Author: waszut_barrett@me.com

Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

The story of the Tabor Opera House in Leadville, Colorado, is interwoven with that of Gov. H. A. W. Tabor, Augusta Tabor, and Baby Doe Tabor. The 1932 film was based on David Karsner’s book, “Silver Dollar,” tracing the ups and downs of this one-time silver magnate and his two wives.

On Dec. 1, 1932, the world premiere of “Silver Dollar” was held at the Denver Theatre, previously known as  the Tabor Grand Opera House. Prior to the premiere, movie representatives scoured Leadville for artifacts to display at the upcoming event. They visited Baby Doe in Leadville and searched throughout the opera house for remnants from Tabor’s glory days.

On Dec. 9, 1932, “Steamboat Pilot” announced, “Leadville Relics Taken to Denver for ‘Silver Dollar.’ The article reported, “The theater men also went to the Elks, once the famous Tabor opera house of Leadville, seeking relics of the olden days. They secured a stage drop and four magnificent velvet drapes of the ornate Tabor days. Both drop and drapes are said to be older than the curtain at the old Tabor Grand theater in Denver” (page 3). Note the article did not state that the men secured the original drop curtain, or any painted front curtain from the Tabor Opera House in Leadville,

For additional context, the original drop curtain for the Tabor Grand Opera House in Denver was painted by Robert Hopkin in 1881, two years after the Tabor Opera House in Denver opened. It was an impressive scene of ancient ruins and the Charles Kinsley quote: “So fleet the works of men, back to their earth again; Ancient and holy things fade like a dream.” How apropos.

After the drop from the Tabor Opera House was used for the 1932 premiere, it seems to have disappeared from sight and institutional memory. For decades, many believed that the movie representatives failed to return the drop; some even believed that it was the original 1879 front curtain. At the time that it went out on loan, there was no loan agreement, or any description of what was being lent out for display at the movie premier. Others hoped that somewhere, amidst the piles of the scenery in the Tabor Opera House attic, the missing drop was carefully tucked away, awaiting discovery.

In February 2020, a missing roll drop was discovered at the Tabor Opera House, hiding on stage in plain sight. At the time, I was leading a group of local volunteers to document the scenery on stage. Near the end of the documentation process, we spotted something suspended just below the pin rail. We lowered the piece and unrolled the scene. It was roll drop with a palace arch composition. This piece was possibly the same drop lent out for the movie premiere and returned to a secure place.

It was certainly not the original drop curtain for the Tabor Opera House in 1879; wrong composition. The original front curtain was described in an article for the “Leadville Weekly Herald” on November 15, 1879 (page 3 ): “The drop curtain is a masterpiece from the brush of Mr. Lamphere, and represents a glorious mountain scene, at the base of which is a fine old castle, with a stream running at the foot; alongside of the water is a rugged road, which ends in the winding of  canyon.”  The size also indicates that it could not fill the proscenium opening, suggesting that the roll drop was some type of backing piece. Furthermore, the proportions and forced perspective suggest a far upstage placement near the back wall, almost as a masking flat. A few years later, the stage and scenery were refurbished, and a new drop curtain was painted.

The small size of the extant roll drop likely made it into a perfect artifact to put on display for the 1932 premier; small, compact, and easily transportable. The wings or shutters in the Tabor Opera House attic would have been too difficult to remove, transport and display in winter. The roll drop also exhibits all of the characteristics of having been partially “touch-up” for the movie premiere. Interestingly, only a portion was refurbished, and not the entire composition; the top quarter of the scene was left “as is.”  The refurbished section suggest that the piece was partially exhibited in a nearby lobby or a reception room. This top portion of the drop was possibly rolled, or draped over a bar, unseen. It was refurbished to fit in a shorter venue. Keep in mind that none of the original scenery would have worked well at the Tabor Grand Opera House, as it was simply too small for the proscenium opening.

