Ed Delahanty Photo - what did I miss?

[drcy]

No.

Offhand, I can't think of an 1800s baseball paper photo that wasn't originally mounted. There are 'skinned' and remounted photos, but those are rare.

Culver put original prints on manilla mounts years later, but those are 1900s photos.

For the record, if the Delehanty is indeed mounted (I can't tell for sure from the pic. When I first looked at it I thought that might have been the white borders), I don't see anything errant with the mount. If it's mounted I don't know why people would say that's not an 1898 mount.

[Leon]

They might say it isn't a correct mount as it has no identifier for the photographer AND those pesky dots on the front at the top.....Both of those observations leave questions to me.

Originally Posted by drcy

No.

Offhand, I can't think of an 1800s baseball paper photo that wasn't originally mounted. There are 'skinned' and remounted photos, but those are rare.

Culver put original prints on manilla mounts years later, but those are 1900s photos.

For the record, if the Delehanty is indeed mounted (I can't tell for sure from the pic. When I first looked at it I thought that might have been the white borders), I don't see anything errant with the mount. If it's mounted I don't know why people would say that's not an 1898 mount.

[kkkkandp]

I'm just going to throw this out there...maybe those "pesky dots" at the top are really supposed to be at the bottom.

Why couldn't the photo have been mounted on a cabinet cardboard from a studio that didn't shoot the subject? The person who mounted the photo simply flipped upside down the mount he had handy for some reason to purposely obscure the studio ID and several of the dots from the logo were just not covered up.

Just a thought...

[Leon]

Could have been but that would still decrease the value to me, somewhat. Any guess is a good guess on this one. For me personally, it's probably good I was the bridesmaid.

Originally Posted by kkkkandp

I'm just going to throw this out there...maybe those "pesky dots" at the top are really supposed to be at the bottom.

Why couldn't the photo have been mounted on a cabinet cardboard from a studio that didn't shoot the subject? The person who mounted the photo simply flipped upside down the mount he had handy for some reason to purposely obscure the studio ID and several of the dots from the logo were just not covered up.

Just a thought...

[the-illini]

Surprised that no one has mentioned that the back says "Return to W.J.(?) Delahanty, 3001 Payne Avenue" Family-owned at one point perhaps?

I think it is an amazing piece.

[drcy]

"Dots?" I looked for and just notice those dots. Perhaps much ado about nothing (or little). They cause me no particular concern.

I deal with non-sports photos too, and original mounted photos are found with no text on them anywhere-- other than any handwriting on back, I mean.

Original mounted photos could be made hastily (as anyone who collects T5 Pinkerton Cabinets knows) and baseball card collectors are people who tend to notice the smallest seemingly out of place detail.

[prewarsports]

For the 19th century in general, almost all were mounted because of the fragility of the photos. By 1897-98 though you can find thousands of unmounted snapshot style images that were developed and never mounted. I probably have 2000 of them here at the house (not baseball subjects) so for 1898 I think it is absolutely a possibility that this photo was developed and never mounted, of if it was it was an amateur job. Whether it was mounted in 1898 or mounted in the 1920's I don't think really matters much, what is important is that "cabinet" just means photo glued to thick paper and there are many levels of quality. To me, this is a photo taken by a family member or teammate and then mounted by Delahanty, a family member, or maybe even the newspaper later on but it is not a professional quality cabinet photograph which limits the value. I think $4400 is probably what it is worth and it is super cool, but I doubt there is much left on the bone for someone looking to flip it for a profit. The fact that it is a "cabinet" doesn't really matter when you are dealing with "amateur mounting jobs"

[the-illini]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

For the 19th century in general, almost all were mounted because of the fragility of the photos. By 1897-98 though you can find thousands of unmounted snapshot style images that were developed and never mounted. I probably have 2000 of them here at the house (not baseball subjects) so for 1898 I think it is absolutely a possibility that this photo was developed and never mounted, of if it was it was an amateur job. Whether it was mounted in 1898 or mounted in the 1920's I don't think really matters much, what is important is that "cabinet" just means photo glued to thick paper and there are many levels of quality. To me, this is a photo taken by a family member or teammate and then mounted by Delahanty, a family member, or maybe even the newspaper later on but it is not a professional quality cabinet photograph which limits the value. I think $4400 is probably what it is worth and it is super cool, but I doubt there is much left on the bone for someone looking to flip it for a profit. The fact that it is a "cabinet" doesn't really matter when you are dealing with "amateur mounting jobs"

Doubt it is a family photo - here is a copy of a photo of Ed Abbiticchio standing in pretty much the same spot.