CIRCA 1900 FRAMED BASEBALL PICTURE

[SODABOTTLEBOB]

"Play Ball"

I went to a swap meet recently and purchased an old, framed baseball player photo that I paid $10.00 for. I have already done quite a bit of research on it that can best be summed up with the following which is how I came up with a date of circa 1900 ... (Also see pictures).

1. The seller said he found it in a box of other junk and didn't know anything about it.
2. The frame is made of tin ~ Appears Victorian ~ Hand painted floral ~ Fold-out standee on back.
3. The frame is oval and measures 3 1/2" x 2 1/2"
4. The photo is sepa colored (brownish) and was developed in an oval shape then cut to fit.

5. Regarding the uniform ...

Uniform Parts:
National Baseball Hall of Fame - Dressed to the Nines - Parts of the Uniform

Caps - 1888 - Spalding:
National Baseball Hall of Fame - Dressed to the Nines - Parts of the Uniform

Shoes - 1883 - Spalding: National Baseball Hall of Fame - Dressed to the Nines - Parts of the Uniform

Uniform/Collar - Last Used 1906
National Baseball Hall of Fame - Dressed to the Nines - Parts of the Uniform

Uniform/Beltless - First Used circa 1910
National Baseball Hall of Fame - Dressed to the Nines - Parts of the Uniform

Earliest Numbering of Jerseys - 1907-09
National Baseball Hall of Fame - Dressed to the Nines - Parts of the Uniform

Baseball History - First Major Leagues 1871 thru 1875
History of baseball in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Grain Elevators: Grain Elevators -- History

Pictures, etc ...


1. Framed Photo.

2. Photo Only.

3. Frame and Back. (Glass Not Shown).

4. Cropped Photo. I cannot read the words on the grain elevator.

Shoes from above link ~ He appears to be wearing #1 ~ Solid black high top. Ad is from 1883 Spalding catalog.

Cap ~ Appears to be either #11 or #19 ~ Mulit-sectioned top part. Ad is from 1888 Spalding catalog. I can't tell in my photo if the player is wearing a short or a long bill cap.

Uniform Pants/Beltless ~ Player in my photo is wearing a belt. Belts were last used on uniforms around 1910. This picture is the earliest known example that shows a beltless player and is dated 1913. It is said that prior to 1913 most players wore belts until they were discouraged and possibly even banned because defensive players would sometimes grab hold of the belt to stop an advancing runner.


Footnotes:

1. The Major Leagues were first introduced around 1871 to 1875.
2. Uniform numbering was first introduced in Major Leagues around 1907-1909. (My player has no visible number on his jersey.
3. Uniform "Collars" were last used around 1906. My player's jersey appears to have a collar.

Bottom Line Questions ...

1. Can you think of anything I missed?
2. do you agree with the circa 1900 date?
3. Do you think the player is ... Hometown Team ~ Farm/Minor League ~ Major League?
4. Can you think of any way to identify the location?
5. And what about the grain elevetor? Any clues there? Midwest?

6. And most important of all, do you happen to recognize The Player?

Thanks in advance for your time and interest. I realize I am asking some tough questions that may be impossible to answer, but I thought it would be fun anyway because Baseball season is upon us and I know there are a lot of fans out there like myself.

Sodabottlebob

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[Bigcypresshunter]

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

http://www.digitalhorizonsonline.or...SOROOT=/uw-ndshs&CISOPTR=6143&CISOBOX=1&REC=6

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Bigcypresshunter]

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

View attachment 634624View attachment 634625

 

[ClonedSIM]

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.

 

[SODABOTTLEBOB]

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.

Bob

 

[SODABOTTLEBOB]

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."

http://baseballhall.org/

 

[SODABOTTLEBOB]

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.

Sincerely,

Bob

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.

 

[SODABOTTLEBOB]

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."

 

[Bigcypresshunter]

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.
View attachment 634866

 

[SODABOTTLEBOB]

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.

Bob

 

[Bigcypresshunter]

How do you explain #1? Here is what I see.

1- upper part of high top shoe.

2- lacings

3- other side of high top.

View attachment 634871

 

[Bigcypresshunter]

I think he has a 2 tone sock. The sock looks white on top.

 

[Bigcypresshunter]

I thought it was a 2 tone sock but more likely its a short sock and we are seeing bare leg. Try to research when baseball players used short socks. At least we always had very long socks in Little League. I dont remember any bare leg but it was a long time ago...