Furthermore, the roll drop that we discovered last February was actually documented in 1933 as part of a Scenery Project led by Muriel Sibell Wolle (1898-1977).  In December 1933, Wolle led a group to of students, a former Tabor stage manager, and professors set up and photograph many of the scenes on stage at the Tabor House. This documentation did not include the wings and shutters that were stored in the attic. Wolle also sketched each set and made color notes, later making watercolor paintings for each piece. For more images from the 1933 Scenery Project, visit: https://digital.denverlibrary.org/digital/collection/p15330coll22/search/searchterm/1933%20Scenery%20project

There is a historic photograph of the curtain in the Denver Public Library digital collections database. Although the exact date remains unknown, the roll drop is visible as a backing piece for an interior setting, dated prior to the stage renovation by the Elks.

To be continued…

Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

Nineteenth-century “stage trimmings” referred to painted settings that included drops, wings, shutters, and borders. Stage trimmings also included the proscenium border and wings, both painted elements that accompanied most stage settings regardless of their composition. The proscenium border and proscenium wings were later known as the grand teaser and grand tormentors, or grand tormentor wings. Newspaper descriptions of nineteenth-century proscenium drapery frequently credited the skills of a scenic artist, verifying that theses were painted elements. Often permanently positioned immediately upstage of the proscenium opening, they were only removed for larger spectacles that necessitated the entire stage space, such as acrobatic acts, tightrope walkers, and the like. Otherwise, the proscenium side wings and proscenium borders remained in place for most productions.

Once the drop curtain was raised for a performance, proscenium wings and borders provided the first layer of masking for any scene. These stage elements also provided a visual transition from painted decor and architectural ornamentation in the auditorium to painted illusion on the stage. They unified the auditorium and stage in historic performance venues. Of all the painted pieces delivered by a scenic artist, these elements were the most viewed by any audience member.
Over time, proscenium wings and borders were replaced with ornate or plain fabric versions, forever altering the audience expectations and the framed presentation of painted illusion. Fabric valances, grand borders, drapes and close-in curtains became standard masking for proscenium openings by 1930; their initial popularity beginning over a decade earlier.
From 1881 to 1883, Tryon delivered new stock scenery for the Tabor Grand Opera House and Tivoli Theatre in Denver, Colorado, as well as the Springville Theatre Hall and Salt Lake Theatre in Utah. These were just four examples of the hundreds of theatres stocked with scenery painted by Tryon throughout the duration of his career. The stock scenery collections were produced over time, with each piece being unveiled to the public as part of a setting for a touring show or local production.
On May 21, 1882, the “Colorado Daily Chieftain” credited Tryon with the new scenery for the Tivoli Theatre in Denver. Of the scenic appointments, the article reported, “The stage trimmings will be of the most handsome and costly character. Mr. Henry C. Tryon, scenic artist of the Tabor Grand Opera house, Denver, having charge of the work, which will be finished in good season for the grand opening Monday evening” (page 3). Advertisements promised “Complete set of new scenery! From the brush of Henry C. Tryon, scenic artist of the Tabor Grand” (“Colorado Daily Chieftain,” May 24, 1882). By June 1, 1882, the “Colorado Daily Chieftain” announced, “Henry C. Tryon, the scenic artist, is making constant additions to the Tivoli scenery. The gentleman has few superiors in his line” (page 3).
Immediately after this project, Tryon headed west to paint new scenery for the Salt Lake Theatre and Springville Theatre Hall in Utah. For the Salt Lake Theatre, Tryon painted one scene after another, used by touring troops and the Salt Lake Theatre Dramatic Combination company. His work was featured in “Old Shipmates,” “Not Guilty,” and “Under the Gaslight,” to name a few that fall. For “Under the Gaslight,” “The Salt Lake Herald” reported, “This piece has been thoroughly rehearsed, and the new scenes by Mr. Tryon will be used and assist materially in the effectiveness of the production. The piece will be well given and draw a good house.”
In a review of Tryon’s new ship scene used in “Old Shipmates” that fall, the “Deseret News” also discussed other scenic pieces painted by the popular artist. The article reported, “The new drapery and proscenium wings and borders painted by the same and talented artist, will be exhibited that evening for the first time” (October 24, 1883).
An article entitled “Theatre Improvements” in the “Deseret News” described his new proscenium wings and borders (18 Oct 1882, page 3):“Two heavy white marble columns placed on each side of the proscenium opening, surrounding and partly covered by rich crimson drapery, support a continuation of the same drapery, arched in Pompeian form, and with details carried out in a similar style. Immediately behind the arched opening formed the front drapery border, hangs a simple lambrequin of white satin, with a gold medallion fastened to the center of the principal festoon, in which is graven the beehive of Utah; surrounding the medallion are thistles on one side and roses on the other. The prevailing colors of the arch border are rich crimson and gold, the heaviest lightened up with black. The corners of the arches are weighted down by medallions of gold, varied by reliefs in white marble. The whole combination includes richness contrasted by extreme delicacy, and care has been taken that each, while harmonizing with the other, shall be separated by graceful continuous masses. Masking the top of the leading drapery hangs close to the proscenium another maroon ‘border’ with a medallion and drapery surrounding it, looped closely. The medallion in the centre is placed there as the response to those at the extreme ends of the drapery. This last border is hung in front of the drop curtain. The others about six feet back form the proscenium.”

