Is this a Baseball Mitt?

[deebro041]

I remember seeing a similar one on Ebay not quite six months ago. I asked the seller if it was a handball glove(not in the description) and he said he thought it might be.

[wadeinbmore]

Cricket?

[perezfan]

Thanks to all, for the input so far. The measurements are a bit bigger than the Handball Gloves of the era. Also, the early Handball Gloves typically had less padding, split fingers, and more of a "tornado" or spiral stitch pattern. Similar to this one, bit different...

This one is being sold as a Baseball Glove, but I am skeptical as well. Maybe some of the seasoned Glove Gurus will chime in after the fact. If it is a Baseball Glove, it's an insanely rare example.

[william_9]

This mitt has been discussed on and off the glove forum as well. I don't think it has any support as a baseball mitt. If it were a basemitt, it very likely would have been known through catalog images before surfacing, and that hasn't happened. Additionally, though the back is very well made, the front isn't of the same standard. Its shape suggests something other than catching - even the earliest gloves and mitts had a shape that was purpose-made to protect during the act of catching a ball in flight. This doesn't look like it would collapse in any way that would ever form a pocket for the ball.

http://www.vintagebaseballgloveforum...hp?f=10&t=5060

[Baseball Glove Collector]

Hey Mark,

I agree with William. The front looks too rigid, more like for swatting than bending for catching. Plus, the front looks like an earlier pattern or style than the back, which is more consistent with a handball type glove.

We have tons of sporting goods catalogs and a lot of them are pre-1900. We also have all the glove and mitt patents back to the 1880's and it's not like anything we have seen or anything we would expect to see. Cool looking mitt but I don't like it as a baseball mitt or mitten.

JD

[perezfan]

Thanks for coming on to comment, William and JD...

Your input is much appreciated and makes complete sense. Normally, I am not in favor of "outing" auctions. But since this Mitt is apparently being misrepresented, I believe that doing so could save someone potential grief. Here's the listing- which contains no disclaimers or qualifications to the seller's "Baseball Glove" claim.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/261007291713...84.m1438.l2649

When I first started collecting gloves, I bought an early softball glove with a crescent pad (and really overpaid). It resembled a classic Crescent Glove, and as a novice collector I couldn't see the tell-tale signs. The seller didn't bother to disclose the difference, and I got killed on that purchase.

Live and learn, I suppose... hope someone doesn't get burned too badly on this one- but it's already exceeded $250

[Baseball Glove Collector]

I went through a few catalogs and I was quick to find this one. I started in the 1920's. This is a cut and paste from the Ken Wel '24 catalog. Looks pretty close to me. Another thing of note, model numbers (9 on the mitt) don't appear on many of the early or crude baseball gloves and mitts, which would lead us to believe it is a professionally manufactured piece and not that early.

Sorry for the small pic. Had trouble formatting it to upload. You can see it better in the full catalog in the library on my site.

JD
www.baseballglovecollector.com

[Mr. Mitt]

That's good enough for me to end the baseball discussion... Thanks Jim!