The big reasons I don’t write about modern jerseys includes the fact that I don’t collect them and very seldom offer opinions on them. The first reason is a matter of preference, and the second is a matter of practicality from a MEARS business perspective.

With all that being said, I would like to offer this article in response to this e-mail:

“Dear David,

I enjoy reading your articles about the older jerseys on MEARS but this is not much help to me because I don’t collect older jerseys. Could you do an article about collecting newer jerseys because I think it would be a good idea to help newer collectors out.”

I’ll take a shot at this and the focus is on looking at a modern jersey with respect to seeing and understanding things like size, spacing and spatial alignment. These are all aspects of imagery analysis. Often collectors will comment on how something looks too big, too small or out of place without any sort of objective metrics or reference. What I am going to show you can be done if you have a computer and that computer has basic software such as Microsoft Office Picture Manager and PowerPoint.

Say I was looking to buy this Derek Jeter World Baseball Classic and wanted to analyze the back of the jersey. Things I would be looking for are the crop and general size of name plate, proportionality of the lettering and number, and the spatial alignment of all of these things as a comprehensive picture. For collectors and the MEARS staff, this is imagery analysis in support of basic and fundamental style matching.

These are the steps I would follow:

1. Obtain clear images of what I was looking to compare. In this case the on-line auction provided the shot of the back of the jersey. A complimentary image from the time frame the jersey was worn was also found on line.

2. Save these images to your computer in a compatible file such as JPEGs. Plan to save all of this in a folder by some name that makes sense to you. If you get in the habit of doing this on a regular basis, over time you will have built your own data base of images and references to shape future purchases.

3. Open up a PowerPoint presentation and create a series of blank slides you can work with.

4. Using Microsoft Office Picture Manager, isolate and crop the images so that you are looking at the same defined area and size them accordingly. Cut or copy them to PowerPoint for a side by side comparison.

5. Here is where you may have to spend some extra cash. Go out and buy a small see-through ruler that you can use against your computer screen. If this costs $1.00, I’d be very surprised. Now pick one object common to both photos and size them so they are the same. It doesn’t matter what you pick as all you are trying to do is establish a relative and comparable scale. In this case I picked the numeral “2”.

6. Using the PowerPoint function that permits you to draw lines, establish lines that enable you to check alignment and spatial relationships. You will want to do this with at least three (3) common points of reference on at least two places on the jersey.

7. Make note of and analyze the area where these reference lines intersect.

In doing this, because you have ensured that at least one object is sized the same, you have established some objective basis to evaluate the others. In this case I used the corners of the name plate, a relatively common point on both the letter “T” in Jeter and a relatively common point on the WBC logo.

Based on what I can now objectively see and assess, I would say that it appears these jerseys share an appropriately similar:

1. Cut/crop/construction of the name plate.

2. Spatial alignment on the vertical axis.

3. Spatial alignment on the horizontal axis.

4. Proportional size of all objects in the image.

Would I rush out and buy this jersey based on this information alone? No I would not because at this point I still don’t anything about the front of the jersey, the size of the jersey, or any of the aspects associated with the tagging. This is an ever growing problem with new collectors who see on thing they like and then become sold on the item.

If you have the Microsoft Office programs or similar products you like to work with, the only thing you would have had to buy was see-through ruler. If purchasing the ruler seems cost prohibitive, you may want to reconsider your idea of purchasing a Jeter jersey. The thing that all of this will cost you is your time. As I have written about on numerous occasions, a willingness to invest your own time the right way is one of the best investments you can make, no matter what you collect. Take your time, be sure, and have fun evaluating your own purchases ahead of time.

As always, collect what you enjoy and enjoy what you collect.

Dave Grob

For questions or comments on this article, please feel free to drop me a line at DaveGrob1@aol.com

The big reasons I don’t write about modern jerseys includes the fact that I don’t collect them and very seldom offer opinions on them. The first reason is a matter of preference, and the second is a matter of practicality from a MEARS business perspective.

With all that being said, I would like to offer this article in response to this e-mail:

“Dear David,

I enjoy reading your articles about the older jerseys on MEARS but this is not much help to me because I don’t collect older jerseys. Could you do an article about collecting newer jerseys because I think it would be a good idea to help newer collectors out.”

I’ll take a shot at this and the focus is on looking at a modern jersey with respect to seeing and understanding things like size, spacing and spatial alignment. These are all aspects of imagery analysis. Often collectors will comment on how something looks too big, too small or out of place without any sort of objective metrics or reference. What I am going to show you can be done if you have a computer and that computer has basic software such as Microsoft Office Picture Manager and PowerPoint.

Say I was looking to buy this Derek Jeter World Baseball Classic and wanted to analyze the back of the jersey. Things I would be looking for are the crop and general size of name plate, proportionality of the lettering and number, and the spatial alignment of all of these things as a comprehensive picture. For collectors and the MEARS staff, this is imagery analysis in support of basic and fundamental style matching.

These are the steps I would follow:

1. Obtain clear images of what I was looking to compare. In this case the on-line auction provided the shot of the back of the jersey. A complimentary image from the time frame the jersey was worn was also found on line.

2. Save these images to your computer in a compatible file such as JPEGs. Plan to save all of this in a folder by some name that makes sense to you. If you get in the habit of doing this on a regular basis, over time you will have built your own data base of images and references to shape future purchases.

3. Open up a PowerPoint presentation and create a series of blank slides you can work with.

4. Using Microsoft Office Picture Manager, isolate and crop the images so that you are looking at the same defined area and size them accordingly. Cut or copy them to PowerPoint for a side by side comparison.

5. Here is where you may have to spend some extra cash. Go out and buy a small see-through ruler that you can use against your computer screen. If this costs $1.00, I’d be very surprised. Now pick one object common to both photos and size them so they are the same. It doesn’t matter what you pick as all you are trying to do is establish a relative and comparable scale. In this case I picked the numeral “2”.

6. Using the PowerPoint function that permits you to draw lines, establish lines that enable you to check alignment and spatial relationships. You will want to do this with at least three (3) common points of reference on at least two places on the jersey.

7. Make note of and analyze the area where these reference lines intersect.

In doing this, because you have ensured that at least one object is sized the same, you have established some objective basis to evaluate the others. In this case I used the corners of the name plate, a relatively common point on both the letter “T” in Jeter and a relatively common point on the WBC logo.

Based on what I can now objectively see and assess, I would say that it appears these jerseys share an appropriately similar:

1. Cut/crop/construction of the name plate.

2. Spatial alignment on the vertical axis.

3. Spatial alignment on the horizontal axis.

4. Proportional size of all objects in the image.

Would I rush out and buy this jersey based on this information alone? No I would not because at this point I still don’t anything about the front of the jersey, the size of the jersey, or any of the aspects associated with the tagging. This is an ever growing problem with new collectors who see on thing they like and then become sold on the item.

If you have the Microsoft Office programs or similar products you like to work with, the only thing you would have had to buy was see-through ruler. If purchasing the ruler seems cost prohibitive, you may want to reconsider your idea of purchasing a Jeter jersey. The thing that all of this will cost you is your time. As I have written about on numerous occasions, a willingness to invest your own time the right way is one of the best investments you can make, no matter what you collect. Take your time, be sure, and have fun evaluating your own purchases ahead of time.

As always, collect what you enjoy and enjoy what you collect.

Dave Grob

For questions or comments on this article, please feel free to drop me a line at DaveGrob1@aol.com

SUBJECT: Imagery analysis of an early 20th century New Giants Home Jersey being attributed to Christy Mathewson.

As part of the review of this early 20th century New York Giants home jersey, I was provided full color plates of the same and was asked to offer an opinion that could be given and substantiated through imagery analysis or other means(having not been afforded the opportunity to see this jersey in person). In addition, although not tied directly to imagery analysis, I also evaluated the provenance and attribution to Christy Mathewson. It must be stated and understood that the color plates I used and evaluated were full color 1:1 scale. There were three specific aspects of this jersey I looked to consider and evaluate; construction, style, and color.

CONSTRUCTION:

There are certain aspects of this jersey as function of construction that lend themselves to imagery analysis. They are the large, western style collar, the style of the button placket, and the detachable sleeves. The collar is a style found across the major leagues during this period and was not a subject of issue, debate or contention. While the initial opinion was that the jersey was from 1905 based on a pointed button line placket, this is not one that I am in agreement with. Enclosed you will find a picture of Christy Mathewson from 1904 (PLATE 1). The image can be found on page 16 of Baseball’s Golden Age: The Photographs of Charles M. Conlon. The photo is from 1904 as it is identified as the first professional photograph that Conlon took and was used to illustrate a book printed in 1905 called “How to Pitch” by John B. Foster. This same book features a picture of Jack Dunn (page 48) (PLATE 2). Both of these jerseys feature a pointed placket. In addition the jersey that Dunn is wearing is the style with detachable sleeves. Dunn’s last year with the NY Giants and as a player for any major league team was 1904, so the Dunn photo can not from later than that.

