mitt

23 photos tagged mitt, from 1 member of Flickr Commons.

When were these photos taken?

7
1908
1919

 

Where were these photos tagged?

None of these photos are geotagged.

Tags that often appear on the same photos:

Members using this tag

Photos

Photos tagged mitt:

Loading photos…

See more on flickr.com →

Recent uploads

The last upload was November 2015.

Conversations

Here’s a selection of the conversations happening on these photos:

[Orlie Weaver, Boston, NL (baseball)] (LOC)

  • Art Siegel said:
    the team changed its name from the Boston Rustlers to the Boston Braves after the 1911 season.
  • marked hair said:
    Orville Forest Weaver 1886-1970 You can read his stats here: www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=weaveor01
  • Arden said:
    Shadrach Christopoulos: Thanks for the fuller name and dates for Orville Weaver. We will add them to the description when we update.

[Hank Severeid, Cincinnati NL (baseball)] (LOC)

  • Kilted Cowboy said:
    dated 5/17/13, on that day Cinci lost to the Boston Braves 2-6 Henry Levai Severeid (June 1, 1891 - December 17, 1968) born in Story City, Iowa was a Catcher for the Cincinnati Reds (1911-13), St. Louis Browns (1915-25), Washington Senators (1925-26) and New York Yankees (1926) Only catcher to have Caught No-Hitters on Successive Days en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hank_Severeid
  • In Memoriam: budderflyman said:
    What's even more interesting is that the successive days of catching no hitters in May of 1917 came just a few days after Fred Toney and Hippo Vaughn pitched the only double no-hitter in Major League History. Maybe the umpires that week just had huge strike zones and were in a hurry to get games over.

[Clarence "Skipper" Roberts, St. Louis NL (baseball)] (LOC)

  • In Memoriam: budderflyman said:
    This was the top of the line catcher's mitt in 1911. Look at some of the mitts in prior years, smaller and less padded. Nice photo. I don't know why you can't take out crap in your photos, like that black blurb above the mitt.
  • The Library of Congress said:
    Budderflyman: At least three concerns hold us back from editing images. Authenticity: Digitizing a photograph as it has survived through time reassures viewers that we're representing the original artifact faithfully. Editing an image undermines the reliability of the photo as a historical document. Once we start covering up even small scratches, who's to know how much other image content we changed. Subjective choices: Different users have different preferences when it comes to replacing scratches, pumping up contrast, sharpening edges, cropping negative borders, etc. Offering the basic image lets subsequent users make their own decisions about which features to change to suit a particular purpose or product. Lack of money and time: If we had lots more resources, offering a 'cleaned up photo' in addition to the 'raw document' could be considered. (Like pre-conservation and post-conservation images of a damaged and then repaired poster.) But our priority is basic digital access -- many more of the Library’s 14 million pictures should be available online first.
  • In Memoriam: budderflyman said:
    Well, this photo has one blatant black blotch which if removed would not bother anyone, I am sure. I am not asking you to edit sharpness, crops, borders, etc. It is just cleaning up a piece of debris that I am sure no photographer would ever wish to have on his or her photo. With a clone tool, this takes one second to correct. But, I will not bug you again about it.
  • mcsherryp said:
    Well if you want to head down that road then you might as well remove the clear sticky tape marks on the bottom and bottom left, not the mention the hundred other scratches. For the reasons the LOC have outlined, they're dead right to leave them as they have them.