Early Base Mitts

[vintagebrett]

I would say, out of the three, that Dave C.'s looks to be meant for an adult. The other two, I would say were intended for youth. What do you guys think about the one that sold in the Heritag Auction this past weekend? I would say adult even though it looks a bit small

http://sports.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=709&Lot_No=19594&src=pr#Photo

[Mike**Mize]

Hi Guys,
Before when I said that Ricky's photo was a perfect example, I was referring to the photo of the two players. Looking again at the basemitt worn by the player standing behind the guy in front, it looks to me like the mitt he's got on measures from the base of his ribcage to just below his waste. If that glove's more than 7 1'2"- 8" long, I'd be very surprised. I also think that a distinction can be made between a youth glove (teens) and a child's glove. I think companies like Reach made both along with gloves of various qualities for adults. I only wish we could all go in a time capsule back to the turn of the century and visit a sporting goods store for a few hours and pick out the exact gloves that did it for each of us.

[rosajr]

Guys,

I have the exact same mitt that is posted on JD's site and the model number is visible. It's a Reach CF fielders mitt top of the line for that category in the 1904 reach catalog. I believe I have seen a photo of Tris Speaker getting ready to field a fly ball using a fielders mitt.

Jim

[rosajr]

Guys,

One of the differences I've seen, is that the mitts in debate seem to have finger stall stitching on the outside something not common on basemitts of the era. Any thoughts?

Jim

[stockbuddy]

Mike, I too wish we could catch that time capsule and check out the old gloves and mitts when they were being sold in the stores back then.

I certainly enjoy reading of everyone's thoughts on this topic. Ricky, nice job bringing this one up to the group.

Dave

[Rickybulldog]

Nice posts guys. Brett that mitt you sent looks like one of those fielder's mitts. I love that factory shirt button on it. Haha. I don't know about that one, If it's one of those fielder's mitts I'd say adult. I am 0 for 1 though. Haha. By the way Fred (Crack of the Bat), is there a huge difference in size on that mitt of yours? And rosajr, nice post, I didn't notice the finger slots as you mentioned and yes I've seen that Speaker photo as well. When exactly did these fielder's mitts come into play? They appear to be more square top and a web than the round ones we've been discussing.
Here are some pics of those fielder's mitts that were brought up (sorry JD I had to use your site/ consider it a plug haha)
Sorry to lump all these mitts all together, but I think this may where some confusion lies too.

This is a nice mitt. Which came first the buckle or the button fielder's mitt? Also Dave, what are the measurements on this mitt?

http://www.baseballglovecollector.com/g ... t+Dave.JPG

http://www.baseballglovecollector.com/g ... dMit2F.jpg

Sorry for so many questions, but I love this topic.....RBD

[crackofthebat]

The A.J.Reach is very small compared to my other mitts. It only measures 7 3/4 inches by 7 3/4 inches. My hand fits into it OK, but it is much smaller than any of the other mitts I have in my collection. It is sewn on the back so there are stalls for each finger. I don't know if Brett has a picture of the back of the mitt that shows these finger stalls that he could post.

[stockbuddy]

Hi Ricky and guys, My Reach mitt in your picture measures about 8 3/4 to almost 9 wide if you have hand in mitt and stretch thumb out a bit more to 8 1/4 high at tallest part of mitt. Also, when my fingers are in the mitt there are individual finger stalls like Fred described in one of his mitts.

Hope that helps. This mitt has a great soft leather liner and it is just too bac the little moths liked the front of the mitt a bit too much. LOL

Dave

[stockbuddy]

Ricky, My mitt does have an 8F on it and the Reach emblem. It has a ton of patent numbers too. Joe, seemed to find a picture of this mitt in one of his old catelogs and he was kind enough to send me a copy of it. I, for the likes of me, can not find it anymore, but it was described in his catelog as a brown tan mitt and was in the teens. In the 07 source book one can see the category of a Fielder's mitt and the 8f category around 1915 and 1916. For some reason I thought maybe the catelog was 1910, but I could be wrong on that.

JD, listed it as a 1920's but I think it was in the teens. Maybe Joe will read this and reconfirm era.

Fred, is it always great to have you sharing about the old mitts.
Dave

[Catch2575]

(deleted)

[GloveCrazy]

Alas, the youth model debate. I like this one almost as much as the workman's debate, especially when several collectors get together for a couple of "sodas" first. My take is that I have a small issue with both generic definitions. Exceptions are all over the place because different manufacturers were trying to be creative, consumers had different preferences, and budgets were tight in some neighborhoods. I'll try to stick with the youth model debate here and go find the other post related to the workmans definition for that rant.

Let me start off by saying that I love larger models across the board for collecting ... tall full webs, and 1" webs are great, and basemitts too if I have to talk about them (I do like them but agree that they are sort of perceived as the collecting red-headed-step-child). I'll always pay a little more for a larger glove/mitt than a smaller one, and I like the wider basemitts a lot better than thin ones.

When I look at pre 30s pictures and baseball cards, though, a large number of pros are wearing smaller, more form-fitting gloves. I also hear stories and see the gloves where people actually cut out the palms to make them even more form fitting (or to feel the ball more). I've heard of a peer pressure to not use too large of glove.

I'll muddy it up even more. I'd more likely use an MM5 Mantle to go play catch with than an MMP, a smaller 60s Rawlings trapeze over a TG12, and more germane to this argument, I prefer to take my form-fitting Stall & Dean 1" web to play catch with over my many taller models. Trust me on this, size wise nobody would call the Stall and Dean an adult model but it is thicker leather, has a cloth label and is rock solid. I think glove quality and features (leather piping, cloth labels) is as much a determining factor as size (as long as it fits an adulth hand, of course).

Sorry to be the contrarion.

[Mike**Mize]

Going along the same lines as Rob's comments a fantastic resource bearing out the size of gloves used by pro's circa the early 20th Century is a book entitled That Old Ball Game edited by David R. Phillips, 1973, Henry Regnery Company, Chicago. This book features the photographs of Francis P. Burke. Included in this collection of images are action photos of Frank Chance, Mordecai "Three Finger" Brown, Nick Altrock, Rube Waddell, Johnny Evers, Hal Chase, Big Ed Walsh, Doc Crandall, Nap Lajoie and many others. As collectors, we get so used to seeing images of gloves standing alone. It's really a revelation to see them in action.
This book appears on occasion on eBay and can probably also be found on Amazon. The smallness and thick wide design of Mordecai Brown's glove, for instance, seems to relate exactly to the kind of glove Rob was talking about in his previous post.

[softball66]

Recently when I finished my 1800s look at vintage baseball gloves for our newsletter, I compiled all of my 19th century equipment catalogs. I thought I'd add what I've found on the earliest of base mitts for the forum.
I did not find any basemitts as such listed in any catalog I have until 1892
and the mitt I find is a shortend version of an "oven mitt" and carried in only one style and model number XXX. It shows a Spalding stamped logo on the bottom front of the mitt. The back appears to have seamed finger slots on the back with a button wrist fastener. It listed for $3 and is made from drab buckskin, "very soft and pliable and well padded." Spalding listed four catchers mitts and three catchers gloves with two infielders gloves.
In 1894 Spalding listed three First Baseman/Infielders mitts, 3X, 4X and 5X. The mitt appears to have a sewn on thumb but this is difficult to verify with a wood cut drawing.

[vintagebrett]

Posting for crackofthebat - seems the short but wide gloves continued well into the 20th century. He is a Frank McCormick of unknown manufacturer that measures 8 3/4 inches tall but 10 1/4 inches wide.