The issue of trying to date jersey simply by this one aspect alone is problematic for a couple of reasons. First is the availability and quality of suitable period images. To properly ascertain the placket style (flat vs. pointed), you need an image that is both clear enough and complete enough to show the area below the vertical stitching of the lowest button. The other thing that make this difficult to deal with the number uniforms likely issued to a player and the distinct possibility that jerseys were worn over the course of two seasons. Consider this contemporary report:

Answer to requests by the Base Ball Players Fraternity from Baseball Magazine, March 1914. The players were successful in having most of their requests granted. This meant more for the Commission than giving away in principle, for it means that much money will have to be spent to live tip to their part of the agreement. It may be seen how much it will cost the magnates when it is remembered that in such a small matter as that of uniforms the magnates agreed to furnish two uniforms a season to the ball players free of charge. As there are 20 to 25 players on a team, one can figure what it will cost them at $15 a suit. Forty suits is about the smallest number that any club can squeeze along with, which means $600. Every club has for its players a home suit and a road uniform. It was brought out that only the National League had failed to buy the uniforms for the players. This will mean a saving of at least $30 for each player in the National League a season.

This seems to strongly suggest that players got one road and one home uniform each season at this point in time. As such, it would not be unthinkable to see teams carry over jerseys. We know the Yankees did this much later in the 1920-30’s, a time when teams may have in fact been purchasing more than one uniform. From the March 15th 1930 Saturday Evening Edition of the Syracuse Herald states that “It cost the Detroit baseball club more than $6000 to uniform the Tigers for this seasons play” and that “the Tigers sartorial purchase included 120 complete uniforms and 35 coats. Each player will have two home and two road uniforms and their will be sufficient replacements in the stock room to care for any emergences that may arise.” The article goes on to say that “Players used to get by on two uniforms but the modern fan demands neatness of appearance as well as performance and untidy players quickly are called by umpires who always have the welfare of the laundry business at heart.

We also know that the NY Giants wore jerseys with a flat button placket after 1905 based on the image provided of a 1906 NY Giants home jersey that is part of the collection of the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum. What the image of this 1906 jersey supports is that Spalding is a likely supplier of NY Giants uniforms from the period as well. (PLATE 11) Pre-1904 images, in which the placket style can be ascertained, do tend to at least confirm that flat plackets can be found on some uniforms. (PLATE 5)

This jersey offered for evaluation features detachable sleeves. Images provided support this can be found in NY Giants jerseys from this period, but it is not a factor that makes the one offered for evaluation a Christy Mathewson jersey since he can found both with and without this style. This same thing can be found with team mates as well with respect to period images and other uniform examples that have entered the hobby. (PLATES 1,2,5,8,10)

A final aspect of construction is worth noting at this point. This jersey is without any sort of manufactured player identification. Since it pre-dates the use of numerals on jerseys by a couple of decades, this would have then been accomplished by stitching the players name into the uniform a matter of construction. Other means, somewhat related to manufacturing would have been to write the players name on a laundry tag/strip in the collar of the uniform. This jersey lacks one, but remnant stitching below the Spalding manufacturer’s label indicates a possible one time presence. There is a hand written annotation to the left of the Spalding label of “(3)”.

COLOR:

Mathewson came to the Giants in 1900. It may assumed that this jersey predates 1905 based on style and the color of the lettering that was once on the jersey was not red or brown (color transfer remaining on the jersey) as indicated by Okkonen’s Guide for years 1902-1905. Determining color differences between brown and black/navy blue is very difficult. I contacted Mr. Okkonen to find if he had contemporary accounts supporting this color change and he did.

The New York Evening Telegram of Apr 18, 1902:

“Everybody pretty well liked the New Yorks yesterday afternoon. They looked nice and clean in their new white knickerbockers and shirtwaists. The uniform is by far the prettiest that any New York club has worn. Brown sets off the flannel to perfection. It isn’t so somber as black and it isn’t gaudy enough to give any one heart failure who looks at it.”

Mr. Okkonen also went on the offer that “verifying uniform colors in this era is never very precise and even this kind of “proof” is often shaky. But this is what I based my artwork on. And even though my drawings for pre-1902 suggest a Navy blue lettering it was very possibly black, as hinted at in the above article. In fact I am not even certain that the “brown” didn’t revert to black again in 1903, contrary to my illustrations.”

What this tells me is that color should not be seen as definitive limiting or exacting measure of year dating, especially given the fact that jersey may well have been worn in more than one year. The only color period images we have are those contemporary artist’s renderings that appear on baseball cards. These seem to show a combination of black/navy blue and brown for this style of NEW YORK lettering.

STYLE:

For the purposes of this evaluation, style refers to the manner of style or lettering used to depict the team’s name or location. In this case we have two styles; one featuring the city name NEW YORK and the other a style with the large letters N and Y. Mr. Okkonen’s book shows that they NY style began in 1904 and was replaced the NEW YORK style by 1905. A photograph from Baseball by Ken Burns depicting the 1905 NY Giants as showing the presence of both styles. The style of caps in this picture also show one with stripes extending around the circumference. This is consistent with his renderings from the 1904-1905 seasons. (PLATE 7)

PROVENANCE & ATTRIBUTION:

Although the provenance seems compelling, every effort should be made to address its possible attribution to Christy Mathewson. Other period Giants uniforms in the hobby suggests that player names might be found in jerseys:

1903 Jack Dunn: Hunts Feb 2000, Lot # 889. This uniform also has a pointed button line placket, has a “(3)” hand written in the collar and the lettering is blue, not brown or redish brown. “Dunn” is sewn in red on white felt. Interesting enough, according the Hunt’s Auction description, “ This uniform was obtained from a Factoryville, PA family who were related by marriage to Christy Mathewson. Mathewson would bring various uniforms and equipment to children during the off season including the offered uniform …the same situation as the provenance that came with this jersey.

1905 John McGraw: Halper lot # 363 “McGraw” stitched in back left tail.

The supporting letter of provenance for this offered jersey comes from a woman related by marriage to Christy Mathewson and that Mathewson “used to return to Factoryville in the off season and bring to the children his old uniforms and equipment. Christy gave to my husband this New York Giants uniform on one of his first return trips. My husband kept this uniform as well as other equipment in our attic, where it has been for the past 90 years.”

I find that the possibility as to how this person may have been in a position to obtain this offered jersey as stated is both reasonable and verifiable. However, the open question for me remains what makes this jersey one worn by Christy Mathewson? Since it appears that Mathewson may have also brought home uniforms of other players (Jack Dunn), then that shirt has to be considered. The Dunn jersey features both a name sewn in the tail and the same style “(3)” hand written in the collar. The 1905 McGraw jersey also features a name identification sewn into the garment. In contacting the current owner of the Dunn jersey, it was determined that it originated from the same source as this one. What this indicates is that Mathewson brought home jerseys that may or may not have always been his own.

The size of the jersey, which appears to be in 46-48 range does not exclude it from being a jersey worn by Christy Mathewson. The question then becomes could a jersey of this size have been worn other NY Giants players from the period of 1903-1905. Since I do not have period yearbooks from this time, I have relied on Baseball Reference.com as my sourcing since this provides both rosters and player sizes. What I looked for were those players listed by height (within two inches) and weight (within ten pounds) of those dimensions offered for Christy Mathewson. All players larger than Mathewson by weight are also listed . In some cases, players surveyed lacked complete data, as some only listed a height or weight. None of those players are listed below:

Christy Mathewson: 6’ 2”, 195 lbs.

Dan McGann: 6’, 190 lbs.

Sam Mertes: 6’, 225 lbs

Frank Bowerman: 6’ 2”, 190lbs

Jack Cronin: 6’, 200 lbs

Roscoe Miller: 6’, 2”, 190 lbs

Doc Marshall: 6’, 185 lbs

Dan Brothers: 6’ 2”, 207 lbs

Hook Wiltse: 6’, 185 lbs

Claude Elliot: 6’, 190 lbs

Offa Neal: 6’, 185 lbs

This gives us a possible sample of ten (10) other players. If we change the screening metric to within one (1) inch and five (pounds) and players weighing more than Mathewson (shirt size is determined by the chest measurement and not length), then we are still left with four (4) other players.

