 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2
06-25-2009, 06:57 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Burke & Atwell
Man, these guys were good....
|
|
#3
06-25-2009, 07:02 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Sorry for hijacking with all of the pics...
|
|
#4
06-25-2009, 07:07 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Wow, that 20 heads on a platter supplement is uniquely creepy.
|
|
#5
06-25-2009, 07:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I've still not heard of a Burke & Atwell Supplement (capital letters).
I have long known of baseball photographs marked Burke Atwell Studio, Chicago. And I've seen an image of Ty Cobb in street clothes in a 1916 Baseball Magazine that is credited to "Burke E. Atwell". I wonder if it is the same thing. I'd guess that most of the Baseball Magazine premiums were from Conlon photographs. There was a Greene fellow that took a bunch, too. And there were several other sources, among them Burke Atwell. There's even a Burke Atwell photo on eBay right now, but not of a baseball subject.... Sounds like we're all in agreement that it's an M113 Baseball Magazine premium. Finally. Just like back up there in post #5. Anyone else have M113s of dimensions other than 19" x 10" or 19" x 12" ??? Last edited by FrankWakefield; 06-25-2009 at 08:12 PM.
|
|
#6
12-15-2010, 07:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
A bit slow to respond...
Hey, I'm only 18 months late...
In answer to Frank - yes, I think it's a Baseball Mag supplement. As for sizes, I have a Cobb that measures 12.5 X 21, a Johnny Evers that's 11.5 X 20, and both a Joe Jackson and a Red Sox team that measure 10 X 20 The 1957 issues are 17.5 X 20, but seem to not be involved in this thread. As for the Burke & Atwell credit, I have 641 different BBM supplements, photo credits are as follows : Acme - 43 Burke & Atwell - 3 Conlon - 221 Greene - 137 International - 67 No Photog Credited - 41 National League - 6 Pacific & Atlantic - 6 Press Associates - 43 Underwood - 6 United Press - 9 Wide World - 43 12 Assorted Photogs - 16 If anybody out there has figured out a way to catalog these things, I'm all ears. I have mine sorted by name, left caption city, right caption city, photographer, team, and what the player is doing in the photo, and size (although trimming complicates this). There are paper differences that I haven't gotten around to figuring out, and many have typeface differences. Both point towards separate printings. They are fun issues, that's for sure, Doug
|
|
#7
12-15-2010, 08:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thank you for posting, Doug. I just wanted to hear what you thought about that Burke & Atwell stuff... It's an M113, Baseball Magazine premium. You keep gathering the M113s and M114s. I'm cheering you along!!
|
|
#8
12-20-2010, 01:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
So while looking for some stuff to sell, I came across a box I'd not seen in a while, and in there was a Baseball Magazine, probably my oldest one. It is the May 1912 issue (I love using the word 'issue' with the meaning that I knew years ago, and not this new concept where it means 'problem'). Anyway, back in the back of the magazine, pages 111 and 112 seemed interesting. So I've scanned them.
  Now for this thread, the first matter of note is that on page 112 we have the M113 we've discussed in this thread. Above I doubted the 1913 date, and the 1910 date. With this in hand, I think that BM began issuing this in 1912, notwithstanding B&A's 1910 copyright. But, of greater interest to me are the 8 posters offered on page 111. The posters are listed on the right, with numbers. Number 1 is Ty Cobb. Number 2 is Harry Lord. Anyone here seen a Lord M113??? Anyone here own one??? An image of what it would be is top center on that page. The Standard Catalog doesn't list a Lord M113 as I can see. Maybe someone can point it out for me. The Standard Catalog mentions Mathewson as a 1913 issue, and Baker in 1914. Yet this page in Baseball Magazine has them listed in May 1912. It is my firm belief that some of the ads for M113s and M114s mention premiums that were never available. But I thought that was something that occurred in the late 50s and early 60s, based on talking with old collectors. So I think there may well be a Lord premium out there that The Standard Catalog has overlooked. And I've long thought some of dating of the premiums was a bit off in The Standard Catalog. I'm not maligning TSC, I'm glad they listed these in the first place, and they are an elusive issue to pin down completely. Last edited by FrankWakefield; 12-20-2010 at 05:50 PM.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
