Rob, are you trying to use the old Jay Miller hype method?
Nice try btw... "mastro has great vintage baseball stuff"... pathetic!
Only thing is that this time you are doing a favor for a board friend.
All of the lots mentioned by you at the memorabilia forum were consigned by a board member.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread-396879-1128723689-1128738400-Mastro+has+great+vintage+baseball+stuff...

Next time let him do it by himself or you can use the BST area like everyone does.

There's always someone watching!

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob L

Hey R.D., sign your posts. BTW, which board member are you talking about?

Rob L

[Archive]

Posted By: jason

In the UK this would be described as ungentlemanly conduct. Why do people have to weigh in all the time and talk junk when they don't know the circumstances!

I actually own the lot and have had several debates in the past with Rob about the merits or lack there of regarding these images. Rob was merely furthering the debate on this issue in which he is perfectly entitled to do. I welcome debate on these matters because you can never have a cut and dry answer when discussing early baseball memorabilia - that is how we learn from the collective expertise on this board!

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but get your facts right first!

Just to clear up on the confusion with the image order (Mastro have promised to get this sorted out over the weekend).

1)Images 1-3 are of an 1860's tintype in a gutta percha case.
2)Images 4-6 are of a circa 1853 3 Boy Dag
3)Images 7-9 are of The 1848c Blue Boy Dag
4)Image 10 is of 2 tintypes.

The images are of an appalling quality but I can tell you that images 4-9 are definitely those of mirrored daguerreotypes. The 1848c Dag (this is the original case and 1848c mat)and the 1860's tintype exhibit definite lemon peel stitching while the 1853 dag is less certain.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Hi Jason- I kind of suspected that was your lot. First, thanks for clearing up that the one that I thought was an ambro is a tintype. That's something that you need to see in person. I think the dag of the child in the dress with the ball on the table is the plum of the group, and the image quality looks fine. But to call those cased images baseball is a very long stretch. If you've read David Block's book, amnog others, you know that children played countless games with balls and the chance of them playing baseball in 1848 at that age (that child looks to be about 4 years old) is highly unlikely. I still maintain any early image with a ball is terrific; calling it baseball is just wishful thinking. Nevertheless, good luck with the lot and you will probably get a bid on it from me.

[Archive]

Posted By: jason

I was referring to Mr Cook and not Barry when I mentioned weighing in.

BTW I agree with Barry that there is no way to confirm that the ball pictured is a baseball. I will however guarantee that there is definitely a gusset or a lemon peel stitching visible on the ball and you could see it too if there were adequate pictures provided!

I have taken the case & plate apart and checked the dag very closely and I can confirm that the plate and the mat are original to each other displaying corresponding marking and tarnishing to the silver. I will also state my reputation that the dag dates to no later than 1850. I not only collect baseball photos but general early daguerreotypes and have a large collection (around 150) dating from 1841 to the 1860's and the scroll mat was used in the late 40's to 1850 at the latest. I think someone like Denise Water from http://www.finedags.com could confirm this (take a look at his Dag galleries & his sale section which will help date early dags)

Just to finish the child is a boy wearing a dress. You can't see it too well in the photo because of the mirrored image but it is tinted blue. As Rob M has already stated it was the fashion in the 1840's for both boy & girls to ware dress up to a certain age.

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

I agree that the image of the child standing by the table with the ball is wonderful. However, I question whether it dates to the 1840's due to the ornateness of the mat.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Both Corey and Jason are among the top early photo experts we have on the board, along with David Rudd, Rob Morgan and myself. I tend to side with Corey that the dag very well might be post-1850, but the difference of a couple of years either way doesn't mean much. I wouldn't put a premium on an 1848 image over an 1853 image, for example. More of a distinction would be made between a dag and an ambro, or an ambro and a tintype, where the photo process changed. Whether we date the mat precisely is merely an exercise and not critical to the end result. But I'm amazed that Jason was able to determine the stitching on the ball; the image just doesn't seem that clear. What kind of magnification did you use?

