I sure like it also as I teach U.S. History and it seems to be honoring our Allies during WW1. If anybody knows what game of the World Series they held this event I’d sure like to know. Each person is holding a flag representing our allies.

Just picked up this Frankie Frisch over the weekend at The Philly Show:

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4840/...cc56549b_o.jpg

Love the Frisch, Andrew.

Here is a portrait of Benny Kauff, part of a series of hand studies Conlon undertook from 1913-1917.

Phenomenal! Never seen that one before.

Chief Meyers

Wow, great shot of Meyers.

Thanks. I love that he captured Meyers with his hat off—there is nothing that says ‘baseball.’ One of my favorite Conlons for that reason.

Paul, I'll agree with Jeff, that shot of Meyers is top-notch.

I've always really liked the close-up shots that he did. The ones of Ruth and Gehrig are obviously pretty classic, but it's nice seeing them when they're uncropped, which I don't know if I've ever seen in any format other than the negatives. The ones from the 1910s, however, mostly seem to have the majority of the faces intact.

Really cool.

This is how Conlon printed the Ruth and Gehrig close-ups.

Here is Gehrig.

Are you saying that you prefer the extreme close-ups of 1913 to those from 1927? And that the reason is that Conlon cropped the 1927 Yankees in the camera?

Shoeless Joe Jackson’s batting grip

Have you ever thought about what a Charles Conlon photographic exhibition would look like?

I’ve put together an exhibition that I’m about to pitch to various museums across the country. If you would like to see it, I’d be happy to send you a private link to view it. Your feedback would be most appreciated.

Can you please explain how you approached curating the contents of the exhibition?

The key to understanding Conlon is that nearly all of his work was done on assignment—he was always shooting what Spalding’s Guide wanted and very rarely what interested him as a photographer. There were a series of photographic essays, however, that explored the aging ‘batting eyes’ of his subjects, and the batting grips of leading sluggers and the differences in the hands of catchers, infielders, and outfielders. The eyes and hands, in particular, were very innovative portraits, and I thought it was important for viewers to see those prints and what Conlon was trying to achieve with that portraiture.

Other sections explore action photography—Conlon employed a few tricks and would, for example, try to capture a bat’s movement as it slows down near the end of a swing—and Conlon’s relationships with Mathewson, McGraw, and others, which set him apart from other photographers.

1904 New York Giants team photo attributed to Conlon

Do you have any other batting grips?

This is Tris Speaker’s batting grip. Conlon took it to show how Speaker held his lead shoulder. You’ll never look at a T206 of Speaker the same way again.

I keep all my type 1 Conlons in this neat little folder I purchased (it was in my price range):

Attachment 337368

Thanks for posting the Speaker.

Great folder!

Here are some more Conlon’s I just added to my collection.

Nice scores :cool: .

I feel strongly that these are not vintage prints (i.e., Type 1) and believe instead that all Underwoods are copy prints of Conlons. Others disagree. The Ruth and Gehrig aren’t mine—I own them only in their uncropped versions.

If anyone has prints of Paschal or Grabowski, I would be a very interested buyer.

Great group Andy!

Apparently Henry has evidence that Underwood used Conlon negatives. If such evidence exists, then my assertion is wrong and I apologize. If anyone can access the evidence, it would be interesting.

I agree with Paul. I also would like to learn more about the evidence. Ideally, I'd like to view the evidence.

1904 Conlons
 

Here is a collection of 1904 Conlon Type 1 HOFers. 1904 was the first year he photographed baseball.

Griffith, Wagner, Willis
Walsh, Evers, Nichols


Attachment 341410

I love the 1904s!

Conlons
 

That incredible grouping looks even better framed up! Congratulations, Jim!

Can you share images of your uncropped versions of these?

deleted duplicate post

I’m traveling, but will do it when I return.

Awesome Jim!

Those 1904's look great Jim. Love the display!

I’m having trouble photographing this without reflection. The eyes have been enhanced. I’ve always been struck by this print’s middle tones compared to the Underwood print, which is very high contrast. Copy prints build up contrast.

Let me be clear that I have a financial interest in seeing all Underwood Conlon prints as copy prints. There are a substantial number of people who believe that Conlon had an affiliation with Underwood—you can read it in the current Leland’s catalog, for example. I encourage anyone with evidence of a relationship between Conlon and Underwood to share it.

