Show your Hunt and RMY photo wins

[Runscott]

The info you guys are sharing is awesome - most I've learned about photographers in years.

Is there anywhere we can read more about Conlon's life?
Also, common sense tells me that most, if not all, of the T205 portraits were taken by the same photographer, that he was one of the best of his era, and that it's extremely unlikely that he would be unknown. Lacking any other names I will go ahead and call him 'Paul Thompson'.

[horzverti]

Originally Posted by Runscott

The info you guys are sharing is awesome - most I've learned about photographers in years.

Is there anywhere we can read more about Conlon's life?
Also, common sense tells me that most, if not all, of the T205 portraits were taken by the same photographer, that he was one of the best of his era, and that it's extremely unlikely that he would be unknown. Lacking any other names I will go ahead and call him 'Paul Thompson'.

On December 14 1917, Charles Conlon was elected to the finance committee of the NY Herald-Telegram newspaper’s chapel for the 1918 year. Charles also held the position through 1919, as his December 12 1918 election was uncontested.
Although I have seen him wearing a hat in only one photo; apparently he wore many.

[ibuysportsephemera]

Great thread....this is what makes Net54 the very best place for learning about vintage sports memorabilia. Thanks to all that have shared their knowledge.


Jeff

[btcarfagno]

Hadn't put the actual images of my winnings from Hunt.

Frank Chance by Paul Thompson



Pair of Wilbert Robinson



Wilbert Robinson by Conlon



Bill Klem by Conlon



Tommy Connolly by Conlon



Another Klem Conlon



The Cobb Brunners Bread image

[prewarsports]

I am sure this has already been mentioned somewhere, but "Paul Thompson" somehow had correspondents overseas during WWI and some of the best images I have seen from the Western Front were stamped by him and then by a multitude of censors and foreign entities before they made their way back to the United States. This is why I think his baseball images disappear from 1916/17-1920. Not only do his baseball images disappear, but it appears his company COMPLETELY shifted to the War! I think he either abandoned his company here for the more lucrative job of taking pictures of the war OR his photographers did their duty and left and Thompson rolled with the punches. We will probably never know for sure, but that explains why he was fairly prolific for a while and then stopped only to re-emerge about the time he took those amazing images of Ruth!

[Runscott]

Regarding Thompson, I think some detailed analysis could be done to give us a better idea of how many photographers were involved in the T205 project. My initial thought was that most were taken by one person, just because of look, feel, technique. You can look at a Conlon portrait and see characteristics such as depth-of-field, background, etc., that he favored and I'm sure the same could be done for the T205 portraits. We have plenty of examples just from the Hunt auction, plus the great ones that were missing such as Mathewson, Cy Young and a few others.

The other thing that could be done is grouping the non-portrait posed images and looking for 'outliers'. I can already think of two images I'm waiting to arrive that don't look like my other Thompson images;i.e-don't have what I consider the unique 'Thompson' look. Obviously there are images across photographers that look alike, or within a single photographer's work that don't look 'normal' for him, but I'm talking 'in general'. I'll see what I can come up with and post results in a separate thread.

I was really interested when I saw 'Sphere and Ash's initial post about Thompson. I had always thought that the posed images and portraits looked like the works of two separate photographers, but more than two? It's certainly gotten me thinking...and I'm not trying to fight or argue, just learn more.

[sphere and ash]

Originally Posted by Runscott

The info you guys are sharing is awesome - most I've learned about photographers in years.

Is there anywhere we can read more about Conlon's life?'.

The McCabes have written two books about Conlon, as you probably know. I contributed a chapter about Conlon to a book titled Subway Series, edited by Tom Finkelpearl, about 15 years ago, that accompanied an exhibition at the Bronx Museum of the Arts.

I would note a few things about Conlon’s life:

—he fell into baseball photography by accident, thanks to a relationship he had with John B. Foster, later editor of Spalding’s Guide and Secretary of the Giants.

—his work was overwhelmingly driven by the needs of his patrons, The Evening Telegram, Baseball Magazine, and Spalding’s Guide. The only work he ever produced for himself, in my view, were his close-up studies of eyes and hands (disclosure: this is the heart of my photography collection).

—Conlon was Irish, as were a very large number of ballplayers. I would speculate that this helped him gain acceptance into the community he would document for 40 years, but it’s just speculation.

—Conlon had strong personal relationships with several players, particularly McGraw and Matty. Having Matty and McGraw as intermediaries must have made it easier to gain the trust of other ballplayers.

—he had a period of incredible creativity, starting in 1911 when Spalding’s Guide began assigning him to do portraiture, and ending about 1916.

—Conlon entered photo competitions with images of Central Park and bears in zoos. Similarly, he thought his “masterpiece” was Cobb sliding into Austin. He seems to have been unaware of the significance of his baseball portraiture.

—Conlon was a lifelong union man who represented the “Big Six” typographical union as an officer on more than one occasion.

—Conlon photographed baseball for about 40 years, which is an incredibly long time to stay committed to a single subject.

