Old Judge Minutiae

[oldjudge]

As some dedicated Old Judge collectors may remember, there are several known instances where the ball in a pose may have been moved on the negative, either to accommodate a Gypsy Queen banner or just for aesthetic reasons. I have found another case of a moving ball, but in this case resulting from multiple ball positions during the original photo session. If one refers to the Old Judge book you will see that Sleepy Townsend has two poses that are the same except one has no ball visible (461-3), and one with the ball visible at the right (461-4). Note that the position of the ball in 461-4 is even with the subject's palms. Also shown below is a Gilbert and Bacon Townsend proof. This is the same pose, but in this case the ball is even with his finger tips, higher than in 461-4. Thus, it appears that Gilbert and Bacon took multiple, very similar images for Goodwin to select from. Now that we know what we are looking for it will be interesting to see if this newly found ball positioning pose shows up on an N172.
Note: it is also possible that 461-3 is the pose shown on the proof with the ball cropped out.

[bigfish]

Great info. I was bidding on those two cabinets. Mostly for the other one bit it’s cool to hear this bit of info.

Thanks for sharing.

[oldjudge]

The other cabinet was interesting too. We never knew which photographer took the 1887 Brooklyn outdoor images for Goodwin. The conventional thinking was that it was probably Jos Wood. That other cabinet proved that it was Carroll, the same photographer who photographed the 1887 Giants. All other 1887 NL images were photographed by Gray of Boston.

[DPassner1]

I don't know if this counts as "retcon-ing," but I have this card. It's great. Beyond that, Not sure if it's untoward to say that I'm looking to divest. (If it is, I apologize mods.)

[BeanTown]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

The other cabinet was interesting too. We never knew which photographer took the 1887 Brooklyn outdoor images for Goodwin. The conventional thinking was that it was probably Jos Wood. That other cabinet proved that it was Carroll, the same photographer who photographed the 1887 Giants. All other 1887 NL images were photographed by Gray of Boston.

Would you consider that cabinet a baseball card?

[Leon]

I've had moving ball syndrome before. It was painful!

Good stuff, Jay. Definitely minutiae but very cool.
.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by BeanTown

Would you consider that cabinet a baseball card?

No, it is a photograph that was used in creating a baseball card. It's close since it is directly related to a baseball card set, a lot closer than some Young cabinets, but I still think it falls on the wrong side of the line.

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by Leon

I've had moving ball syndrome before. It was painful!

Good stuff, Jay. Definitely minutiae but very cool.
.

That's what happens when you have three.

[BeanTown]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

No, it is a photograph that was used in creating a baseball card. It's close since it is directly related to a baseball card set, a lot closer than some Young cabinets, but I still think it falls on the wrong side of the line.

Is there a site or book that we can reference for which photographers are more closer to baseball cards than others? Maybe teams had official photographers? When you say related to a baseball card set are you saying the same image must be used?

[oldjudge]

In an appendix at the back of the book

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

No, it is a photograph that was used in creating a baseball card. It's close since it is directly related to a baseball card set, a lot closer than some Young cabinets, but I still think it falls on the wrong side of the line.

Opinions are like assholes….

Hi Jay,

Love Cy

[BeanTown]

Love that Cy Young cabinet which is from a known photographer. Now, I need to check the back of the book to see if they used John Ryder photos for Old Judge cards, which would make it cross the line.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

No, it is a photograph that was used in creating a baseball card. It's close since it is directly related to a baseball card set, a lot closer than some Young cabinets, but I still think it falls on the wrong side of the line.

Ok...let's see. It's a baseball cabinet card therefore, since card is in its name...cabinet cards are baseball cards. It's black and white to me.

[oldjudge]

Albumen photographs were quite thin and fragile and needed to be glued to a rigid backing for protection. A family photo during this period might very well be on a cabinet card. The Young photograph is a wonderful early photograph of Young, but I would guess that the Young family had other cabinet cards with family pictures in their home. To me it is no different than any of those. Was it part of a set of other images of Cleveland players that was distributed in the area? Is there any indication that it was intended to be baseball related? Rob Lifson used to add the caveat that it was issued with the intent of advertising a product—I’m not sure how I feel on this criteria but some people add it in.
As to the cabinet card that Leon is alluding to it does depict a baseball subject and was part of a “set” of photographs that were prepared for Goodwin and Company to be used to produce baseball cards. However, it was not generally available for distribution, it was made solely for Goodwin. The last factor for me tips it to photograph and not baseball card.
Does calling something a photograph rather than a baseball card make it any more or less desireable—that’s for the owner to decide. I love the Brooklyn photograph regardless what you call it and I’m sure Ryan loves the Young cabinet, regardless of what you call it.
Finally, I agree with Ryan that everyone has their own opinion and the fact that some are different is certainly not surprising.