Folk Art Renditions of Baseball Players/ Who Are They?

[TaxMechanick]

Hey, I posted this on the card side; I should post this on the memorabilia side and see if anyone responds here...

Hello,Everyone,

I recently acquired these (2) c late 1880's (likely) folk art depictions of baseball players:
https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com...e?itemid=66398

I have my own ideas based on the style of uniforms (although no team names are obviously identified) and the represented images, as to whom the artist may have intended them to represent.

Alternatively, they may have been intended as "generic" renditions?

My preference is to first get some of your thoughts, without influence by my personal opinion. What do you think?

Please stay safe and well.

Thanks,
Glenn Mechanick

[CarltonHendricks]

Originally Posted by TaxMechanick

Hey, I posted this on the card side; I should post this on the memorabilia side and see if anyone responds here...

Hello,Everyone,

I recently acquired these (2) c late 1880's (likely) folk art depictions of baseball players:
https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com...e?itemid=66398

I have my own ideas based on the style of uniforms (although no team names are obviously identified) and the represented images, as to whom the artist may have intended them to represent.

Alternatively, they may have been intended as "generic" renditions?

My preference is to first get some of your thoughts, without influence by my personal opinion. What do you think?

Please stay safe and well.

Thanks,
Glenn Mechanick

Glen sir...nice to see you here...your link doesn't work for me....can you post a photo....I searched for folk art on REA....only thing I got was two bowling pins with BB players painted on them...

[1880nonsports]

you are more than likely SPOT ON.

[TaxMechanick]

Carlton, it is great hearing from you.

The bowling pins are it! What are your thoughts?

Glenn

[CarltonHendricks]

Originally Posted by TaxMechanick

Carlton, it is great hearing from you.

The bowling pins are it! What are your thoughts?

Glenn

Hi glen...Congratulations on your handsome purchase....they look individualistic and may very well have been intended to represent two specific players...but I haven't studied 19th century in many years...and don't have an encyclopedic recall of 19th century players faces...plus going from a photo without examining in person...But from a practical point of view...both players are rendered in different uniforms...and faces are different

What I caught was the pants are below the knee...kind of ruling out being from the 1860s...not cinched at the ankles...though the one on the right seems to have kind of an 1860 style cap...

What we need in this thread is a photo....so I'm including one...hope you don't mind...

So what's your take...what famous players did bidders overlook that you scored...

[TaxMechanick]

Hi Carlton,

Thanks for all of your feedback!

Honestly, when I bid on them I just assumed them to be generic and did not think about them representing depictions of real players.

When I received them, I started to study them more and it became a project for me... I do believe they are folk art renditions rather than produced, and I believe based on the characteristics and somewhat specific styles of the uniforms, although with no clear uniform identification, that they were intended to depict specific professional players. As I believe them to be circa late 1880s... i.e. 1887 to 1888 or so... question becomes who were key players from that time?

Now, I also believe there were likely more originally of them... quite possibly 10, so there were likely more renditions of players captured. So, these 2 they may not necessarily be the very best players of the time, but among the best players of the time, i.e. there may have been Anson and Kelly among subjects?

That said, these are the only ones that I recollect seeing, other than i did see the ones from the Mark Cooper collection i am going to say 30 years ago or so. I remember them being different and naming specific players, but do not specifically remember more than that... what comes to mind are players from the early 20th century, rather than 19th century....i.e. Mathewson?

I can say with fair certainty these are circa 1880s, and likely late 1880.

Anyway, in starting with researching uniform styles from the period, i believe one is Cincinnati and other is New York, although again neither is ided so i could be wrong. Anyway, here is my belief...

Cincinnati player is long in stature and features resemble long John Riley. He was among the best players in the window of the late 1880s based on his stats

New York player has the body stature and look and uniform style of John Monte Ward.

What are your further thoughts?

Best,
Glenn Mechanick

[Butch7999]

This similar (related?) set was discussed in here just over ten years ago...
Brouthers and Clarkson are featured in the crudely engraved medallions on the (related?) ball...

[TaxMechanick]

THANK-YOU very much Butch7999! This is EXTREMELY helpful!

My take is that the (2) I have, which are different from the (6) presented in that thread, are part of a larger set, I believe likely 10 in total?