OPINION: Based on review of period images and the listed exchange with noted author and baseball historian Mark Okkonen, I would date this uniform as one being most likely from the years 1903-1905. I do not believe it to be from 1900-1901 since it lacks both a neck closure, has difference in font style and placement, and does not feature a flat placket. (PLATES 3-4) 1902 is also not seen as a likely year based on the placket style and the fact that we have contemporary accounts confirming the use of the color brown. 1903 becomes the earliest based on lettering style and the fact that color remains an open issue at this point. The other thing to consider is the significance of the “(3)” written in both this offered jersey and the Jack Dunn shirt. I do not feel this relates to a “set 3” based on what I have previously discussed. I do not believe this marking to be the letter “M”. (PLATE 12) We know this does not relate to a player uniform number. It could refer to the year of issue as in 1903.

The presence of a pointed placket in 1904 images, also leaves open the possibility that those jerseys could be a 1903 carry over for the same reasons. We do know that this style of jersey, color issue aside can be found in both 1904-and 1905. We also have images of Mathewson purported to be from 1906 (PLATE 8) in this style of jersey, but without detachable sleeves and a flat placket. The presence or lack of detachable sleeves is clearly team and period appropriate, but has no real bearing on being able to include or exclude any years in this time frame. I have found no reason to question the source of this item and the claim that it was gifted from Christy Mathewson, along possibly with other uniforms.

As such, provenance aside, the only real differences between the Dunn and the offered jersey appears to be the presence of the name DUNN sewn to the front tail. The fact that this offered jersey lacks a manufactured player identification or name written in a laundry tag (although very likely once present) does not support or facilitate a definitive attribution in my opinion.

The survey of period teammates by size indicates that while this shirt appears to be appropriate for Christy Mathewson, it can not however, be seen as an attribute that would have been unique to him.

As such it is my opinion that this offered jersey appears to be most likely one obtained by and worn by the National League New Giants between 1903 and 1905, and that while the attribution to Christy Mathewson is very real possibility, I am not been able to substantiate or refute any definitive claim as such at this time.

Dave Grob

MEARS

Enclosures: PLATES 1-12

SUBJECT: Imagery analysis of an early 20th century New Giants Home Jersey being attributed to Christy Mathewson.

As part of the review of this early 20th century New York Giants home jersey, I was provided full color plates of the same and was asked to offer an opinion that could be given and substantiated through imagery analysis or other means(having not been afforded the opportunity to see this jersey in person). In addition, although not tied directly to imagery analysis, I also evaluated the provenance and attribution to Christy Mathewson. It must be stated and understood that the color plates I used and evaluated were full color 1:1 scale. There were three specific aspects of this jersey I looked to consider and evaluate; construction, style, and color.

CONSTRUCTION:

There are certain aspects of this jersey as function of construction that lend themselves to imagery analysis. They are the large, western style collar, the style of the button placket, and the detachable sleeves. The collar is a style found across the major leagues during this period and was not a subject of issue, debate or contention. While the initial opinion was that the jersey was from 1905 based on a pointed button line placket, this is not one that I am in agreement with. Enclosed you will find a picture of Christy Mathewson from 1904 (PLATE 1). The image can be found on page 16 of Baseball’s Golden Age: The Photographs of Charles M. Conlon. The photo is from 1904 as it is identified as the first professional photograph that Conlon took and was used to illustrate a book printed in 1905 called “How to Pitch” by John B. Foster. This same book features a picture of Jack Dunn (page 48) (PLATE 2). Both of these jerseys feature a pointed placket. In addition the jersey that Dunn is wearing is the style with detachable sleeves. Dunn’s last year with the NY Giants and as a player for any major league team was 1904, so the Dunn photo can not from later than that.

The issue of trying to date jersey simply by this one aspect alone is problematic for a couple of reasons. First is the availability and quality of suitable period images. To properly ascertain the placket style (flat vs. pointed), you need an image that is both clear enough and complete enough to show the area below the vertical stitching of the lowest button. The other thing that make this difficult to deal with the number uniforms likely issued to a player and the distinct possibility that jerseys were worn over the course of two seasons. Consider this contemporary report:

Answer to requests by the Base Ball Players Fraternity from Baseball Magazine, March 1914. The players were successful in having most of their requests granted. This meant more for the Commission than giving away in principle, for it means that much money will have to be spent to live tip to their part of the agreement. It may be seen how much it will cost the magnates when it is remembered that in such a small matter as that of uniforms the magnates agreed to furnish two uniforms a season to the ball players free of charge. As there are 20 to 25 players on a team, one can figure what it will cost them at $15 a suit. Forty suits is about the smallest number that any club can squeeze along with, which means $600. Every club has for its players a home suit and a road uniform. It was brought out that only the National League had failed to buy the uniforms for the players. This will mean a saving of at least $30 for each player in the National League a season.

This seems to strongly suggest that players got one road and one home uniform each season at this point in time. As such, it would not be unthinkable to see teams carry over jerseys. We know the Yankees did this much later in the 1920-30’s, a time when teams may have in fact been purchasing more than one uniform. From the March 15th 1930 Saturday Evening Edition of the Syracuse Herald states that “It cost the Detroit baseball club more than $6000 to uniform the Tigers for this seasons play” and that “the Tigers sartorial purchase included 120 complete uniforms and 35 coats. Each player will have two home and two road uniforms and their will be sufficient replacements in the stock room to care for any emergences that may arise.” The article goes on to say that “Players used to get by on two uniforms but the modern fan demands neatness of appearance as well as performance and untidy players quickly are called by umpires who always have the welfare of the laundry business at heart.

We also know that the NY Giants wore jerseys with a flat button placket after 1905 based on the image provided of a 1906 NY Giants home jersey that is part of the collection of the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum. What the image of this 1906 jersey supports is that Spalding is a likely supplier of NY Giants uniforms from the period as well. (PLATE 11) Pre-1904 images, in which the placket style can be ascertained, do tend to at least confirm that flat plackets can be found on some uniforms. (PLATE 5)

This jersey offered for evaluation features detachable sleeves. Images provided support this can be found in NY Giants jerseys from this period, but it is not a factor that makes the one offered for evaluation a Christy Mathewson jersey since he can found both with and without this style. This same thing can be found with team mates as well with respect to period images and other uniform examples that have entered the hobby. (PLATES 1,2,5,8,10)

A final aspect of construction is worth noting at this point. This jersey is without any sort of manufactured player identification. Since it pre-dates the use of numerals on jerseys by a couple of decades, this would have then been accomplished by stitching the players name into the uniform a matter of construction. Other means, somewhat related to manufacturing would have been to write the players name on a laundry tag/strip in the collar of the uniform. This jersey lacks one, but remnant stitching below the Spalding manufacturer’s label indicates a possible one time presence. There is a hand written annotation to the left of the Spalding label of “(3)”.

COLOR:

Mathewson came to the Giants in 1900. It may assumed that this jersey predates 1905 based on style and the color of the lettering that was once on the jersey was not red or brown (color transfer remaining on the jersey) as indicated by Okkonen’s Guide for years 1902-1905. Determining color differences between brown and black/navy blue is very difficult. I contacted Mr. Okkonen to find if he had contemporary accounts supporting this color change and he did.

The New York Evening Telegram of Apr 18, 1902:

“Everybody pretty well liked the New Yorks yesterday afternoon. They looked nice and clean in their new white knickerbockers and shirtwaists. The uniform is by far the prettiest that any New York club has worn. Brown sets off the flannel to perfection. It isn’t so somber as black and it isn’t gaudy enough to give any one heart failure who looks at it.”

Mr. Okkonen also went on the offer that “verifying uniform colors in this era is never very precise and even this kind of “proof” is often shaky. But this is what I based my artwork on. And even though my drawings for pre-1902 suggest a Navy blue lettering it was very possibly black, as hinted at in the above article. In fact I am not even certain that the “brown” didn’t revert to black again in 1903, contrary to my illustrations.”

What this tells me is that color should not be seen as definitive limiting or exacting measure of year dating, especially given the fact that jersey may well have been worn in more than one year. The only color period images we have are those contemporary artist’s renderings that appear on baseball cards. These seem to show a combination of black/navy blue and brown for this style of NEW YORK lettering.

