May 11, 2012, 04:54 PM
Since you "have ways to work on photos not only magnification but everything else", I dont know why you cant blow it up yourself
Originally Posted by Franklin
The way things have been going here lately at TN, I wouldnt be surprised if you find a few members that agree with you. But not I. Sorry.
I see where Bob sees Purina but I think its stretching it too. ( But not as bad as your visions it would be hard to top that) These are not hand written but most likely professional painted and the photo is just too grainy to come to any definite conclusions. (in my opinion)
Last edited by Bigcypresshunter; May 11, 2012 at 05:01 PM.
May 11, 2012, 05:03 PM
I see now where you are seeing 1888 and No. 6 but IMO no way. Its just like seeing letters in the cracking paint or seeing shapes in the clouds..
Last edited by Bigcypresshunter; May 11, 2012 at 05:06 PM.
May 11, 2012, 05:08 PM
What about the M on top dead center? Am I the only one seeing it? Of couse it may be a window or dormer.
May 11, 2012, 05:52 PM
You're right about the earliest possible date IF is says Purina, which we may never know unless it is examined under a microscope that "might" be able to disipher the wording.
Since this is partly a guessing game, my guess is that your big "M" is either windows or a door of some type.
I know you're trying to help and mean well, but unfortuniately we're just not seeing what you're seeing.
I received a reply from the Baseball Hall of Fame Research Department regarding an inquiry I sent them a couple of days ago. A gentleman named Tim responded and said it was a really nice old photo but didn't comment otherwise because he had some questions for me that I intend to answer just as soon as I'm through here. However, he did ask if it would be okay for him to share the pictures with some photo experts he works with. Of course I will be sure to tell him that's a-okay with me. In fact, I will encourage it. Tim didn't have much to say otherwise, at least not yet, but, like me, he thinks the final proof of age will come down to the type of photograph - type of paper - and type of developing process the photo was done with. If it is an albumen as I believe it to be, that will most likely date it to the late 1800s or early 1900s. I already posted a good photo link earlier, which can be found a page or two back. It talks about albumens and various other photo types. Check it out. I believe identifying the age of the photo itself is our last hope Obi Wan Kanobi.
I will let you know what Tim has to say just as soon as I hear back from him.
Thanks again to everyone.
Last edited by SODABOTTLEBOB; May 11, 2012 at 05:57 PM.
May 11, 2012, 06:03 PM
Here's that photo identifying link again for anyone who wants to check it out. Albumens are discussed under number 7)
Link: How to Date, Identify and Authenticate Photographs / Authenticating Photographs (Cycleback.com)
May 11, 2012, 06:14 PM
I dont have a lot of time. I should be doing other things.
But besides checking the paper, another long shot would be searching old photos of grain elevators until you find a match. Google "grain elevators" and "baseball field" or just "baseball" maybe. Heres an example Sou'wester 2000 Spring
Last edited by Bigcypresshunter; May 11, 2012 at 06:16 PM.
May 11, 2012, 06:22 PM
Its a triple decker something like this one in Kansas but I would imagine you already looked at a hundreds of them and it would have to be an old photo or in very bad shape by now. http://www.flame.org/~cdoswell/chasesums/04jun05_02.JPG
Attachment 634624Attachment 634625
Last edited by Bigcypresshunter; May 11, 2012 at 06:29 PM.
May 11, 2012, 06:35 PM
Okay, so this may not be the most scientific way of doing this, but just like fingerprints, I've always understood that people's ears are unique as well. Is it just me, or do the size and shape of the ears in the first and second photos look remarkably similar?
I'm sorry, I'm actually referring to the Ty Cobb photos compared with the original photo on page one of this thread.
Last edited by ClonedSIM; May 11, 2012 at 06:41 PM.
We all know there's no such thing as a "hunted out" location. Let's stop using that phrase to describe a park out of which you just dug a pile of coins! Obviously that particular place wasn't "hunted out", right?
May 11, 2012, 07:04 PM
I don't have time right now to respond to the everyone's recent comments, but I do have just enough time to share this ...
It was just brought to my attention that dating the paper type can be done easily by a true photo expert. It all comes down to microscopic fibers vs no fibers.
This, of course, will not tell us who the player is, but it will definitely tell us when the photo was taken and developed.