Love my Charles Conlon Ed Sweeney Type 1 Photo

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...adcb81893e.jpg

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...6e50760f8a.jpg
My recent pick up here in the board.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Charles M Conlon Photo of himself. The Master at work on his table!!!

In 2018 I purchased the Mathewson photo discussed in the linked article from Rmy. Love it very much. One of my favorite pieces. RMY's write up is summarized in the article, basically could very well be a Conlon and one of the earliest Mathewson photos. I love the picture, and am not here to second guess Rhys on his understanding of the photo, which was clearly stated. Just wondering if any of you guys who are well-versed in Conlon's work have an opinion either way. (I also believe the write up from Rhys said there are references to this being by Van Oeyen, but that is probably not accurate.) Would love to submit to Henry for confirmation but I suspect someone has done that at some point and was deemed inconclusive.

https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.co...-conlons-work/

Hi Steve

When this photo was uncovered, it was the only known copy. I believed it was a Conlon, and still do, based purely on circumstantial evidence. It has since been credited to Van Oeyen by PSA but I have no idea how they based that. From what I can say is this; Conlon worked primarily with the Giants (National League) his first couple of years taking pictures of ballplayers. It was not the big business it became 3-4 years later and it was actually a bit of a novelty, a side project for Conlon if you will. I bet he only took 5-10 trips to the ballpark to take baseball pictures. He was also known to be personal friends with Mathewson. Van Oeyen similarly was taking shots of almost exclusively Cleveland players (American League) until it became more financially lucrative to start branching out. It seems VERY unlikely that Van Oeyen would have been in any position to take a photograph of Mathewson since they never played the Giants. Aside from that, it has the look and feel of some of Conlon's work and the pieces (location, subject, photographer, style) all make sense for the work to be Conlon's. It is mounted and it would be interesting to see what is on the back of the photo if the mount is removed. I am not saying 100% this is a Conlon photo, but the odd's are overwhelming it is Conlon as opposed to Van Oeyen.

I have no proof for or against the Conlon/Underwood photos Paul is talking about, but I can see what he is saying in regard to the "eyes" subjects in isolation. His contact prints are superior in quality to those stamped by Underwood. However, when talking about the overall relationship between Underwood and Conlon, the large 8x10 uncropped specimens of known Conlon images bearing the Underwood stamps on the back are of exceptional quality. I believe those ones to be off Conlon negatives. We actually viewed an archive recently with a large box of Underwood paperwork from the 1920's and I was praying for some type of paperwork linking Conlon to Underwood but no luck. It is probably a mystery that will never be solved.

I can also confirm that the Mathewson photograph in question has never been submitted to PSA. It was discovered by us in an archive, then sold. In 2018 it was re-consigned by the buyer the first time around and never changed hands in-between. The provenance is known all the way back to 1904.

ALSO I have been informed that it was not PSA who determined the photo was a Van Oeyen, it was from another source on a vintage re-strike and I apologize for my memory being wrong on that one.

Thanks. Just seeing if others could have more info. Love the picture.

Thanks. Amazing photo. One of my favorites.

Jon,
that is a MAGNIFICENT photo of Fred Clarke. Two questions: where has it been published? and what is going on with his left hand?
Mark

Hi Mark.

Thanks for the compliments. I really liked the photo. Which is one of a handful that I’ve ever owned. I’m not sure where it was published. Anyway I could find that out? And his hand is leathery for sure. He spent a lot of time in the sun in left field.

Jon


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reds Champs
 

Here are seven Conlon type 1s from 1919.

Just picked up this Jimmy Lavender Conlon Photo Type 1 for my collection.

Bullet Joe Bush Type 1 Conlon Photo!
 

1910’s Bullet Joe Bush type 1 Conlon Photo!

Just recently acquired my "Smoky" Joe Conlon. Goes well in my collection even if he's in a Cleveland uniform.

<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/192024735@N03/51041894381/in/album-72157718160924068/" title="Smoky Joe Wood Charles Conlon"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51041894381_01cffe00aa_z.jpg" width="479" height="640" alt="Smoky Joe Wood Charles Conlon"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>