STYLE:

For the purposes of this evaluation, style refers to the manner of style or lettering used to depict the team’s name or location. In this case we have two styles; one featuring the city name NEW YORK and the other a style with the large letters N and Y. Mr. Okkonen’s book shows that they NY style began in 1904 and was replaced the NEW YORK style by 1905. A photograph from Baseball by Ken Burns depicting the 1905 NY Giants as showing the presence of both styles. The style of caps in this picture also show one with stripes extending around the circumference. This is consistent with his renderings from the 1904-1905 seasons. (PLATE 7)

PROVENANCE & ATTRIBUTION:

Although the provenance seems compelling, every effort should be made to address its possible attribution to Christy Mathewson. Other period Giants uniforms in the hobby suggests that player names might be found in jerseys:

1903 Jack Dunn: Hunts Feb 2000, Lot # 889. This uniform also has a pointed button line placket, has a “(3)” hand written in the collar and the lettering is blue, not brown or redish brown. “Dunn” is sewn in red on white felt. Interesting enough, according the Hunt’s Auction description, “ This uniform was obtained from a Factoryville, PA family who were related by marriage to Christy Mathewson. Mathewson would bring various uniforms and equipment to children during the off season including the offered uniform …the same situation as the provenance that came with this jersey.

1905 John McGraw: Halper lot # 363 “McGraw” stitched in back left tail.

The supporting letter of provenance for this offered jersey comes from a woman related by marriage to Christy Mathewson and that Mathewson “used to return to Factoryville in the off season and bring to the children his old uniforms and equipment. Christy gave to my husband this New York Giants uniform on one of his first return trips. My husband kept this uniform as well as other equipment in our attic, where it has been for the past 90 years.”

I find that the possibility as to how this person may have been in a position to obtain this offered jersey as stated is both reasonable and verifiable. However, the open question for me remains what makes this jersey one worn by Christy Mathewson? Since it appears that Mathewson may have also brought home uniforms of other players (Jack Dunn), then that shirt has to be considered. The Dunn jersey features both a name sewn in the tail and the same style “(3)” hand written in the collar. The 1905 McGraw jersey also features a name identification sewn into the garment. In contacting the current owner of the Dunn jersey, it was determined that it originated from the same source as this one. What this indicates is that Mathewson brought home jerseys that may or may not have always been his own.

The size of the jersey, which appears to be in 46-48 range does not exclude it from being a jersey worn by Christy Mathewson. The question then becomes could a jersey of this size have been worn other NY Giants players from the period of 1903-1905. Since I do not have period yearbooks from this time, I have relied on Baseball Reference.com as my sourcing since this provides both rosters and player sizes. What I looked for were those players listed by height (within two inches) and weight (within ten pounds) of those dimensions offered for Christy Mathewson. All players larger than Mathewson by weight are also listed . In some cases, players surveyed lacked complete data, as some only listed a height or weight. None of those players are listed below:

Christy Mathewson: 6’ 2”, 195 lbs.

Dan McGann: 6’, 190 lbs.

Sam Mertes: 6’, 225 lbs

Frank Bowerman: 6’ 2”, 190lbs

Jack Cronin: 6’, 200 lbs

Roscoe Miller: 6’, 2”, 190 lbs

Doc Marshall: 6’, 185 lbs

Dan Brothers: 6’ 2”, 207 lbs

Hook Wiltse: 6’, 185 lbs

Claude Elliot: 6’, 190 lbs

Offa Neal: 6’, 185 lbs

This gives us a possible sample of ten (10) other players. If we change the screening metric to within one (1) inch and five (pounds) and players weighing more than Mathewson (shirt size is determined by the chest measurement and not length), then we are still left with four (4) other players.

OPINION: Based on review of period images and the listed exchange with noted author and baseball historian Mark Okkonen, I would date this uniform as one being most likely from the years 1903-1905. I do not believe it to be from 1900-1901 since it lacks both a neck closure, has difference in font style and placement, and does not feature a flat placket. (PLATES 3-4) 1902 is also not seen as a likely year based on the placket style and the fact that we have contemporary accounts confirming the use of the color brown. 1903 becomes the earliest based on lettering style and the fact that color remains an open issue at this point. The other thing to consider is the significance of the “(3)” written in both this offered jersey and the Jack Dunn shirt. I do not feel this relates to a “set 3” based on what I have previously discussed. I do not believe this marking to be the letter “M”. (PLATE 12) We know this does not relate to a player uniform number. It could refer to the year of issue as in 1903.

The presence of a pointed placket in 1904 images, also leaves open the possibility that those jerseys could be a 1903 carry over for the same reasons. We do know that this style of jersey, color issue aside can be found in both 1904-and 1905. We also have images of Mathewson purported to be from 1906 (PLATE 8) in this style of jersey, but without detachable sleeves and a flat placket. The presence or lack of detachable sleeves is clearly team and period appropriate, but has no real bearing on being able to include or exclude any years in this time frame. I have found no reason to question the source of this item and the claim that it was gifted from Christy Mathewson, along possibly with other uniforms.

As such, provenance aside, the only real differences between the Dunn and the offered jersey appears to be the presence of the name DUNN sewn to the front tail. The fact that this offered jersey lacks a manufactured player identification or name written in a laundry tag (although very likely once present) does not support or facilitate a definitive attribution in my opinion.

The survey of period teammates by size indicates that while this shirt appears to be appropriate for Christy Mathewson, it can not however, be seen as an attribute that would have been unique to him.

As such it is my opinion that this offered jersey appears to be most likely one obtained by and worn by the National League New Giants between 1903 and 1905, and that while the attribution to Christy Mathewson is very real possibility, I am not been able to substantiate or refute any definitive claim as such at this time.

Dave Grob

MEARS

Enclosures: PLATES 1-12

I have never owned or collected game used football helmets so let’s get that out of the way right from the start. I have also never owned or collected a T-55 or a T-62 tank. While I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express on more than one occasion, I do have actual and practical experience when it comes to performing and utilizing imagery analysis. Where am I going with this? Recently, I had a very cordial e-mail exchange with a helmet collector known to me only as “Robert”. We exchanged correspondence that came from some visual observations he provided on some football helmets that MEARS was said to have evaluated for a Mastro’s Auction back in 2005.

“Robert” is one of a growing number of seemingly well versed and focused collectors who share information via the web. He is a regular poster on the Game Used Universe Forum and does so under the “aeneas01.” As I looked at his observations about the helmets in question and the period images he provided, it got me thinking about developing a template that could be used to support the imagery analysis of football helmets. Please understand this has nothing to do with a person’s level of expertise as a collector and you need not have ever collected them before to make use of it. This does not mean that this checklist/template is all you need to become a helmet expert…far from it…Rather like most things, it is designed to help the new collector become better informed and the advanced collector become maybe a bit more organized or methodical.

It has been my professional experience, and this is not hobby related but based on some 15 years of intelligence work at the tactical through strategic levels, that errors relating to imagery analysis often result when no specific method or protocol is followed. I see this all the time with today’s “photo matching crowd”. They find one thing or a few points of comparison, only to have it pointed out that the items are not the same based on the totality of the relationship between image and object. This is not counting those items when size and distance are not even addressed in any empirical manner or with any supporting scale.

The first thing I would offer is that to do this work well with respect to helmets, consider all the various angles you would want to compare a helmet and an image from:

1. Full frontal

2. Left oblique

3. Right oblique

4. Rear

5. Top

6. Interior

I bring this up now as this is what you will want to have for both the images of the helmet in question and the images you look for as a means of comparison.

Before you begin to analyze any images, make sure your reference sample is as complete as possible. If you are serious about collecting football helmets, then don’t limit yourself to what can be found on Getty, Corbis, or other on line references. If I had to offer suggestions on other on-line image sources to consult, I would recommend these as well :

http://www.sportsattic2.com/nflphotos/NFLphotos.html

For face masks, consider:

http://www.helmethut.com/maskindex.html

While these on-line sites are very helpful, but please consider print and moving media as well such as wire photos, team yearbook, Street & Smith Football Annuals and any number of other football related periodicals.

Remember that in comparing the helmet you are looking to buy and the one the player has or is wearing in the image, you really only know the helmet with the player is a known and true example, so spend the bulk of your time up front deciding for yourself what “right should look like.” If you do it in reverse, going from the offered helmet to images, you run the risk of falling prey to the natural tendency among collectors (and junior imagery analysts) to find what you want to find and see what you want to see.

The next thing you will want to consider is how you view and evaluate the helmet and the images in your sample. In our western culture, our normal eye progression runs from top to bottom and left to right. This is due largely to how we were taught to understand and process visual information when being taught to read. Also, most of the images you will find in either print or other mediums have either been manually cropped or shot with the intended purpose of getting you to focus on something in particular. To counter all this, I suggest that whatever image you are looking at, that you divide it up into four quadrants:

Upper Left

Upper Right

Lower Left

Lower Right

Decide what you are looking for and begin your analysis in the lower right quadrant, followed by lower left, upper right, and finally upper left. This “working against the grain” will help to counter act your tendency to want to visually read or scan the image.

