c. 1858 Baseball Stiching Bench

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by ooo-ribay

Very cool! Does the price sticker say 20 bucks? I’d love to know how that thing “works.”

100 bucks. I can't begin to figure the thing out, but I am a mechanical idiot. The one in REA looks to have the same parts, but assembled, so maybe that's a better bet. I suspect the leather strapping and floor pedal assembly is intended to somehow turn the baseball with one's legs while it is being stitched.

[ooo-ribay]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

100 bucks.

Still a smoking deal!

I wonder what the "experts" would say about applying something like linseed oil?

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by ooo-ribay

Still a smoking deal! I wonder what the "experts" would say about applying something like linseed oil?

I'm not going to mess with it, even though I'm sure the old wood could be made to look a lot better. I'll leave that to someone else.

[doug.goodman]

That's super cool Hank, and so is the REA example, BUT...

From REA description :
... What is all the more remarkable about this bench is the presence of a small engraved metal plaque affixed to the wooden support slate on the right side of the bench ... aside from the plaque, no additional provenance accompanies (so) the 1858 date and the specific attribution to the H. Harwood & Sons company to some extent therefore relies upon a leap of faith...


TO SOME EXTENT?!

Based on the facts described those three words should be replaced by a single word that is spelled by the letters : c o m p l e t e l y

And maybe they should be capitalized, and bold print might be nice, maybe even highlight the background around them.



Looks like you just need to make a plaque Hank, affix it to the side and then throw in a "leap of faith" and you've got enough proof for REA to call it an original.

Doug "and maybe it actually is" Goodman

[Hankphenom]

I can't argue with a word you wrote, Doug, and never would. The plaque is of some interest, but I believe that any kind of direct provenance to Harwood would have elevated the REA auction results by some multiple. I suppose it IS a baseball stitching bench, though, and if you could see the wood construction and the iron and leather pieces that make up the working parts of the contraption, it screams old, old, old. Other than that, pick your cliche of choice, starting with "it is what it is" through "find another one," etc. I appreciate your expertise and your reality check!

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

I can't argue with a word you wrote, Doug, and never would. The plaque is of some interest, but I believe that any kind of direct provenance to Harwood would have elevated the REA auction results by some multiple. I suppose it IS a baseball stitching bench, though, and if you could see the wood construction and the iron and leather pieces that make up the working parts of the contraption, it screams old, old, old. Other than that, pick your cliche of choice, starting with "it is what it is" through "find another one," etc. I appreciate your expertise and your reality check!

I don't have any expertise, I just get annoyed by misleading (to be polite) descriptions.

I think they're both super cool, and while I myself wouldn't buy one at the REA price, you seem to have paid an amount that I probably would have.

I think the one you bought may have been a prototype for the REA one, which would of course would give yours more value IF it had a plaque stating that "fact", hint hint. How's 1837 sound to you as a date?


And I'm perfectly happy for my points to be argued and TO SOME EXTENT completely change my mind when my points are shown to be incorrect.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

I think the one you bought may have been a prototype for the REA one, which would of course would give yours more value IF it had a plaque stating that "fact", hint hint. How's 1837 sound to you as a date?

Ha! I'm not the plaque-making type unless I know what I'm plaquing about. Whether whoever made the REA plaque did or did not is complete conjecture, as you point out. Mine does appear to be of the exact same construction as the other one, though, so I'm not sure why you might think it a prototype as opposed to another example of the same generation of its kind, perhaps the first but who knows?