View attachment 634872

 

[SODABOTTLEBOB]

Big Cy ~

I spent the past two hours researching vintage baseball pants and socks, which included another close eximination of my photo, and I have arrived at the "opinion" that the socks worn by the player in my photo are two colored and stretched tight without any noticable wrinkles. Or the light areas on the upper calf "might" be a part of the pants themselves. Its almost impossible to say which they are - sock - leg - or pant? As far as so called short socks are concerned, I cannot find a single picture of a professional player wearing short socks.

In conjunction with this, I no longer believe the socks in the photo are the stirrup type, nor do I see a white circle on the inside portion of the left leg as I previously thought. I guess I was just seeing things which mysteriously disappeared when I did some additional scanning and zooming. So I am right back to where I was previously and once again believe the white circle is "something" on the sock. But what that something is I cannot say.

I decided to start treating the photo as if it were a one-of-a-kind of Honus Wagner. I realize this sounds far fetched and that the likelihood is a million to one, but just in case it turns out to be someone really special, I don't want to take any chances. If it is a souvenir type photo of Honus Wagner at a hometown event or spring training camp, and proven to be just that, then it could be worth thousands of dollars. I say this tounge-in-cheek, but what the heck, what harm can it do to let my imagination run wild for a little while?

BSBOB

Links for additional reading and research ...

Pants: National Baseball Hall of Fame - Dressed to the Nines - Parts of the Uniform

Socks: National Baseball Hall of Fame - Dressed to the Nines - Parts of the Uniform

Honus Wagner ...

History : Honus Wagner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Card $2.8M : T206 Honus Wagner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Two Colored Socks 1910. Honus Wagner 1909.

 

[SODABOTTLEBOB]

Click to enlarge.

 

[SODABOTTLEBOB]

Baseball caps. Early 1900s.

 

[Bigcypresshunter]

Its too tight fitting to be part of the pants. I think its a 2 tone sock to match his 2 toned cap.

Its funny how nowadays pants go all the way down to the shoe. Heck even in high school we used to match our socks to our shirt.

If its a 2 tone sock, we are probably looking at an official uniform. I think its older than 1900 because of the unpopular Jockey type cap

 

[Bigcypresshunter]

Click to enlarge.

View attachment 635137View attachment 635179

I cant figure what is around the top of his right shoe (above). Is that some kind of ankle brace Braces were popular to treat injuries as there are many patented braces found by MDers. I also notice Honus Wagner has something on top of his right shoe that is not apparent on the left.. What is that??

 

[Bigcypresshunter]

2 tone socks and jockey cap, no numbers, belt, collar, high top shoes and possible ankle brace.

Is he on a pitchers mound? Third base? I cant figure what postion he is playing or where is he is throwing If he is an infielder, why are there no outfielders?

 

[Bigcypresshunter]

Could he be behind 3rd base throwing back to the catcher? Where are the other infielders? Could he be in front of first base throwing back to the right fielder before the start of the inning??

Pitcher on a flat mound fielding a bunt to throw to first base with the secoind baseman covering?

 

[SODABOTTLEBOB]

Big Cy ~

Each and every one of your observations and questions are valid and helpful, but almost impossibe to answer with any measure of exactness. One minute I think one thing, and then the very next minute I think something else. All in all, I think solving this to within any degree of certainty is going to come down to the photo paper and process itself. Of course, there is always the outside chance that someone like Tim or his photo experts will come up with something that the rest of us missed or never thought of, but even that is almost too much to hope for. The first chance I get I'm going to have it looked at under a microscope and see if the words on the building or anything else about it jumps out at us. However, I haven't fully looked into this yet and not sure at the moment who would even have a microscope except for a medical lab or some place like that. Do libraries, etc have microscopes available to the general public? I'm not sure either but intend to make some inquiries and find out. Speaking of which, I still think my best bet (especially if Tim and his people strike out) is to take it to a vintage photo expert and see what they have to say. I'm hopeful that a expert will have a microscope on hand, and have to believe they would.


By the way, and I never mentioned this before because its kind of far fetched, but there is a clearly visible finger print on the inside of the glass. But whether it was captured there one hundred years ago or the day I purchased it is another impossible question to answer. I only know that I didn't put it there. I have already tried to scan and photograph the print but nothing I try will capture it for eximaniation here. And as far as the glass itself goes, it is flat and not the convex or bubble-type that were most common on those types of minature, oval frames that have what are referred to as an easel support leg in back. I've looked at zillions of similar frames, but have not found one yet that has the exact same easel leg.

Anyhoo ... I'm hoping to hear back from Tim sometime this coming week and hope he has some good news for us. Wouldn't it be a hoot if my little mystery photo ended up in "The Baseball Hall of Fame?" (Sorry, there goes my wild imagniation again).

Bob