Mind you, you still should only be concerned with the actual images of the player at this time and not the offered helmet. Remember the goal is to determine what right should look like before making any observations or drawing conclusions about the offered helmet.

Since I offered six angles of observation, let me suggest what you may want to make note of in each. This is not a definitive list, but it does offer a structure and process that you can follow with some consistency. If you would like to get a copy of this checklist in the form a Word Document that you can print out and use, just send me an e-mail and I will be happy to oblige.

1.Full frontal

-Type of face mask

-Manner in which mask is affixed to helmet by location, clip style, screws, bolts, etc

-Jaw Pads.

-Rivet style or screws securing helmet interior.

-Shape or style of the shell (to include means of coloration).

-Manufacturer.

-Chin strap.

-Team/Player identification and manner of appliqué.

– Snubber or other types of padding or protection.

-Indications of interior padding type by type, material, and location.

2.Left oblique

– Type of face mask.

-Manner in which mask is affixed to helmet by location, clip style, screws, bolts, etc

-Rivet style or screws securing helmet interior.

-Rivets for jaw pads.

-Ear hole.

-Team ornamentation/logos by both style and placement.

-Shape or style of the shell (to include means of coloration).

3.Right oblique

– Type of face mask.

-Manner in which mask is affixed to helmet by location, clip style, screws, bolts, etc.

-Rivet style or screws securing helmet interior.

-Rivets for jaw pads.

-Ear hole.

-Team ornamentation/logos by both style and placement.

-Shape or style of the shell (to include means of coloration).

4.Rear

-Shape or style of the shell (to include means of coloration).

-Team ornamentation/logos by both style and placement.

-Player identification (note both method and placement).

-Year, team, or macro level specific points of reference (stickers, logos etc.) Note both style and locations.

-Manufacturers identification

5.Top

-Team ornamentation/logos by both style and placement.

-Ventilation holes by number, size, and location.

6. Interior

-Padding design, style, and materials.

-Suspension type, style, and materials.

-Possible player identification.

-Rivet or screw backings by type and location.

-Shape or style of the shell (to include means of coloration).

-Means of year dating or other forms of coding such as reconditioning.

* For all areas and angles you evaluate, make note of color(s)

Your ability to utilize a template like this will can begin right away. The level of detail and degree of certainty you take away from it will improve over time. These are all sterile points of reference and one thing I have not addressed is the issue of size and spatial relationships. Remember to consider how far things are apart from each other both in your references and the offered helmet. Don’t be one of those folks who simply offers “too small, too large, to far to the left… etc.” Force yourself to quantify your observations. This does two things; it forces you to look at things in the necessary detail required and it also makes for a more objective and compelling argument.

For the record, I have only looked at one football helmet for MEARS and it was a Cliff Harris Dallas Cowboys helmet that was deemed Unable to Authenticate. I have not done any other helmet work because of the difficulty I had with the submitter over this opinion. This was over a year ago and it really caused me to lose all interest in looking at helmets. I don’t see this changing since I really enjoy the work I do on the other things I research and write about. I have however been reminded that not everyone likes the same things I do, that is also the reason I have chosen to provide this template. MEARS does not have a worksheet especially designed for or intended for football helmets. The reason is we just don’t evaluate that many of them nor are we asked to. In speaking with Troy, the ones we do see in the future will done incorporating this imagery analysis template.

It remains to be seen if the helmets Robert mentioned from the October 2005 Mastro Auction were done by MEARS. In the mean time, we have a new way to look at things and have seen there is always a way to better at what we do…If you are of the opinion that we should have been doing things this way all along, I will gladly concede that point. We were not for no other reason than we just weren’t doing it this way….no excuse or double talk.

As always, collect what you enjoy and enjoy what you collect. Hopefully I have provided you something that will assist you in this endeavor.

Dave Grob

For questions or comments on this article, please feel free to drop me a line at DaveGrob1@aol.com.

I have never owned or collected game used football helmets so let’s get that out of the way right from the start. I have also never owned or collected a T-55 or a T-62 tank. While I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express on more than one occasion, I do have actual and practical experience when it comes to performing and utilizing imagery analysis. Where am I going with this? Recently, I had a very cordial e-mail exchange with a helmet collector known to me only as “Robert”. We exchanged correspondence that came from some visual observations he provided on some football helmets that MEARS was said to have evaluated for a Mastro’s Auction back in 2005.

“Robert” is one of a growing number of seemingly well versed and focused collectors who share information via the web. He is a regular poster on the Game Used Universe Forum and does so under the “aeneas01.” As I looked at his observations about the helmets in question and the period images he provided, it got me thinking about developing a template that could be used to support the imagery analysis of football helmets. Please understand this has nothing to do with a person’s level of expertise as a collector and you need not have ever collected them before to make use of it. This does not mean that this checklist/template is all you need to become a helmet expert…far from it…Rather like most things, it is designed to help the new collector become better informed and the advanced collector become maybe a bit more organized or methodical.

It has been my professional experience, and this is not hobby related but based on some 15 years of intelligence work at the tactical through strategic levels, that errors relating to imagery analysis often result when no specific method or protocol is followed. I see this all the time with today’s “photo matching crowd”. They find one thing or a few points of comparison, only to have it pointed out that the items are not the same based on the totality of the relationship between image and object. This is not counting those items when size and distance are not even addressed in any empirical manner or with any supporting scale.

The first thing I would offer is that to do this work well with respect to helmets, consider all the various angles you would want to compare a helmet and an image from:

1. Full frontal

2. Left oblique

3. Right oblique

4. Rear

5. Top

6. Interior

I bring this up now as this is what you will want to have for both the images of the helmet in question and the images you look for as a means of comparison.

Before you begin to analyze any images, make sure your reference sample is as complete as possible. If you are serious about collecting football helmets, then don’t limit yourself to what can be found on Getty, Corbis, or other on line references. If I had to offer suggestions on other on-line image sources to consult, I would recommend these as well :

http://www.sportsattic2.com/nflphotos/NFLphotos.html

For face masks, consider:

http://www.helmethut.com/maskindex.html

While these on-line sites are very helpful, but please consider print and moving media as well such as wire photos, team yearbook, Street & Smith Football Annuals and any number of other football related periodicals.

Remember that in comparing the helmet you are looking to buy and the one the player has or is wearing in the image, you really only know the helmet with the player is a known and true example, so spend the bulk of your time up front deciding for yourself what “right should look like.” If you do it in reverse, going from the offered helmet to images, you run the risk of falling prey to the natural tendency among collectors (and junior imagery analysts) to find what you want to find and see what you want to see.

The next thing you will want to consider is how you view and evaluate the helmet and the images in your sample. In our western culture, our normal eye progression runs from top to bottom and left to right. This is due largely to how we were taught to understand and process visual information when being taught to read. Also, most of the images you will find in either print or other mediums have either been manually cropped or shot with the intended purpose of getting you to focus on something in particular. To counter all this, I suggest that whatever image you are looking at, that you divide it up into four quadrants:

Upper Left

Upper Right

Lower Left

Lower Right

Decide what you are looking for and begin your analysis in the lower right quadrant, followed by lower left, upper right, and finally upper left. This “working against the grain” will help to counter act your tendency to want to visually read or scan the image.

Mind you, you still should only be concerned with the actual images of the player at this time and not the offered helmet. Remember the goal is to determine what right should look like before making any observations or drawing conclusions about the offered helmet.

Since I offered six angles of observation, let me suggest what you may want to make note of in each. This is not a definitive list, but it does offer a structure and process that you can follow with some consistency. If you would like to get a copy of this checklist in the form a Word Document that you can print out and use, just send me an e-mail and I will be happy to oblige.

1.Full frontal

-Type of face mask

-Manner in which mask is affixed to helmet by location, clip style, screws, bolts, etc

-Jaw Pads.

-Rivet style or screws securing helmet interior.

-Shape or style of the shell (to include means of coloration).

-Manufacturer.

-Chin strap.

-Team/Player identification and manner of appliqué.

– Snubber or other types of padding or protection.

-Indications of interior padding type by type, material, and location.

2.Left oblique

– Type of face mask.

-Manner in which mask is affixed to helmet by location, clip style, screws, bolts, etc

-Rivet style or screws securing helmet interior.

-Rivets for jaw pads.

-Ear hole.

-Team ornamentation/logos by both style and placement.

-Shape or style of the shell (to include means of coloration).

3.Right oblique

– Type of face mask.

-Manner in which mask is affixed to helmet by location, clip style, screws, bolts, etc.

-Rivet style or screws securing helmet interior.

-Rivets for jaw pads.

-Ear hole.

-Team ornamentation/logos by both style and placement.

