Vintage Baseball Glove Forum

Hello all,

I’ve wanted to post this for a while, but just haven’t gotten the pictures together. I want to know, what you guys think about older base mitts. I honestly think that these are lost gems especially in ebay auctions and in selling. They, just like older catcher’s mitts, don’t get as much attention as the fielder’s glove (omitting the 2 tone color, buckle web, and the other bells and whistles) in my opinion. I also think that a lot of people pass on the earlier base mitts because some appear smaller than others. I take into consideration the whole adult hand thing, but sometimes my adult hand fits into one and it appears small. These mitts are especially tricky, the ones following the crescent base mitts, because some of the smaller ones have patches with rolled piping (which to me signify a high end glove). I recently traded a mitt to a friend which I honestly loved, it appeared small but had the patch and rolled piping and I took a picture of it with a standard sized baseball. That particular mitt measured 9” tall and was the same height as my adult crescent base mitt. In my opinion, I felt that that mitt was an adult mitt while others may have said no. I continue to have this debate with other glovers, most recently with Dave Cunningham who sent me a pic of his base mitt which he thought may/may not be an adult sized mitt. I believe that it is and I showed Dave a cabinet photo I have of some adult players with crescents and a base mitt. The guy in the back appears to have one of those smaller base mitts, but I don’t know. What do you guys think? Do you have a rule of thumb when getting older base mitts? I included some photos and encourage others to post theirs. I try to stay in the ball park of 8 ½” tall or larger and look for rolled piping. Brett, I apologize in advance if this topic has been discussed before. I just wanted to get some feedback and love reading posts on the older stuff…………..RBD

http://hometown.aol.com/rickybulldog/basemitts.html

RBD,

I definetly agree that basemitts have been ignored and undervalued. They are more scarce than any other glove. Consider that only one postion use this and those who play or have kids in little league know that you can get away with using a fielders glove to play first base.

You are right on with identifying high end mitts. I believe that basemitts started out small and eventually grew in size. However, width is the determining factor in differentiating an adult size versus a child size. I have posted a pic that shows a childs model and adults model. They are all ver close in height but not in width.

I may be wrong, but I feel strongly about that. I or anyone of us did not live in that time period so all we can do is compare and analyze.

[img]IMG]http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd34/jrtobillo/basemitt002.jpg[/img][/img]

Sorry, I could not get my image in. I will try again.[img][img]http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd34/jrtobillo/basemitt002-1.jpg[/img][/img]

The one on the top left is the childs model. The others are adult size.[img][img]http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd34/jrtobillo/basemitt003.jpg[/img][/img]

Yes, early baseman mitts are probably the most ignored of the position mitts and yes, probably more scarce. The catchers mitt and baseman mitt were one position mitts but there were usually more than one catcher and several catchers mitts available to a team. First base maybe not quite that so.
As to sizing, the fit of the hand inside will tell part of the tale, width another as one poster wrote. Overall size yes. I was very lucky enough one day to put my hand in a gamer Lou Gehrig Ken Wel mittt and I marveled at the width of the mitt, just very, very wide.
Also correct is that the basemitts grew in size as time went along until we got into the oblong oven mitt styles of the late 1920s 1930s.
Popularity of the basemitt increased dramatically with the introduction of the Rawlings Trapper Claw. Derived from a heavy webbing mitt put together by Hank Greenberg (Remember the key to the basemitt is catching the ball and not necessarily a quick release- the snagging and holding of the thrown ball is critical. Hence Greenberg figured.
The baseman mitt or glove might have been the second position mitt/glove utilized as this player had to take more throws than any other spot. I believe, in the Spalding story, when A. G. Spalding donned one of the first mitts (accepted) in the field, he was at first base.
Just some thoughts.

If you are ever in CT and want to a see some nice 1B mitts, stop by crackofthebat's house - he'd be happy to show off his collection of mitts. He has some smaller ones that were definitely made for adults. Just like fielders gloves, different sizes were made. I think the real early ones tend to be a little wider than taller. He has a lot of neat ones but I think this may be my favorite:

I'm in agreement about the basemitts being ignored. Playing mostly first base all my life I appreciate the glove and probably have more basemitts than regular gloves. I have 15 Reach basemitts od varying sizes. I think that some of the small mitts with all the high end features, rolled piping, buckles, etc are actually fielders mitts that were produced early in the last century. JD had a nice light tan small Reach mitt for sale when he started his site. I have the same mitt but it has the model number and patent dates. It's a Reach CF. According to the 2007 catalog source book, it appears in the 1904, 06, 09, 14 and 15 catalogs. I believe that fielders mitts may be mistaken for a child's mitt. I don't think Mfg's would use high end materials for child's mitts
Jim

Hi Ricky and guys,

This is a great topic, Ricky. Actually, I might mention that Ricky and I were not debating each other on the adult vs. youth mitt, I was just curious what Ricky thought about this old timer mitt. It is a very interesting area and once Ricky had shared his thoughts and his picture on the topic I was finding it even more interesting. Mine does have the rolled piping and a buckle back strap. And I had a guy 6 foot tall stick his medium size hand in this 8 inches tall by maybe a shade over 8 inches wide and it looked to fit like the guys hand like the adult person in the picture that Ricky sent to me. I find it very interesting!!!

