N172 “No Name” Cards

[Matthew H]

I just came across this while looking at old auctions... What do you guys think? ( another 1889 Denver pose)

http://www.19thcenturyonly.com/site/...etauctionid=60

[Joe_G.]

Great work Matthew!, it looks to me like a 2nd "no name" card has been identified. I'm not surprised it is an 1889 Denver card. As stated earlier, it looks like many of the 1889 Denver cards were issued without a block text name panel for part of the production run even though the script name on the negative was tough to read (or in this case outside of the cropping imposed on the N172 card). Perhaps after realizing the script name on the negative was hard to read on the small N172 cards, they thought better of it and added the block text panels. This very McQuaid pose which has no name (or an extremely tough one to see), may have been responsible for the 24 image sheet to be re-created with the block text panels. I've attached an example of McQuaid both ways.

No Name N172 Checklist:
112-2 - Con Daley - R/hand on him, L/arm at side
318-3 - James McQuaid - Catch, hands outstretched head high on L

The Old Judge book actually shows the "no name" McQuaid (different example than the one posted below) but the image is a bit lighter and I previously thought the script name was there but difficult to see. The example you provided more clearly shows the name is not there.

Keep searching, perhaps we can add more poses to the list.

[Joe_G.]

Now that I've reviewed an N173 of McQuaid (below), I wonder if the name is present on the N172 in question but very hard to read (similar to Hafner already discussed). The McQuaid N173 is a different pose (318-2) but clearly shows a very light name in script close to the feet. If the same location were selected on pose 318-3 (the card in question), it is present on the N172 card but extremely tough to read (very little contrast with background). A higher contrast N172 or the N173 of pose 318-3 would help to better determine if this is a "no name" card. However, until proven otherwise, I think we should keep it on the list.

[Matthew H]

Great info Joe, thanks! With all of these Denver cards relying on script... It seems with all of the cropping variances between the same pose... there has to be another one with no name out there to be found.

Not to de-rail this thread, is it possible that some posses (other then brooklyn) can be found with a different "zoom" ( larger or smaller ) ?

I have compared the card of Nagle below to others of the same pose. In mine, he seems larger. His head touches the top of the photo while his feet seems closer to the bottom. he also looks wider. Maybe someone can prove me wrong... I would really like to know. (This also may help us find another no name )

Edit: Would we be able to tell if the Mcquaid has a name with a reversed image? I dont have photoshop anymore so I cant do it.

[Joe_G.]

Matthew, I did try to invert colors on McQuaid and can see what looks like part of the "M" and "Q" but nothing more. I could give it a better attempt if I had the card in-hand, scanned it at 600dpi, and played with the brightness, contrast, and color inversion. I'm sure the name is there.

As for Nagle and many others, they can be found at slightly different sizes year-to-year and even within same year (physical size of player on the card). An extreme case of this is Bill Collins who was awarded two different poses based on same negative due to significantly different appearance. One card shows Collin's entire body, the other only "3/4 length". See poses 84-7 & 84-8.

The Brooklyn mini is why Brooklyn was discussed at length in the book (regarding production process that led to normal and smaller appearing players).