My take as far as the one's I have is that, although unnamed, they were intended on depicting "long" John Riley (which I am more confident on) and John Monte Ward (which I am less confident on, but still believe if not him, I cannot determine a better match).

Regardless, I love them!

For all reading this thread, any additional observations and/or analysis or thoughts?

Please stay safe and well.

Thanks & Best,
Glenn Mechanick

[perezfan]

I would've bid higher on that lot, but could not even begin to identify them. I figured they were generic images that would be impossible to attribute to any specific players of the era.

Of course, you could be right... it's not out of the realm of possibility that they could represent those players. But it was too much "leaping" and not enough "faith" for me to come to that conclusion.

A beautiful pair, regardless... Awesome pickup, and please keep us posted if you locate any images that enable you to make the attribution!

[TaxMechanick]

Mark,

Well, for personal reasons, obviously I am really glad you did not bid higher. I'm really happy to have them.

As I said above, while bidding, I too assumed they were generic representations, rather then specific intended players. It was only after receiving them, and studying them in more detail, that my curiosity was piqued and this become a project for me.

I have not as of yet affirmed their identification, but I will keep working on it. Given other shared information from Butch7999, which I was able to easily locate online (funny, while previously searching, I was not able to locate such information; I guess I did not use the appropriate magic words), I am feeling confident that these are specific intended player representations, rather than generic depictions of baseball players... as I said I am feeling good that the one is intended to represent long John Riley; I'm not as confident on the other representing John Monte Ward, but, at least for now, it is what I have come up with....

In the meantime, if anyone else has any ideas or any positive affirmation on these, please do share...

Thanks & Best,
Glenn Mechanick

[Butch7999]

Well, here's something that seems to only add to the mystery...
we knew Mark Cooper had a set of these or something similar, so we took a look
at his 1994 Home Games book and scanned the photo there of his set...

As you can see, the wooden pins themselves are significantly different than those in your set,
but the painted or decal images of the players -- to which Mark added his worthy but arguable
identifications -- appear identical to those on your set.

[perezfan]

The players on that second set don’t look identical to me. The images have significant differences from the first set, so perhaps I’m misunderstanding something?

[TaxMechanick]

I agree.. Its funny, the Cooper one's (6 of them) that Butch7999 posted (from Cooper's book) are fairly similar images as the (6) posted also posted by Butch7999 above in this thread, relating to a link previously posted from about 10 years ago, yet they are on different types of wooden, I'll call them bowling pins, although, I suppose the Cooper one's could be Indian Clubs. As Mark, says there are some slight differences, i.e. in the player squatting.

The fact that the (2) (I'll call them) sets are reasonably but not exactly identical, I'm not sure whether this gives more credence to them being produced or folk art? I would think the fact that they are somewhat close to being identical, but not exact, might initially infer that the images at least were produced and then perhaps painted over individually (in folk art manner), but then again.....

Also funny is that each (set) has a similar number (6) and is relatively identical, which infers each is a set... however, logic, if they are on bowling pins, is that there may be more to compose a set... likely (10) in total. Adding credence to this is that the (2) I have as illustrated above are totally different images than the (6) commonly in each set.

I have not seen those sets in person to be able to compare the images and details and color differences of the painted renditions, perhaps over initial transfer images (other than I recollect seeing the Cooper ones about 30 years or so ago, while he was set up at the old Atlantic City Convention Center on the boardwalk... and I do not remember them well enough, except to this day still remembering how cool they were).

I wonder regarding the (2) (sets) of (6), whether one was done first as "folk art" and the other one was done, perhaps even by the same person, or by another person (only having in hand those 6 of the original ones were done, from a larger original population, i.e. of 10), similarly as folk art renditions, thus explaining relatively small differences. From the original link provided above, there was a similar group also on different pins , and I believe larger in size (although I'm not sure of a comparison of the size of the images themselves), also perhaps done "as folk art" from the original or secondary group.

As discussed above, perhaps these were transfers hand painted over, but, then why the small differences in the images themselves (without regard to colors from paintings over) of sets?

The other issue, of course, is whether they were originally intended as renditions of specific players (as Cooper identified, exclusive of the (2) I have), or just intended as generic? I give more credence to being specific player renditions. As I discussed above, I am fairly confident on one of mine being a depiction of long John Riley; the other I'm less confident, but reasonably believe to be John Monte Ward.