I was mystified if mine was a youth mitt or an adult mitt. Cool regardless but just wondering what I had. I ran it passed JD sometime back to get his thoughts before I mentioned it to Ricky and JD seemed to think it was likely a youth catcher mitt or perhaps a baseman's mitt. I love old gloves the most but these old mitts are fascinating to me as well. I certainly appreciate Ricky bringing this topic up and hearing others thoughts on it.

Brett, I think your Dad's mitt you show below is also my favorite of the old timer mitts. I love that one.

I also have an old reach 8F that Joe helped me to identify as an old timer fielders mitt. These old timer mitts look small but amazingly seem to fit my hand (small to medium size) rather well. Cool topic.

Dave

Great posts guys! I totally agree with you on the quality of the mitt and width of it (although I never noticed before). So, what's your opinion on Dave's mitt (I provided a link)? I also sent one from Antique Athlete of a mitt that is up as well. In my opinion, Dave's glove is an adult sized mitt and the Antique Athlete mitt may/may not be one. It may, I can't tell from the photos, have rolled piping, but it looks like a mid grade compared to Dave's. Am I right in saying that or am I way off? I've owned a model years back just like the Antique Athlete mitt and it was really small (not saying that that one is). What do you guys think? Also, were these mitts more like "pud" type mitts just for stopping the ball and for quick release as Joe mentioned...I believe? Your input is greatly appreciated....RBD

http://hometown.aol.com/rickybulldog/basemitts.html

http://www.antiqueathlete.com/vintage-b ... oves.shtml

I don't know why this doesn't come up.

To me, Dave's looks like an older glove. Maybe by as much as 10 years older. The photo of Dave's is pretty dark around the buckle strap. It looks more heavy duty than the one on Antique Athlete, as does the binding and the surface glove leather, for that matter. That suggests a higher quality glove. I think that these are both basemitts as opposed to puds. Clearly, there both two handed, requiring the throwing hand to cover up the ball to complete the catch. I recently put two very old basemitts up on JD's site. One is white and circa 1905 (or so) and is a child's glove. The other is 1890's and is an adult sized glove. You really can tell the difference in scale and the intent of the design. The white one is so small that there is no question about an adult hand using it. I had my ten year old put it on and it fits her perfectly as a child's glove should. The earlier one fits my hand perfectly.

I think it's also important to recognize that most of the catching with these old basemitts centered around the heel of the glove. These gloves strapped across the back of the hand, rather than around the wrist and the heel of the glove sat on top of or in front of the player's hand's heel rather than the way it would sit if the hand was jammed all the way inside the glove up to the wrist. It is not uncommon in old baseball photos to be able to see the base of the baseman's hand cropping of the basemitt, sort of half way between the beginning of the wrist and the knuckles. That's the way these gloves were worn. Ricky's photo is a perfect example.

The three mitts in question are:

http://hometown.aol.com/rickybulldog/basemitts.html

(Dave's on Ricky's site)

http://www.antiqueathlete.com/vintage-b ... oves.shtml

(Corey)

http://www.baseballglovecollector.com/g ... k+Fred.JPG

(JD sold to Fred referred to in prior post)

These are all youth basemitts in my opinion. They are not catchers mitts and date to pre-1910, but not 1890's. I can put my adult hand in a lot of youth mitts. I'm a big fan of quality coming in to play to help identify whether a glove or mitt is a youth or adult model but you just can't as many youth sized mitts are high quality or at least have leather piping. A professional player of the day would not have used a mitt like that. I have a few earlier basemitts that are much bigger.

http://www.baseballglovecollector.com/g ... +Front.JPG

http://www.baseballglovecollector.com/g ... +Front.JPG

http://www.baseballglovecollector.com/g ... +Front.JPG

There is absolutely nothing wrong with youth mitts. They are still totally cool but by 1910, there were a ton of manufacturers making a bunch of different models of varying size and quality and an adult would most definitely have used a larger sized mitt. In my opinion, the mitts in question are youth basemitts. Does anyone else agree?

JD

JD,
I hear you on what you're saying. That laceless mitt is awesome! You think that's a youth? To me, I would say that looks adult. It appears high quality. Why would manufacturers want to use rolled piping on a youth glove? I can understand a patch, but rolled piping? Has anyone seen rolled piping on a youth mitt (besides this possible one haha)? Hmm...I'd like to see what others think.

I stand corrected. I'm always one to admit when I make a mistake and I have. I do remember seeing smaller catcher's mitts having rolled piping, but I don't remember if they were actually considered a youth model though. The rolled piping on a youth glove still bothers me though. A high quality youth glove/mitt? It almost sounds like an oxymoron. Haha! Maybe this was before manufacturers figured out they could make smaller gloves/mitts with inferior leather/materials. Thoughts?

The mitt mentioned above that I got from JD is definitely a youth size mitt. I think you also have to remember that players back around the turn of the century were a lot smaller than players today and hence the gloves reflect a smaller hand.