1869 Cincinnati CDV and Imperial Photograph...

[Baseball Rarities]

We all know that the Peck & Snyder issued CDV's of the 1869 Cincinnati Red Stockings team in 1869. Has anyone seen the Imperial Photograph that was also offered at the same time?

I was doing a little bit of research and came across these two ads come from back to back issues of the New York Clipper from September of 1869. As you can see, Peck & Snyder offered CDVs for 10 cents each and Imperial Photographs for 50 cents.

[barrysloate]

Kevin- we don't believe even a single imperial cabinet has survived, although there is always the possibility of one being found. I would guess it was very rare even back then.

Edited to say 50 cents was a fair amount of money in 1869.

[abothebear]

using the calculator at http://www.measuringworth.com/uscomp...ativevalue.php it looks like it would be about $9 today according to their straight commodities algorithm. But that was half a day's wage for unskilled labor back then. Their labor value algorithm puts the 50 cents comp at $60. But their Economic Power comp, which measures the relative influence 50 cents had in the economy, equates it to the economic influence of $1000 today... If I am reading their site correctly.

[drcy]

I looked at a Reds CDV though a magnifying glass once. Does that count?

[bgar3]

This thread reminded me I once prepared some notes on the 1869 Cincinnati Red Stockings images (at least as known to me at the time). I include the notes below if anyone is interested, but for this purposes of this thread I wonder if the imperial cabinet referred to in the ad could be the Brady photo and therefore different than the trade card?
notes:
1. Photo by F. L. Huff, 244 Broad street, Newark, NJ, probably taken between June 16 and 18, 1869. This is the famous photo used on the Peck and Snyder trade cards, as well as the Harper's woodcut (July 3, 1869) and the player images in the Leslie's woodcut (July 17, 1869). The photographer is identified in the Harper's woodcut and the date range is the best guess based upon the reference in Rhodes, FIRST BOYS OF SUMMER that the team was approached to arrange a studio sitting after the June 16th game in New York vs the Mutuels. (excellent book by the way). I think June 18 is the most likely date for the photo since the team played an unscheduled game in Irvington Nj (next to Newark) on their way to Philadelphia.
2. Photo taken by Brady in Washington DC between June 25 and 28, 1869. Ellard, in BASEBALL IN CINCINNATI, says the photo was taken when the team played the Nationals, which was June 25, and they stayed in Washington thru the 28th or 29th (see Rhodes). The team was in Cincinnati on July 1 for a banquet (when the giant bat was presented--see Harper's woodcut july 24, 1869).
3. It is likely that at this time (July) Hoag took photos of the players in suits that were then made into a composite (see Ellard p. 173). I also believe these images were reversed for use on the 1869 sheet music and probably for the NY Clipper woodcut (October 9, 1869).
4. There is a circular composite that appears to show the heads from the Huff photo. This can be seen on the heading of OUR GAME blog by John Thorn.
5. I have no info on the color lithograph from the Library of Congress.

Net 54 has other great threads on the priority order of the various Peck and Snyder cards, the only thing I can add is that they they were issued after June 16.
I would love to hear about other images and/or other theories and I apologize if this is old news.

[WillowGrove]

This is Great news to me bgar thanks for posting. I've always wanted to know when the Peck & Snyder photo was shot. Thanks!

[Leon]

From a member who doesn't post much...edited to add, he didn't say if he thought this was the one in question or not. Probably open for debate but will be neat if proven to be the photo being advertised.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by Leon

From a member who doesn't post much...edited to add, he didn't say if he thought this was the one in question or not. Probably open for debate but will be neat if proven to be the photo being advertised.

Leon, wonderful image, but I am pretty sure that that is the 1868 team.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

Leon, wonderful image, but I am pretty sure that that is the 1868 team.

He probably knows that...all I got was the picture and posted it when I received it. I am sure you are correct Kevin. Still pretty cool to add to the thread though ....(I hope)

[Baseball Rarities]

bgar3: Great info. Thanks for sharing it.

Here is a composite that uses the Hoag images:

[bgar3]

Very cool to add to the thread, but it is the 1868 team, with a few of the players who also played on the 1869 team. (H. Wright,
Waterman,
Gould and Asa Brainard)

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by Leon

He probably knows that...all I got was the picture and posted it when I received it. I am sure you are correct Kevin. Still pretty cool to add to the thread though ....(I hope)

Yes, that is a great addition to the thread. Thanks for sharing it for its owner.

[bgar3]

I love the Hoag composite, the only one i had seen was in the Ellard book. Thank You.

[bgar3]

Actually the Hoag composite is different than the one in Ellard, not the photographs used, but the decorations and descriptions. Very nice piece.

[oldjudge]

Bruce--any idea where these images are from?

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by bgar3

Actually the Hoag composite is different than the one in Ellard, not the photographs used, but the decorations and descriptions. Very nice piece.

Yes, the images are the exact same, but the details on the composite are different.

I always thought that it was weird that there are two (different, same sitting?) images of Wright used in the same Ellard composite.

[bgar3]

Sorry Jay, I don't recognize the photos from any others I have seen, although they do look somewhat similar to the Hoags, hard to tell in the posted image, but there does appear to be variations even factoring in possible reversal of images. It is also possible that the photos are from 1870, not 1869, as they played in Rockford both years and there does not appear to be a date on the composite. Beautiful composite by the way, and will continue to try to id when it was taken.

[oldjudge]

Bruce--Here is a D R Town CdV of the 1870 Rockford team. If the Cincinnatti CdV was from 1870, especially if it was made to sell at the time of the matches, it would have been in a like format (I would guess). Since it is of a different format, and since the players look exactly the same as the other 1869 images, I would guess it is from 1869. Too bad they are not the same. It would make a neat pair.

[bgar3]

Jay, that makes sense to me. The only changes from 1869 to 1870 on the Cincinnati team were substitutes. The 1869 games vs the Forest City team from Rockford were July 10, 24, 31 and August 2. (they also played a Forest City team from Cleveland,). I think it would be really neat to date them both to the 1870 tie game. (July 11) There is a photo of the 1870 team on the field taken on the field with the Forest City Cleveland team. (May 31) Rhodes describes this as the only known photo of the Red Stockings on the playing field. (apparently there was a series of photos that were believed to have been from opening day 1869, that now are believed to have taken much later.)

[triwak]

I own this circular photo disk, that I believe is #4 on Bruce's (bgar3's) list, above. Won in REA several years ago. It's slightly larger than a Colgan's; is made of cardboard, surrounded by a metallic ring; and has no visible sign of pin backing or how/what it was originally released or intended as. A bit of a mystery? Sorry about being late to this thread.

[bgar3]

It is nice to know that is in a net 54 collection. With that better image, i will try to confirm the images are from the Huff photo. Unfortunately, I have no information on the origin etc. Thank you for posting it, would be happy to try to talk you out of it sometime.

[bgar3]

They do appear to be head shots taken from the Huff/Peck and Snyder photo, redone as a composite. I forgot to say, very nice item.

[triwak]

Thank you.