Fielder mitt or Baseman mitt

[rosajr]

Hey Guys,
Found this picture of George Kahler warming up at Hilltop park. He was a pitcher for the Cleveland team from 1910-1914. He is wearing a mitt..fielder's or baseman's? I know we always have discussions about whether the small mitts we come across are youth baseman's mitts or fielders, so what do you think?

Jim

[img][IMG]http://i942.photobucket.com/albums/ad266/rockrosa/baseball/th_NewImage.jpg[/img][/img]

[softball66]

Fielders mitt. In this era several manufacturers made fielders mitts. And they were retailed and used that way. That is, thinner padded likely, mitts (no fingers) that were used by non firstbasemen and, in this case, by pitchers. Idea didn't last too long.

[vintagebrett]

I'm going to disagree and say it's a 1B mitt - it doesn't look square enough and it has lacing all around - the fielders mitts I've seen have a square top and are sewn.

[softball66]

Very good point Brett. And this is a good topic for us. Would like to know how many of these fielders mitt have been found. I have found Draper and Maynard and Victor producing these mitts around 1912 to 1916. None for Spalding, Reach, Rawlings, etc.
The 1914 D&M Catalog shows both laced fieldes mitts and sewn fielders mitts being offered. "Leather laced, strap and buckle at wrist." and "Laced around outside, strap and buckle at wrist."
Four sewn fielders mitts, four laced fielders mitts. The leather perimiters #s are 647C, 645X, 643X, 644X. The sewn types 653, 42, 37, 38.
I'll check out the Victor fielders mitts. Evidently the idea didn't take off. Just about a five year window on D&M.

[vintagebrett]

I'm certain that Reach made some - I remember seeing them in catalogs - I'll see if I can find some pictures later on today.

[softball66]

Brett, I also checked Tyron 1914 and it had the fielders mitt you're talking about. Squared off top, mitt front but finger channels in the back. Odd looking.
I'll do the same. I think if Reach had the mitts so did Spalding but didn't see them listed in the catalog book. Will get back. Interesting topic. And small window of distribution.

[softball66]

Reach 1910 catalog shows four models 6F, SF?, 7F. youth 7B. All are sewn perimeters. Sewn on thumbs. 1 inch or similar type webs.
Saplding 1914 catalog shows six models. The top-of-the-line touts: "Spalding "'League Extra' Pitchers and Basemen's mitt. Made especially for pitchers and a very satisfactory style also for basemen."
$3.60 ea. Then stepped down, 2MF, 5MF, 7MF, 8F, 9F, last two laced webs.
Well this has been an enlightening learning session. Like the two finger gloves of the late 1940s-early '50s. The ideas didn't "CATCH ON!"

[rosajr]

Guys,
I have 3 Reach mitts that may or may not be fielder's mitts....I'll try to post photos tonight

Jim

[vintagebrett]

Jim, can't wait to see the pictures!

[ebbets55]

Jim, definitely looks like a basemitt in the picture. However, your CF lists as a fielders mitt model. They were only made til the mid-teens (about 1910-1915 from my research) and many of them look like youth mitts and many youth mitts are mistaken for fielders mitts. Although there are some tell-tale signs of fielders mitts like the unique linings, usually laceless perimeters and full webs, it usually comes down to the model number. There are some great fielders mitt models and some chinsy, cheap looking kids models. But as Joe said, that type of mitt didn't last long.

JD

[softball66]

Very educational string here. Without positive proof on the fielders vs. baseman mitts. I "suspect":
1. There is less padding in the fielders mitt than in the baseman mitt. The baseman is going to take more "catches" than a fielder therefore requiring more padding
2. There are finger channels inside the fielders mitt and not in the baseman mitt. Some of the catalogs indicate this.
3. More sewn outer edges than laced edges. The adult mitts seem to be laced from the catalogs.
JD is right, best way to know is if you can read a model number on the mitt. I can look up (like I listed above) some of the model numbers for the catalogs I have. JD is likely correct also in his
assumption that most of these might be child's to mid youth size gloves.
This is a viable niche for glove collectors.

[rosajr]

Here are the photos....
The first mitt is a Reach CF model which is 9 inches tall. The second and third reach mitts have no ID's on them and are between 7 and 8 inches tall. The second mitt has a hole in the thumb which is exactly where my thumb pokes through, I have small hands (size 7). I believe these to be fielders mitts and not youth baseman's mitts based on the level of the products used to make them. All 3 have buckles and rolled leather piping which you see on all the high grade gloves and mitts as opposed to cloth piping and button straps. I have a Reach youth catchers mitt and it has cloth piping and a button strap. I don't see Reach or other companies using the same materials on their youth models as on their most expensive adult models. What do you guys think?

[vintagebrett]

I'd lean towards fielders mitts on those - if you look at the below page from the 1914 Reach catalog you can see the similarities. All of the 1B mitts in the 1914 catalog, top of the line to bottom, are sewn all the way around.

[cubsrno1]

I think those are basemitts. One thing I always look for is the construction of the glove itself. Fielders mitt usually have sewn in thumbs much like what you see in a regular fielders glove. The mitts pictured have that oven mitt look where the thumb and the rest of the mitt are all one piece. Just look at the fielders mitt pictured on JD's site and you'll see what I'm talking about.

[vintagebrett]

I'm sticking with fielders. If you look through the Reach catalogs in the Glove Library on JD's site from 1914 to 1925, there is only one or two examples of a 1B mitt that is not laced all the way around - they are the lowest end models and most likely did not have the leather binding we see on these gloves.