Nice old 1866 photo ended early on the bay
 

AS I was figuring out what to bid I guess the seller went ahead and left a good amount of money on the table taking an offer. Wish I was the one that made it :)> ...I would have loved to bid at the end.....Congrats to whomever made the offer and got it.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1866-Virgini...4AAOSwjwlXBBjr


.

Yes, the seller got screwed on this one. Assuming the back notation is correct, this would be one of the oldest images of a Southern baseball team known to exist and worth many times what they paid. Too bad.

Why is baseball spelled as one word, "baseball", and not "Base Ball" on the back?

I don't put much stock in handwriting analysis, but that ain't 19th century handwriting. The photo I trust, but the handwriting is much more recent.

^^^^ 100% agree ^^^^

Accurate notes can be added later on, if it came from an album, family archive, other. My aunt went through old family photos, including some from the turn of the 1800s and early 1900s, and wrote the names of the relatives/descendants on the back.

The photo itself is 1860s. 1866 could definitely be the correct date.

Sure looks to be a legitimate photo to me. The seller left some money on the table, but I don't think they left a bunch.

Correct card stock
 

The photo is mounted on the correct card stock for 1866. The wide line - thin line stock was used from 1864 - 1869.

Dean- Thanks. That's good information.

Did the seller start this at $99.99 with a $750 BIN or did he add the BIN after receiving an offer from someone?

He added it.....I would have hit a BIN of at least 2x the price.....but that's sour grapes.

And that being said if the winner reads this and wants to double their money, please contact me. :)

This is one nice cdv. I can come up with about a dozen team cdvs from 1866 or earlier and many of these poses are unique. Also, all depict teams from the northeast, particularly the New York and Massachusetts corridor. Being from 1866 and picturing a team from Virginia makes it not only nice, but special.

Doubling there money on this CDV is quite steep in my opinion... I saw it when it first popped up on eBay and the first thought that crossed my mind was ehhhh? Not my favorite... I agree with others, maybe a little left on the table but not much.... The posting of this thread and quick response I thought was more interesting - and probably just a part of the game outside of EBay... Thinking I might try the same trick next time I loose out....

I only wish I had asked about it first, my only regret. I have asked about them many times and got many of them at BINs as this one was. I just didn't do it this time. My mistake, not a big deal. There is always something else to buy.

Its probably worth 2500-4000 in my opinion. If it was a northern team, 1000-1500 but if properly advertised as a rare piece of southern baseball history it is worth at least 4X the final price. Could do better, could do worse but that is what I would expect.

Rhys, looks like you are right on.

http://www.cowanauctions.com/auction...aspx?id=136757

Now that one looks great! :) I would be a little nervous If I was the buyer of the $750.00 one

one sold on ebay looks nicer!

Are you saying that, because it has the same stains as the one in Cowans Auction? I really like all the reprint Ruths and Wagners that he has sold!

Shit... I did not look that closely ! I noticed that the borders had a different color but the one in the Cowan auction looked like it had more damage than the other?

So now there's 2 of them

Photographer back
 

I like that the Cowan one has a photographer I'd on the back, eBay was blank. The background is almost certainly the Lawn housing area of UVA, where Poe once lived and is still in use.

that ebay photo definitely looks cropped compared to the Cowan.

Maybe it's just me, but the eBay example looks very washed out to my eyes. The Cowans example is clear, even when you magnify the view. Also, the guilding on the eBay example is faded, which could be natural, but might also be an example of a poor copy.

I was just going to post that this is an amazing image. But now I read the last few posts on this thread, and I'm happy I didn't pay any money for the ebay one!

You got that right..

No wonder he was so eager to take the BIN!

apparently it was a duck!

I sent this message to the seller: So did you sell this as a reprint to the buyer or are you trying to misrepresent it?

Seller's response: Excuse me!!! This was not a reprint I showed to some dealers and also I'm offering a full refund on the item

My follow-up:Ok, just thought you might want to hear that there are concerns about what is being sold. You may want to check out the 12/16/2013 Cowan's auction of this image. Interesting that it appears to have all the same stain marks sans the cropped portions around the perimeter of the image.

Now I'm not gonna say it's a reprint myself but I think it doesn't take a genius to come to your own conclusion. What is annoying out there on eBay anymore (amongst many other things) is that sellers think they can get away with anything by saying they'll offer a refund. So, what most do is to sell it and hope that the buyer doesn't know what he has. If he does, they apologize profusely and then the duped buyer is so happy to get his money back he doesn't even give the seller a negative feedback. Hell, I've even seen buyers give a positive feedback for the seller being "so honest" just cuz they got their money back.

Rob M.

If I am not mistaken that buyer is a board member. Hope he sees this thread

Nice catch Gary. If you hadn't found that item sold by Cowan Auction, no one would have known the difference.

I can't take credit for the link. Another board member found it and sent it to me. Net54 works!

Is there a reason you were openly rude to the seller to start the conversation? Everyone on here thought it was real till other evidence was introduced.

Because most all of the other items he has sold are reprints and this one is clearly a fake. He's trying to scam somebody for $750 on a quick BIN and hoping they don't notice. Look at the Cowan's auction CDV and this one. He didn't have an original fall in his lap. He either got it from his "sources" or he made it himself.

Edited to add - To further answer your question - it's because that's what you're required to do when you get to be my age. I'm getting old, cynical, I've got hair starting to grow on my ears, and all those other things that happen when you.....umm, crap, now I forgot what the hell was I talking about....

I'd question that Custer CDV he sold too.

I thought the same thing

Not much doubt now
 

He just listed three Civil War tintypes, and these are marked reproduction in the title line.

Contact the seller, he may have another one.

I've spent some time today comparing the Cowan example and the ebay example of this cdv. There do seem to be a couple areas of difference. On the Cowan example there is a white chip below the dark spot on the pillar nearest the tree. This white chip is not on the ebay example. Also, there is a large white area in the top center of the tree in the Cowan example . This too appears absent from the ebay example. Finally, and this is more difficult to see, the Cowan example has a couple small white chips to the right of the tree top right not in the ebay example. These differences take the cropping into effect. If it possible the other similar flaws in the two cdvs were actually a part of the original image and not added through handling and time, and that the ebay example is not positively a hoax? If the ebay example is faked, it should be identical to the Cowan example. Take a look.

Hi Gary. I'm seeing multiple foxing and stain marks from the Cowan image that show up on the ebay image. That is the tell-all. There's no way those should match. The most obvious is the mark on the left shoulder of the player standing fourth from the left.

And the black mark under the right column on the house