That's good news in my book.
I'll be back.
May 12, 2012, 01:07 AM
This is just one one many entries from the "Dressed to the Nines/Baseball Hall of Fame" website who is researching my photograph. I hope to hear back from them by early next week.
Inconclusive but interesting nonetheless ...
National Baseball Hall of Fame - Dressed to the Nines - Timeline
"By 1914, full-collared jerseys would disappear from the big leagues altogether."
Last edited by SODABOTTLEBOB; May 13, 2012 at 08:06 PM.
May 12, 2012, 11:15 AM
Still no word from Tim, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
There is an aspect of the photo I mentioned earlier, and wish to elaborate on now, which is the paper itself ...
The paper is super thin and about the same thickness and flexibility of a standard piece of copy paper, and is extremely fragile. This, and other aspects of the paper, which include tone, sepia, slight hand coloring, texture, all lend themselves in support of the paper being the albunen type I have been referring to. Albumen photo paper, more often than not, was so thin and fragile that it was necessary to adhere it to a piece of cardboard for proper use and display. If Tim's photo people, or anyone else for that matter, can confirm the paper is in fact of the albumen type, then it will be a significant clue in determing a close-approximate date as to when the photo was taken and processed.
As for identifying the player and who he might have played for, the best and possibly only clue is the white circle on the black sock. We discussed this inconclusively earlier, but truly requires additional research. I am including the best cropped image I can do for you to take a closer look at. Because the circle appears to be almost perfectly round and not jagged, I am of the opinion that it is not a hole and may very well be an identifying symbol/logo, or whatever else we care to call it, pertaining to the idenity of either the player himself or the team or league he played for, which could be either major, minor, etc. If you have any new theories regarding the white circle, I would love to hear them.
Have a great weekend, and happy Mother's Day to everyone it applies to.
Cropped sock with white circle. Notice the slighty hand-colored green grass just below and above his shin. The coloring is more noticeable on the original.
Click to enlarge.
Last edited by SODABOTTLEBOB; May 12, 2012 at 11:53 AM.
May 12, 2012, 12:01 PM
Do you suppose the white circle could be the open portion of a baseball sock with a stirrup? Maybe the skinny part of the stirrup is twisted toward the front.
National Baseball Hall of Fame - Dressed to the Nines - Parts of the Uniform
"During the 1910s and ’20s, players began to pull the stirrup stockings up so that a small arc of the sanitary stockings underneath was visible."
Last edited by SODABOTTLEBOB; May 12, 2012 at 12:26 PM.
May 12, 2012, 12:42 PM
I believe we wore those stirrup socks in Little League but I didnt know what they were called until now. The Stirrup Sock would leave the other sock visible front and back (not side) on a low shoe. This looks like a high top shoe and it looks like it became untied or loosely tied. I think I can even see the lacing hanging down.
Last edited by Bigcypresshunter; May 12, 2012 at 12:44 PM.
May 12, 2012, 12:59 PM
Big Cy ~
Busy weekend and just walking out the door, but just enough time for this ...
Look super-super close at the other (left foot) sock. I swear (when I zoom it) that I can see a similar white opening or exposed portion on the inside view of his left foot. I will do a close up crop on it later tonight or tomorrow morning.
May 12, 2012, 01:18 PM
How do you explain #1? Here is what I see.
1- upper part of high top shoe.
3- other side of high top.
By huntress104 in forum North American Indian Artifacts
Last Post: Aug 30, 2011, 07:53 AM
By larson1951 in forum North American Indian Artifacts
Last Post: Mar 22, 2011, 03:50 PM
By Ifoundit69 in forum Today's Finds!
Last Post: Sep 27, 2008, 03:20 PM
By cntrydncr1 in forum My Best Finds!
Last Post: Jul 10, 2008, 12:01 AM
By tinpan in forum Today's Finds!
Last Post: Feb 18, 2007, 08:55 PM
Search tags for this page
1900 baseball uniforms
1900' baseball uniforms
1900's baseball jersey
1900s baseball cap
1919 baseball uniforms
early baseball caps
old baseball uniform
viewof1900s ft wayne in baseball uniform
yale baseball jerseys
Click on a term to search for related topics.