-Shape or style of the shell (to include means of coloration).

4.Rear

-Shape or style of the shell (to include means of coloration).

-Team ornamentation/logos by both style and placement.

-Player identification (note both method and placement).

-Year, team, or macro level specific points of reference (stickers, logos etc.) Note both style and locations.

-Manufacturers identification

5.Top

-Team ornamentation/logos by both style and placement.

-Ventilation holes by number, size, and location.

6. Interior

-Padding design, style, and materials.

-Suspension type, style, and materials.

-Possible player identification.

-Rivet or screw backings by type and location.

-Shape or style of the shell (to include means of coloration).

-Means of year dating or other forms of coding such as reconditioning.

* For all areas and angles you evaluate, make note of color(s)

Your ability to utilize a template like this will can begin right away. The level of detail and degree of certainty you take away from it will improve over time. These are all sterile points of reference and one thing I have not addressed is the issue of size and spatial relationships. Remember to consider how far things are apart from each other both in your references and the offered helmet. Don’t be one of those folks who simply offers “too small, too large, to far to the left… etc.” Force yourself to quantify your observations. This does two things; it forces you to look at things in the necessary detail required and it also makes for a more objective and compelling argument.

For the record, I have only looked at one football helmet for MEARS and it was a Cliff Harris Dallas Cowboys helmet that was deemed Unable to Authenticate. I have not done any other helmet work because of the difficulty I had with the submitter over this opinion. This was over a year ago and it really caused me to lose all interest in looking at helmets. I don’t see this changing since I really enjoy the work I do on the other things I research and write about. I have however been reminded that not everyone likes the same things I do, that is also the reason I have chosen to provide this template. MEARS does not have a worksheet especially designed for or intended for football helmets. The reason is we just don’t evaluate that many of them nor are we asked to. In speaking with Troy, the ones we do see in the future will done incorporating this imagery analysis template.

It remains to be seen if the helmets Robert mentioned from the October 2005 Mastro Auction were done by MEARS. In the mean time, we have a new way to look at things and have seen there is always a way to better at what we do…If you are of the opinion that we should have been doing things this way all along, I will gladly concede that point. We were not for no other reason than we just weren’t doing it this way….no excuse or double talk.

As always, collect what you enjoy and enjoy what you collect. Hopefully I have provided you something that will assist you in this endeavor.

Dave Grob

For questions or comments on this article, please feel free to drop me a line at DaveGrob1@aol.com.

This is without a doubt the most over looked and potentially valuable aspect of the evaluation process. I detest the phrase “photo matching” as I think it does collectors a disservice by offering a false sense of security. Many collectors will “match” their jersey to a picture they find, but in actuality, it works the other way around. It may seem like semantics, but it is not. The picture represents (no pun intended) a snap shot in time. If the jersey in the photograph is the same one the collector has, then everything in the photo should be found on the jersey. This does not work the other way around as a team repair could have been made after the photo was taken. Some collectors might say that there is “no photo match” because the repair does not show up in the picture.

Get out of the mindset of “matching” and get into the process of analyzing the image or images at which you are looking. To help provide some form of framework, I break imagery analysis down into three categories.

Category One: Photographic Reference. This involves using the image as a source of information.

To ensure you get the most out the time you spend looking at photographs, be sure you have a single purpose in mind when doing your research. By that I mean if you are looking at crests or numbers, then crests or numbers are all you should be looking for. Between the thousands of images of one form or another I have in my library, I find myself going back through them all the time looking to answer a select set of questions. When doing this sort of imagery analysis, I recommend that you scan the image from bottom to top and from right to left. This is because we have been conditioned to read and look at things from top to bottom and left to right. Forcing yourself to work back “against the grain” will help counter the tendency to skip over things.

Here are some examples of what I am talking about using The Golden Age of Baseball 1941-1956 by Bill Gutman:

Uniform Styles: Page 28 shows the St. Louis Cardinals wearing road button down uniforms in the 1944 World Series versus the commonly accepted zipper style of the period.

Tagging: Page 83 shows a late 1930’s picture of Lou Gehrig wearing a road uniform manufactured by Spalding. When you focus your attention on the back of the collar where you would expect to see the tagging, you can see the circa 1929-42 white variation Spalding label.

Player Identification: Page 142 shows that Harmon Killebrew’s spikes have been marked with “KILLE” on both outer tongues.

Category Two: Photographic Comparison. This involves using the image to compare with either another image or an actual object. I am not trying to insult anyone’s intelligence, but this is often done incorrectly. I am referring to when folks “photo match” a uniform they have with a photo.

People will take their shirt and find things that are the same in the photo. Is should actually work the other way around. Look for some distinguishing characteristic in the photo and see if it can be found on the shirt. This is critical when looking at “event significant items.”

In the most basic sense all you are doing is asking if the item in the picture is like the one you are looking at.

Examples include:

Sleeves:
Style/Cut
Approximate Length

Buttons:
Style (number of holes)
Color
Alignment and Placement with Respect to Lettering or Numbering
Quantity

Logos, Lettering, and Crests:
Placement
Style
Relative Size

Designs Such As Pinstripes:
Width of Pinstripe
Width of Space Between Pinstripes

Fabric, Manufacturers or Period Characteristics:
Wool Flannel Blend
Satin
Dureen
Dureen Side Pannels
Cotton Elastic Underarms or Crotch Vents
Double Knit

While some may debate the ability to discern fabric from a photo, it can be done. This requires a bit more experience than some of the other aspects, but is doable none-the-less. It requires that the person examining the fabric understand nuances of the actual texture or thread content of the fabric and how they reflect or absorb light.

Category Three: Photographic Extrapolation. Mensuration involves using an object of know size to ascertain information about objects in a picture. For instance, a military imagery analyst might use the known length of the wingspan of an aircraft to add scale to everything on same relative plain in the picture. For example if the wingspan of the plane is 150 feet long, then everything else in the picture can be measured against that scale. He can use this information to determine how far the plane is from the hanger or what the distance is between the inner and outer security fences. This is not rocket science, but basic math as it relates to proportions.

I used this category when I was asked to authenticate the jersey Roger Maris wore when he broke Babe Ruth’s single season home run record in 1961. I used the baseball (2 ¾ “ in diameter) in the locker room picture with Sal Durnate to provide scale for both the NY crest and the custom sleeves. It is important to remember the item you are using must be within the same relative plane and proximity to the other object. Another great reference you can use is the center brand logo of Hillerich & Bradsby (H&B) bats. From roughly 1921 to 1979, that logo remained a relatively constant 4 “ as measured from left to right across the center. When you have an item such as the H&B center brand, you can use that point of reference to figure out the overall length of the bat, the size of lettering as well as numbering and crests in the picture.

In every instance when utilizing these techniques, you must exercise great care with your measurements. Since you are using a smaller scale when dealing with photographs, be sure to try to minimize distortions by making your annotations with a small lead mechanical pencil. Here is how you do this:

– Enlarge area of the image you are working with.
– Take a piece of graph paper and mark the left and right limits of the object of know size. This establishes the scale for the picture.
– Mark the limits of the object for which you are trying to determine the size on the graph paper in the same manner as well.
– Establish your findings using simple scale and proportions.

The same center brand in the aforementioned example, can allow you to determine the approximate length of the bat as well. For example, if it takes nine increments of the H&B center brand (4”) to cover the length of the bat, then you are looking at a 36” bat (9 x 4). This point highlights the need to use an enlargement and graph paper. You can reasonably expect errors ranging from 1/8” to 1/2 “ depending on any number of factors.

Patches that were common to teams or leagues can be used for the same purposes:

Year – Patch – Team – Top to Bottom – Left to Right
1939 – Centennial – MLB – 4” – 3 5/8”
1943-45 – Stars & Stripes – MLB – 3 ¾ “ – 3”
1951 – 50th Anniv – AL – 4 ¾ “ – 3”
1969 – 100th Anniv – MLB – 2 7/16” – 2 5/8”
1976 – Centennial – NL – 3 ¾ “ Diameter

Team Crests: I like to use team crests because they remain consistent in size since they are made from patterns. They are valuable to use for years when no specific patch can be found. They are also helpful in identification for events that feature more than one team such as All Star Games and the World Series.

