 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
11-10-2010, 05:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
very nice piece.
|
|
#4
11-10-2010, 07:23 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Now, can some one please tell me, what is the difference between a mounted photo and a cabinet?
Thanks to everyone for all for your comments. Especially Mr. Mac for creating the bookend for my Gehrig piece! My best, Jimmy
|
|
#6
11-11-2010, 04:45 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
In the book "A Portrait of Baseball Photography" on page 334 in the Glossary, under "Cabinet Card" it states: "A print photo affixed to a thick paper backing, or "mount," with dimensions typically ranging from 5" x 7" to 8" x 10", but possibly even exceeding 11" x 14" in order to fulfill the intent of being prominently displayed in a "cabinet" - hence the name." Once again, is there any difference and if so, why would my Brown photo not be considered a cabinet? Thanks in advance. Sincerely, Jimmy
|
|
#7
11-11-2010, 09:57 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Really there's not much difference, more so it has to do with the time period. "Cabinet cards" were predominant from the late 1860's to the 1890's. Later photos, such as this, are typically considered "mounted photos". Cabinet cards were often displayed "as is". Mounted photos were made so that they could be placed in a frame if desired.
Rob M.
|
|
#8
11-11-2010, 04:14 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
It looks like another one of those things that the definition has really been loosened up recently to qualify as a "card". A Cabinet mount is generally around the 4 1/2" x 6 1/2" size. I guess it would technically qualify as an Imperial Cabinet. Still it looks like one of those pieces in which a photograph was attached to a generic "Mount" in order to preserve the photograph. You could have done that with any photo of the era. The stamp on the back seems to indicate it was part of Conlon's files. I'd be hard pressed to call it a "Charles Conlon" Cabinet card unless there was a Conlon imprint or raised seal distinctive to the mount itself. Looks more like an ownership stamp, even if it was Conlon himself who took the photo. Just my two cents and I could very well be wrong. Still a great piece though, regardless. I didn't mean to downgrade or be dismissive of the item. It's still a wonderful vintage photograph either way. If it were up to me, it wouldn't make a difference value-wise. I think it's ridiculous sometimes that something is deemed more valuable then something else, just because someone decided whether or not it was technically a "card" or not.
|
 |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| cabinet sets | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 15 | 02-29-2008 06:20 PM |
| Several Football/Baseball Cabinet Photos and much more on Ebay | Archive | Ebay, Auction and other Venues Announcement- B/S/T | 0 | 02-14-2008 10:10 PM |
| Cabinet Photos + More For Sale | Archive | Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T | 3 | 12-27-2006 10:11 PM |
| Another Joe Jackson T5 cabinet question | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 9 | 08-26-2006 01:29 PM |
| Kalamazoo Bats Boston Cabinet vs. Kalamazoo Bats Pittsburgh Cabinet | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 5 | 12-09-2005 08:54 AM |
Hybrid Mode