[bgar3]

Runscott, in addition to Sphere and ash’s info above, I recall once owning an early photography magazine, that had a an article by Conlan about taking baseball/sports photographs. I must have found a cite for it somewhere, possibly the bibliography of the first Mcabe book. Once you have the cite, it should be easier to find than it was 25 years ago.

[sphere and ash]

Originally Posted by bgar3

Runscott, in addition to Sphere and ash’s info above, I recall once owning an early photography magazine, that had a an article by Conlan about taking baseball/sports photographs. I must have found a cite for it somewhere, possibly the bibliography of the first Mcabe book. Once you have the cite, it should be easier to find than it was 25 years ago.

I think the article you’re referring to is “The Base Ball Photographer,” which appeared in The Photographic Times in 1913.

The essay I wrote for Subway Series is not available online, but used copies are available on Amazon. I don’t have more information to share presently, but I’m happy to share what I know if you have any particular questions.

As to how many photographers the Paul Thompson agency employed, I don’t see how it can be less than dozens. To meet the needs of newspapers all over the country, you would need photographers in every major city—and over decades.

[Lordstan]

This is a great discussion, I agree.

It makes me wonder about the whole idea of creativity in sports photography. We think of these older "masters" as creating photos with an eye for some artistic aesthetic. I think the more I learn, the more it appears that they really were just guys taking photos to make money based on either current events that they could sell or specific assignments they were hired for. The artistic nature of the photos for the T205s are a good example. While everyone marvels are their beauty, the reality might have been that the tobacco manufacturer may have just asked for close up head shots that would fit the card medium. That requirement, along with the usual equipment of the day wound up creating the aesthetic that was produced. It makes me wonder if it may not have been some esoteric artistic decision made by the photograper(s).
It seems like the more modern photographers, like Iooss, might have more of a purposeful creative effort to their photos to make something beautiful rather than just something to run in a newspaper.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

This is a great discussion, I agree.

It makes me wonder about the whole idea of creativity in sports photography. We think of these older "masters" as creating photos with an eye for some artistic aesthetic. I think the more I learn, the more it appears that they really were just guys taking photos to make money based on either current events that they could sell or specific assignments they were hired for. The artistic nature of the photos for the T205s are a good example. While everyone marvels are their beauty, the reality might have been that the tobacco manufacturer may have just asked for close up head shots that would fit the card medium. That requirement, along with the usual equipment of the day wound up creating the aesthetic that was produced. It makes me wonder if it may not have been some esoteric artistic decision made by the photograper(s).
It seems like the more modern photographers, like Iooss, might have more of a purposeful creative effort to their photos to make something beautiful rather than just something to run in a newspaper.

Well yes... that is pretty much exactly what happened. These guys were not celebs.. they were guns for hire. That said, i think they still took pride in their work.

[sphere and ash]

I think artistic intent is secondary. Chuck Close once said that photography is the only medium in which it is possible to have an accidental masterpiece. I think that makes things more exciting rather than less so. It means the photograph you covet could be in any box or album, as yet undiscovered.

[horzverti]

Originally Posted by sphere and ash

The McCabes have written two books about Conlon, as you probably know. I contributed a chapter about Conlon to a book titled Subway Series, edited by Tom Finkelpearl, about 15 years ago, that accompanied an exhibition at the Bronx Museum of the Arts.

I would note a few things about Conlon’s life:

—he fell into baseball photography by accident, thanks to a relationship he had with John B. Foster, later editor of Spalding’s Guide and Secretary of the Giants.

—his work was overwhelmingly driven by the needs of his patrons, The Evening Telegram, Baseball Magazine, and Spalding’s Guide. The only work he ever produced for himself, in my view, were his close-up studies of eyes and hands (disclosure: this is the heart of my photography collection).

—Conlon was Irish, as were a very large number of ballplayers. I would speculate that this helped him gain acceptance into the community he would document for 40 years, but it’s just speculation.

—Conlon had strong personal relationships with several players, particularly McGraw and Matty. Having Matty and McGraw as intermediaries must have made it easier to gain the trust of other ballplayers.

—he had a period of incredible creativity, starting in 1911 when Spalding’s Guide began assigning him to do portraiture, and ending about 1916.

—Conlon entered photo competitions with images of Central Park and bears in zoos. Similarly, he thought his “masterpiece” was Cobb sliding into Austin. He seems to have been unaware of the significance of his baseball portraiture.

—Conlon was a lifelong union man who represented the “Big Six” typographical union as an officer on more than one occasion.

—Conlon photographed baseball for about 40 years, which is an incredibly long time to stay committed to a single subject.

Thanks for the info. Do you have more on Conlon? Also, can you post a link to your contribution to the Subway Series book which you referenced? I would like to read more.

[Runscott]

Tremendous stuff. Definitely stoking the collecting urge fire.

[MartyFromCANADA]

Has anyone else NOT received their Hunt Invoice yet??

[pherbener]

Originally Posted by MartyFromCANADA

Has anyone else NOT received their Hunt Invoice yet??

I got mine but it's been stuck in my junk folder in the past.