The St. Louis Cardinal’s uniforms feature just such a team crest in the form of the embroidered bird on the chest. This image has changed in size and shape over the years, but appears to have remained consistent within each given style. In using the Cardinal logo, the points of measurement change with the style of the bird. For flannels:

1941-1947: Small Bird (From tip of beak to tip of tail: 5 3/8”)
1948-1950: Large Bird Upright (Top of head to tip of tail: 6 1/8” )
1951-1955: Large Bird W/Tail Feathers: ( Top of head to tip of tail: 6/18”)
1958-1971: Small Bird W/ Tail Below Bat: (Top of head to tip of tail: 4 5/8”)

(Another excellent team crest reference is the Chicago Cubs crest: 1941-1956: 5 ½” in Diameter)

Home Plate: In 1900, the rules where changed governing the size and shape of home plate from a 12” square to a five-sided shape that is 17” wide. What this permits you to do is gauge the approximate size of the shoes that a player would have worn. It also gives scale to such things as catchers’ mitts, masks or other items found in close proximity of the plate.

The point is to begin to build your own library of objects of a know size that you can later use as reference points. Consider cataloging various aspects of items in your own collection. I am trying to do that with my flannels and will share that information in this forum in time.

Film Analysis

In intelligence collection, we use a concept called queuing. This involves using one set of sensors to alert you to look at a particular area. Film analysis serves this same purpose to larger degree. There are some problems with film as well, depending on the medium of projection. For instance, it is often difficult to isolate the image you are looking at. The idea is that if you can find a film example, you can most likely find a still shot showing the same thing.

You will be amazed at the things you can see in film if you are looking for them. Back when I was doing my first guide on Cincinnati Reds Game Used Uniforms, Bats, and Equipment 1970-1979, I was trying to confirm that Wilson manufactured the road knit uniforms for the Reds. I was also interested in knowing if it was possible to date these uniforms by the location of tag. Wilson provided some help conveying that they changed their manufacturers label twice during the 1970s.

With this in mind I started my search accordingly. I had to focus on finding situations that would involve the ability to see the tag, which is not easy since the tag is inside the uniform. If you think about situations that involve a player’s jersey becoming un-tucked, two things come to mind. Those two sets of circumstances involve periods of great exertion such as sliding or diving and those of a player getting dressed or undressed.

In reviewing the 1972 World Series highlight film on VHS, I was able to note that in Game 3, Tony Perez stumbles while rounding third and then slides into home. In the course of this event, Perez’s shirt comes un-tucked, and as he is getting up you can clearly see the Wilson label in the left front tail of his uniform. I used this as my queuing. I found, on page 178 of Hal McCoy’s The Relentless Reds from the 1975 season, an image that shows a locker room shot of Pedro Borbon in which you can see the stitching outline of the Wilson tag (by size and shape) on the inside of the jersey just to the rear of the side seam on the left side.

You will have your own specific questions you will want to address. These examples are only meant to provide you with an intellectual and physical process to get to that point. This information has been available for years to anyone looking for it, you just have to know and how and where to start looking.

Other Aspects of Imagery Analysis

Color

Frequently when researching with wire photographs and older film, you will find that you are dealing with black and white images. Even though colors such as blue and red will both appear dark in a photo, you can still differentiate the difference based on contrast or the ‘degree of darkness’ of each color. The same holds true when looking at home and road uniforms. Both white and gray will appear lighter in respect to the rest of the items that are blue, black, or red. This is important to note if you are looking for date specific shots. An example would be a batter at the plate with the shot showing only his back, with the front of the jersey not visible (home or road design) and the catcher’s jersey covered by chest protector. In instances like this, focus on the color contrast of the pants. In some cases this is made even easier because some teams uniforms featured side piping or trim on the home pants but not the road pants.

Cropping

Cropping refers to the practice of physically isolating a desired portion of a photograph to accommodate print size for publication. In many of the photographs contained in the player files at Cooperstown, you will notice these cropping marks or annotations on the pictures. In many “victory celebration” shots taken in the locker room, some of the most valuable information was left out of the published photo. This information may involve the ability to see player identification stitching in the tail, manufacturers tagging in the collar, or even the quantity of uniforms in a locker near the player in question. Since you are reading this on-line, I would suggest this easy drill to demonstrate exactly what I mean.

1. Go to: Corbis Images at http://pro.corbis.com/
2. Type in a search for: Hank Aaron Locker Room

Notice what can be seen on the un-cropped image # BE051096. You can clearly make out that the jersey, which Eddie Mathews is wearing and is un-tucked reveals:

a. Jersey was manufactured by Wilson
b. The style of the Wilson manufacturer label
c. Mathews jersey size is 44
d. There is a separate laundry instruction tag below the Wilson tag
e. Player identification is sewn to material below the laundry instructions

3. Now try this search: Yankees Locker Room

Image # U1282943INP

Yankees home jersey with player identification, year, and player number sewn in left front of the tail from the 1955 season

4. Try this search: Baseball Locker Room

Image # DM 2737

NY Mets April 1962 reveals that the home jerseys were manufactured by Spalding

5. Try this search: Gil Hodges 1949

Image # U917025ACME

This example is important to note for two reasons, first, always be sure to consider what you do not see. In this case, part of that not seen is the other player in the photo besides Hodges. Note that nothing appears on the outer tail of the jersey. Second, take a look at the player in the left of the photo. The reason for certain things being “cropped” out of photographs should now be readily apparent.

It is an old adage that “a picture is worth a thousand words.” I would offer something even more valuable, “the right picture viewed in the proper manner and with a specific purpose in mind, could be worth thousands of dollars” in terms of what it will save you or permit you to purchase with greater confidence.

When thinking about using photographs to support your research think “PHOTO”

P: Know the Purpose for your analysis.
H: Have no preconceived notions, look at all images with a fresh perspective.
O: Obtain a variety of photographs and angles whenever possible.
T: Take your time
O: Organize, record, and analyze your findings

(and do not Photo Match…)

This is without a doubt the most over looked and potentially valuable aspect of the evaluation process. I detest the phrase “photo matching” as I think it does collectors a disservice by offering a false sense of security. Many collectors will “match” their jersey to a picture they find, but in actuality, it works the other way around. It may seem like semantics, but it is not. The picture represents (no pun intended) a snap shot in time. If the jersey in the photograph is the same one the collector has, then everything in the photo should be found on the jersey. This does not work the other way around as a team repair could have been made after the photo was taken. Some collectors might say that there is “no photo match” because the repair does not show up in the picture.

Get out of the mindset of “matching” and get into the process of analyzing the image or images at which you are looking. To help provide some form of framework, I break imagery analysis down into three categories.

Category One: Photographic Reference. This involves using the image as a source of information.

To ensure you get the most out the time you spend looking at photographs, be sure you have a single purpose in mind when doing your research. By that I mean if you are looking at crests or numbers, then crests or numbers are all you should be looking for. Between the thousands of images of one form or another I have in my library, I find myself going back through them all the time looking to answer a select set of questions. When doing this sort of imagery analysis, I recommend that you scan the image from bottom to top and from right to left. This is because we have been conditioned to read and look at things from top to bottom and left to right. Forcing yourself to work back “against the grain” will help counter the tendency to skip over things.

Here are some examples of what I am talking about using The Golden Age of Baseball 1941-1956 by Bill Gutman:

Uniform Styles: Page 28 shows the St. Louis Cardinals wearing road button down uniforms in the 1944 World Series versus the commonly accepted zipper style of the period.

Tagging: Page 83 shows a late 1930’s picture of Lou Gehrig wearing a road uniform manufactured by Spalding. When you focus your attention on the back of the collar where you would expect to see the tagging, you can see the circa 1929-42 white variation Spalding label.

Player Identification: Page 142 shows that Harmon Killebrew’s spikes have been marked with “KILLE” on both outer tongues.

Category Two: Photographic Comparison. This involves using the image to compare with either another image or an actual object. I am not trying to insult anyone’s intelligence, but this is often done incorrectly. I am referring to when folks “photo match” a uniform they have with a photo.

People will take their shirt and find things that are the same in the photo. Is should actually work the other way around. Look for some distinguishing characteristic in the photo and see if it can be found on the shirt. This is critical when looking at “event significant items.”

In the most basic sense all you are doing is asking if the item in the picture is like the one you are looking at.

Examples include:

Sleeves:
Style/Cut
Approximate Length

Buttons:
Style (number of holes)
Color
Alignment and Placement with Respect to Lettering or Numbering
Quantity

Logos, Lettering, and Crests:
Placement
Style
Relative Size

Designs Such As Pinstripes:
Width of Pinstripe
Width of Space Between Pinstripes

Fabric, Manufacturers or Period Characteristics:
Wool Flannel Blend
Satin
Dureen
Dureen Side Pannels
Cotton Elastic Underarms or Crotch Vents
Double Knit

While some may debate the ability to discern fabric from a photo, it can be done. This requires a bit more experience than some of the other aspects, but is doable none-the-less. It requires that the person examining the fabric understand nuances of the actual texture or thread content of the fabric and how they reflect or absorb light.