I understand at this point, we may be going around in circles, but, if anyone finds anything additional or has an additional thoughts... please share?

Thanks & Best,
Glenn

[perezfan]

Pretty good likeness of Reilly... particularly with regard to the uniform color, tall/thin stature, style of mustache, posture and positioning of the feet (splayed out, as opposed to parallel). But then again, the other player has the same mustache, body type and foot positioning .... ugh!

Definitely involves some speculation, and we may never have a conclusive answer. But the subject image certainly "could have" been modeled after Reilly (see pics below...)

[doug.goodman]

Here are comparisons of the 6 figures from both sets.

[TaxMechanick]

Doug, thanks for showing this comparison.

I do see differences in images... i.e. position of head and mustache in 1st image, positioning in back of catcher in 5th image, other perhaps so slightly in angle and positioning of legs, etc.

My noted observations in my prior post remain as written. I still believe all are likely folk art renditions of specific intended players, and, likely one set was rendition done from other set. Also, as I noted the 2 I have are different from either so referred to set, so were likely original to original expanded set, perhaps a total of 10 figures. The differences in the actual pins and perhaps sizes and variations in the images, at least to me, suggest they were not produced sets, rather are more likely folk art.

Then again, as Mark said in his last post, we may never know...

Best,
Glenn

[doug.goodman]

My opinion is that they are all obviously different, but also obviously based on the same original images. And those original images are out there somewhere...

Unless, one of them IS the original.

[buchner]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

Here are comparisons of the 6 figures from both sets.

These were copied from the WG1 set.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by buchner

These were copied from the WG1 set.

I'm too lazy to exercise...

I'm too lazy to google so I can compare the two sets, too.

But I'm enjoying that last sentence very much.

Doug

[Butch7999]

A most astute observation, buchner -- brilliant, even, and we're ashamed we didn't recognize it ourselves.
Best matches we can make from 1888's Base Ball Playing Cards (anyone's welcome, of course,
to suggest better matches from that set):

[Butch7999]

Oh, and full marks to Old Cardboard [ http://www.oldcardboard.com/wg/wg1/w...?cardsetID=946 ]
for being the source of most of those card images (no need to Google with Old Cardboard right there)...

[doug.goodman]

With thanks due to both Buchner and Butch7999, now the question remaining is, are there cards in that set that match the artwork the OP originally asked about?

Doug "still lazy, after all these years" Goodman

[1880nonsports]

Nice to see you posting Buchner and bringing the wisdom of many years :-) Drop me a line sometime.....
henry moses

BTW - I tried collecting WG1's...... I managed two :-)

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

With thanks due to both Buchner and Butch7999, now the question remaining is, are there cards in that set that match the artwork the OP originally asked about?

Doug "still lazy, after all these years" Goodman

I tried to not be lazy, and searched quite a bit. But to no avail... cannot find either general images or specific player images that match those two specific poses.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

This place never ceases to amaze me. Amazing stuff with the WG1's, had nobody made that connection before? Good luck Glenn if anybody is going to find answers, they're probably here!

[TaxMechanick]

Thanks to all... Buchner, Butch7999, Doug, Mark, etc.

This is great detective work! We now have identified the players in the matching (sets) of (6).

We also have a further mystery... or at least I still have on my hands! The (2) I have (images toward top of thread) are not identifiable relative to the WG1 set... they are completely different images; however, they are absolutely similar in overall style as the others.

I still believe mine are folk art renditions. I now believe with even more certaintly that they were renditions of intended specified players.... for now I'll keep with one being long John Riley. On the other, I need to back off of it being John Monte Ward, as he is covered in the group above.

http://www.oldcardboard.com/wg/wg1/wg1gal.asp

My project continues...

Best,
Glenn

[TaxMechanick]

For what it is worth, with the caveat that I do not have the actual items in hand in order to better study the quality of the couple of groups of (6) player images... these images do appear as others have mentioned to potentially represent transfer images... and as discovered perhaps from WG1 player representations.

On the other hand, while I'm somewhat tainted in my view in that I actually have mine in hand, mine appear to me not to be transfer images from any set, but, rather to be original hand painted (folk art) depictions.I suppose it is possible for there to be original transfers underlying the painted images, but it does not appear to be so to me on close examination.

The mystery continues...

Best,
Glenn