19th Century Base Ball Painting

[bgar3]

Thanks Scott, my memory is not what it used to be.

[ramram]

Bingo! Thanks guys for the detective work. It would be interesting to find out just when that painting was actually done. Can you guys get right on that now?

Rob M

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by bgar3

Thanks Scott, my memory is not what it used to be.

My Pleasure. I found a litho with the same building in centerfield, but which otherwise looked nothing like this print. It was described as a game between Brooklyn and Cincinnati in 1870. I believe the 'Fashions' print was based on the same game, but the players added to it (other than the 'A' and 'C' players) had nothing to do with the rest of the image but were added ('C' and 'A' uniforms changed to blue uniforms) to illustrate other types of baseball uniforms.

This makes the 'folk art' painting sort of curious. Someone who knows more about the 'Union Grounds' could probably compare the painting to the print and determine which came first. My own opinion is that the print came first, as the players look very relaxed and natural, whereas the middle guy in the painting looks like he is floating in air, and the players in the painting do not look like they are a natural distance from one another. I'm guessing the litho artist created an all-'Cincinnati/Brooklyn' version first, then modified some of the uniforms for the 'Fashion' litho.

[Runscott]

...I also think that the fact that the painter handled the middle guy's feet and shadow so poorly might indicate that it is a legitimate early painting (1800's), as a modern forger should have at least made the feet look like they were standing on the planks, just so it wouldn't look like a bad copy of a litho (bringing into question its age).

[GaryPassamonte]

Here is a painting I bought a few years ago based on an existing image. It is a watercolor and is quite primitive compared to the one referenced in this thread. The date 1867 is written on the painting. Is it vintage? I'm unsure. Although making a copy of an existing painting or print was not uncommon, I still become skeptical when I see one where the potential for big dollars is possible.

[Runscott]

It sold in REA Spring 2007 $22,325, then in Spring, 2010 for $15,275

http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/...ll-lithograph/

[Econteachert205]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder but as someone who collects non sport folk art, yeesh. I'd say about 17,500 of the 18k is a premium for it being baseball related. Although it is old let me tell you it would not be hard to do a similar piece. Old artists board plus old frame plus old paints, this is not an old master we are talking here. I'd stay far away, plus it is god awful ugly. Again totally my opinion.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Econteachert205

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder but as someone who collects non sport folk art, yeesh. I'd say about 17,500 of the 18k is a premium for it being baseball related. Although it is old let me tell you it would not be hard to do a similar piece. Old artists board plus old frame plus old paints, this is not an old master we are talking here. I'd stay far away, plus it is god awful ugly. Again totally my opinion.

Dennis - I beg to differ. The 'floating man' technique is very hard to master. I am thinking about doing a painting where an entire team is floating above the field.

[vintagesportscollector]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Dennis - I beg to differ. The 'floating man' technique is very hard to master. I am thinking about doing a painting where an entire team is floating above the field.

..well then you would have to call the team the "Angels".

[Econteachert205]

Scott, I knew I was missing something. It is no longer a piece of folk art, but instead early outsider fine art and should easily fetch in the six figures. My mistake.

Btw I do like Gary's watercolor much better, very charming piece .