Category Three: Photographic Extrapolation. Mensuration involves using an object of know size to ascertain information about objects in a picture. For instance, a military imagery analyst might use the known length of the wingspan of an aircraft to add scale to everything on same relative plain in the picture. For example if the wingspan of the plane is 150 feet long, then everything else in the picture can be measured against that scale. He can use this information to determine how far the plane is from the hanger or what the distance is between the inner and outer security fences. This is not rocket science, but basic math as it relates to proportions.

I used this category when I was asked to authenticate the jersey Roger Maris wore when he broke Babe Ruth’s single season home run record in 1961. I used the baseball (2 ¾ “ in diameter) in the locker room picture with Sal Durnate to provide scale for both the NY crest and the custom sleeves. It is important to remember the item you are using must be within the same relative plane and proximity to the other object. Another great reference you can use is the center brand logo of Hillerich & Bradsby (H&B) bats. From roughly 1921 to 1979, that logo remained a relatively constant 4 “ as measured from left to right across the center. When you have an item such as the H&B center brand, you can use that point of reference to figure out the overall length of the bat, the size of lettering as well as numbering and crests in the picture.

In every instance when utilizing these techniques, you must exercise great care with your measurements. Since you are using a smaller scale when dealing with photographs, be sure to try to minimize distortions by making your annotations with a small lead mechanical pencil. Here is how you do this:

– Enlarge area of the image you are working with.
– Take a piece of graph paper and mark the left and right limits of the object of know size. This establishes the scale for the picture.
– Mark the limits of the object for which you are trying to determine the size on the graph paper in the same manner as well.
– Establish your findings using simple scale and proportions.

The same center brand in the aforementioned example, can allow you to determine the approximate length of the bat as well. For example, if it takes nine increments of the H&B center brand (4”) to cover the length of the bat, then you are looking at a 36” bat (9 x 4). This point highlights the need to use an enlargement and graph paper. You can reasonably expect errors ranging from 1/8” to 1/2 “ depending on any number of factors.

Patches that were common to teams or leagues can be used for the same purposes:

Year – Patch – Team – Top to Bottom – Left to Right
1939 – Centennial – MLB – 4” – 3 5/8”
1943-45 – Stars & Stripes – MLB – 3 ¾ “ – 3”
1951 – 50th Anniv – AL – 4 ¾ “ – 3”
1969 – 100th Anniv – MLB – 2 7/16” – 2 5/8”
1976 – Centennial – NL – 3 ¾ “ Diameter

Team Crests: I like to use team crests because they remain consistent in size since they are made from patterns. They are valuable to use for years when no specific patch can be found. They are also helpful in identification for events that feature more than one team such as All Star Games and the World Series.

The St. Louis Cardinal’s uniforms feature just such a team crest in the form of the embroidered bird on the chest. This image has changed in size and shape over the years, but appears to have remained consistent within each given style. In using the Cardinal logo, the points of measurement change with the style of the bird. For flannels:

1941-1947: Small Bird (From tip of beak to tip of tail: 5 3/8”)
1948-1950: Large Bird Upright (Top of head to tip of tail: 6 1/8” )
1951-1955: Large Bird W/Tail Feathers: ( Top of head to tip of tail: 6/18”)
1958-1971: Small Bird W/ Tail Below Bat: (Top of head to tip of tail: 4 5/8”)

(Another excellent team crest reference is the Chicago Cubs crest: 1941-1956: 5 ½” in Diameter)

Home Plate: In 1900, the rules where changed governing the size and shape of home plate from a 12” square to a five-sided shape that is 17” wide. What this permits you to do is gauge the approximate size of the shoes that a player would have worn. It also gives scale to such things as catchers’ mitts, masks or other items found in close proximity of the plate.

The point is to begin to build your own library of objects of a know size that you can later use as reference points. Consider cataloging various aspects of items in your own collection. I am trying to do that with my flannels and will share that information in this forum in time.

Film Analysis

In intelligence collection, we use a concept called queuing. This involves using one set of sensors to alert you to look at a particular area. Film analysis serves this same purpose to larger degree. There are some problems with film as well, depending on the medium of projection. For instance, it is often difficult to isolate the image you are looking at. The idea is that if you can find a film example, you can most likely find a still shot showing the same thing.

You will be amazed at the things you can see in film if you are looking for them. Back when I was doing my first guide on Cincinnati Reds Game Used Uniforms, Bats, and Equipment 1970-1979, I was trying to confirm that Wilson manufactured the road knit uniforms for the Reds. I was also interested in knowing if it was possible to date these uniforms by the location of tag. Wilson provided some help conveying that they changed their manufacturers label twice during the 1970s.

With this in mind I started my search accordingly. I had to focus on finding situations that would involve the ability to see the tag, which is not easy since the tag is inside the uniform. If you think about situations that involve a player’s jersey becoming un-tucked, two things come to mind. Those two sets of circumstances involve periods of great exertion such as sliding or diving and those of a player getting dressed or undressed.

In reviewing the 1972 World Series highlight film on VHS, I was able to note that in Game 3, Tony Perez stumbles while rounding third and then slides into home. In the course of this event, Perez’s shirt comes un-tucked, and as he is getting up you can clearly see the Wilson label in the left front tail of his uniform. I used this as my queuing. I found, on page 178 of Hal McCoy’s The Relentless Reds from the 1975 season, an image that shows a locker room shot of Pedro Borbon in which you can see the stitching outline of the Wilson tag (by size and shape) on the inside of the jersey just to the rear of the side seam on the left side.

You will have your own specific questions you will want to address. These examples are only meant to provide you with an intellectual and physical process to get to that point. This information has been available for years to anyone looking for it, you just have to know and how and where to start looking.

Other Aspects of Imagery Analysis

Color

Frequently when researching with wire photographs and older film, you will find that you are dealing with black and white images. Even though colors such as blue and red will both appear dark in a photo, you can still differentiate the difference based on contrast or the ‘degree of darkness’ of each color. The same holds true when looking at home and road uniforms. Both white and gray will appear lighter in respect to the rest of the items that are blue, black, or red. This is important to note if you are looking for date specific shots. An example would be a batter at the plate with the shot showing only his back, with the front of the jersey not visible (home or road design) and the catcher’s jersey covered by chest protector. In instances like this, focus on the color contrast of the pants. In some cases this is made even easier because some teams uniforms featured side piping or trim on the home pants but not the road pants.

Cropping

Cropping refers to the practice of physically isolating a desired portion of a photograph to accommodate print size for publication. In many of the photographs contained in the player files at Cooperstown, you will notice these cropping marks or annotations on the pictures. In many “victory celebration” shots taken in the locker room, some of the most valuable information was left out of the published photo. This information may involve the ability to see player identification stitching in the tail, manufacturers tagging in the collar, or even the quantity of uniforms in a locker near the player in question. Since you are reading this on-line, I would suggest this easy drill to demonstrate exactly what I mean.

1. Go to: Corbis Images at http://pro.corbis.com/
2. Type in a search for: Hank Aaron Locker Room

Notice what can be seen on the un-cropped image # BE051096. You can clearly make out that the jersey, which Eddie Mathews is wearing and is un-tucked reveals:

a. Jersey was manufactured by Wilson
b. The style of the Wilson manufacturer label
c. Mathews jersey size is 44
d. There is a separate laundry instruction tag below the Wilson tag
e. Player identification is sewn to material below the laundry instructions

3. Now try this search: Yankees Locker Room

Image # U1282943INP

Yankees home jersey with player identification, year, and player number sewn in left front of the tail from the 1955 season

4. Try this search: Baseball Locker Room

Image # DM 2737

NY Mets April 1962 reveals that the home jerseys were manufactured by Spalding

5. Try this search: Gil Hodges 1949

Image # U917025ACME

This example is important to note for two reasons, first, always be sure to consider what you do not see. In this case, part of that not seen is the other player in the photo besides Hodges. Note that nothing appears on the outer tail of the jersey. Second, take a look at the player in the left of the photo. The reason for certain things being “cropped” out of photographs should now be readily apparent.

It is an old adage that “a picture is worth a thousand words.” I would offer something even more valuable, “the right picture viewed in the proper manner and with a specific purpose in mind, could be worth thousands of dollars” in terms of what it will save you or permit you to purchase with greater confidence.

When thinking about using photographs to support your research think “PHOTO”

P: Know the Purpose for your analysis.
H: Have no preconceived notions, look at all images with a fresh perspective.
O: Obtain a variety of photographs and angles whenever possible.
T: Take your time
O: Organize, record, and analyze your findings

(and do not Photo Match…)