[Archive]

Posted By: jason

Thanks for your feedback guys! The stitching is fairly plain to see when you have it in your hands when tilting at an angle. As you know, the problem with photographing a dag is dealing with the mirror image - it is hard to capture everything! In reality, the images visual appeal is much nicer than it can ever be photographed. The blue tinting is actually quite strong but you can hardly see it in the photo.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I believe every early ball of any kind would reveal stitching as there is no other way to construct them, whether professionally made or homemade. So all we can determine is that it is a real ball. I would leave baseball out of the description but still marvel at an image that early with a child holding a ball. Unfortunately, there are no known dags with anyone holding a bat, and I'm afraid such a thing doesn't exist.

[Archive]

Posted By: jason

Barry, I think you are right about there not being a dag in existence picturing a bat. The earliest photograph I have seen that actually pictures one is an ambrotype of a young Stars player with a bat on the table (I think this was sold by Mastro for Rucker in in 94).

Has anyone seen any earlier than this image? How many ambrotypes showing a bat exist?

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I had an ambro in one of my auctions several years ago with two players holding a bat and ball that just looked and felt earlier than even Mark's image, and I thought it was the earliest known showing equipment. But neither of these are dated so it was just a guess based on how crude the players' uniforms looked in mine.

[Archive]

Posted By: jason

Barry, that sounds neat, what did it go for and do you still have an image of it knocking around?

Also, just out of curiosity, does anyone know what medium the 1858 Atwater team photo was taken in? That image clearly displays bats, balls etc. Was it a dag?

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

The two player ambro sold in my Feb 2003 auction for $4592. Maybe I can scan a copy of it on this site, but it was a bit light. I'll give it a try today.
The Atwater team (assuming that really is the name of it, nobody really knows) is a full plate tintype. And the date it was assigned is 1859, certainly a fair estimate but we don't know for sure. The ambro I sold looked every bit as ancient, and since ambros preceded tins, I always felt it had the edge re: which came first. I owned them both at one time; that tintype is one of those things I always regretted parting with.
One interesting aspect of the ambro- when you looked at one of the players under a loupe, he was wearing hoop earrings on each ear. Never could come up with a good explanation for that. I never saw an early ballplayer who wore earrings.

[Archive]

Posted By: ramram

I have run across some early images of men with hoop earings in both ears in the past. From what I recall, they were usually associated with Louisiana. Supposedly, some of the Cajuns were fond of this style. However, you wouldn't necessarily expect a baseball image popping up from the south that early???

Rob M.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

It's a curious image and as I said I will try and get it posted this afternoon. The two men are wearing heavy coats similar to those in the Atwater tintype. One of the men has a number on his cap, suggesting perhaps a fireman (many early baseball teams were formed by the men of a fire department). Bit one is clearly holding a baseball, and a bat is lying across both their laps, so there was no mistaken they were ballplayers.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob L

the stitching style of the early baseballs (lemon peel and belt) go back at least 100 years prior to the advent of baseball. The earliest form of these two styles of stitching are evident in the feather golfballs of the 1700s with the belt style actually being more prevalent. I would have to imagine that these styles of stitching would continue for any type of homemade ball that were played with by kids in the 1700s and early 1800s. Although we can't say for certain that the child in the dag is holding a baseball, the size of the ball in the image, the timing of the photo with regards to the rapidly rising popularity of both the New York and Massachusetts games as well as prevalence of townball being played all over the eastern half of the US makes it an intriguing possibility.

Rob L

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Jason- here is the picture of the ambro I feel may be the earliest image extant showing ballplayers holding equipment. Obviously, there is the possibility of dissenting opinions. The man on the left is wearing the earrings, although you won't be able to see it. The man on the right has a baseball in his right hand, and they have a bat across their laps. It is nicely hand-colored, perhaps a bit over rouged on the cheeks. I dated it ca. 1858, but that's an educated guess. Hope the image is clear enough. The actual photo wasn't crystal clear but we lost a little resolution here.
<imgsrc="">

[Archive]

Posted By: jason

Wow Barry, That is a great image! Boy would like to get my hands on that! I think you are right on the dating, 1858 is spot on! Thank you for sharing it!

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Glad you like the image, but the 1858 is really a guess. It just looks so ancient.