1905/6 Eddie Collins Pre Rookie Columbia Team Imperial Cabinet

[bcbgcbrcb]

I'm not sure where the split date of 1905/06 is coming from. The photo shows a 1906 date and your 1905 schedule provided includes all games from 1905, none in 1906. I believe that if the photo pictured the 1905 squad as you seem to think then the date on the ball would say 1905. I believe that this team was the 1906 squad, likely playing from September - November, 1906, when Collins was not eligible.

[barrysloate]

Hi Jason- hope you are well. I didn't want to be the only one to disagree, since you were getting congratulations from everyone. But my first reaction was that doesn't even look close to Eddie Collins, save the fact that the player in your picture has big ears. I'll have to go with the opinion that it is not him. And I did no research on the team, I simply made an observation.

[VintageBall]

Here's the same photo that Al has, only this one is trimmed and is dated 1908 on the reverse:

[bcbgcbrcb]

As Mark said, the lips are a dead giveaway, you cannot see one of Eddie's ears in the cabinet card due to the angle of his head so you cannot make a good determination based on comparing the ears to that photo.

[HTBB]

The attached photo clip is from Rick Huhn's wonderful book "Eddie Collins" (page 24) published by McFarland. Please note the caption. I am an avid Collins collector and, although that is a neat cabinet, I do not feel that is Collins in the original posted cabinet photo.

Mike
collins football.jpg

[vintagesportscollector]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

I'm not sure where the split date of 1905/06 is coming from. The photo shows a 1906 date and your 1905 schedule provided includes all games from 1905, none in 1906. I believe that if the photo pictured the 1905 squad as you seem to think then the date on the ball would say 1905. I believe that this team was the 1906 squad, likely playing from September - November, 1906, when Collins was not eligible.

As much as I'd like this to be the Columbia U team and Collins too, I'd have to agree with others that I don't think it is. The key point will be seeing if the uniforms match, but the point above about the year of the ball is the most compelling argument against. I am not sure either why a split date is even being used. The record is from 1905 and didn't split across two years - I can't see why there would be any reason the ball would say 1906 if it was for the 1905 seaon. I am afraid your are seeing what you want to see and fitting this data in the conclusion you would like, but it just doesn’t fit. Columbia didn't play football in 1906. "City Champions" also doesn't seem very logical since none of their opponents in 1905 were even in NYC. Maybe the picture from Rhys will show otherwise, but not much here yet to conclude this is Columbia U.