Each piece of Tryon’s stock scenery was gradually unveiled to the public from the fall of 1882 through the spring of 1883. Tryon initially painted a ship setting and a steamboat setting. His work was congratulated, and newspapers reported, “the new ship scene recently painted by Mr. Henry C. Tryon, of the Tabor Grand Opera House is acknowledged to be one of the most realistic sets ever put upon the stage” (Ogden Standard, 30 Sept, 1882, page 3). On Nov. 25, 1882, the “Salt Lake City Herald” reported that new scenes painted by Tryon included a snow scene, woods scene, street scene, and prison setting (page 8). By the end of May 1883, the “Deseret News” reported “The forest scene, painted by Henry C. Tryon, introduced last night and this afternoon in ‘The Serf,’ is a masterpiece. The foliage borders transform the stage into the appearance of a dense wood with actual timber, over hanging and spreading branches and leaves. It is the nearest approach to nature in the department of scene painting we have ever seen” (May 26, 1883, page 5).

Tryon’s stage trimmings, like those of many scenic artists, made news throughout the second half of the nineteenth century in America. The works of scenic artists were advertised, reviewed and applauded. Painted scenery by well-known artists drew crowds and added to the credibility of each performance. By the onset of the twentieth century, the listing of specific scenic artists in newspaper reviews began to diminish. The detailed descriptions of stage settings were gradually replaced with articles about other technological advancements in stage machinery and lighting. The presence of scenic artists, once celebrated in newspapers, began to fade; their identities hidden backstage at many venues.

To be continued…

Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

In the summer of 1882, Henry C. Tryon left Denver, Colorado, and traveled west to Salt Lake City, Utah. By that fall, Henry C. Tryon painted a ship setting for the Salt Lake Theatre’s upcoming production of “Old Shipmates.” “Old Shipmates” starred Frank Mordaunt and featured a ship scene, a scene that did not tour with the company. Each theatre on the tour provided scenery from their stock. In Salt Lake City, Tryon painted a scene for the touring show to use at the Salt Lake Theatre.

Around this same time, Tryon also painted a Steamship setting for a production of “Not Guilty,” also at the Salt Lake Theatre. Of the production, the “Ogden Standard” announced, “On Monday night Watts Phillip’s thrilling sensational drama of ‘Not Guilty’ will be given with a strong cast, fine scenic and mechanical effects, embracing the new ship scene, recently painted by Henry C. Tryon of the Tabor Grand Opera House, Denver, and acknowledged to be one of the most realistic sets ever put upon the stage” (Ogden Standard, 30 Sept 1882, page 3). The settings included a rural setting, a ship scene and a quarry.

“Not Guilty” had been around for a while, having premiered at the Queen’s Theatre in London, over a decade earlier. The playwright was also an artist, with a pretty specific vision for the 1869 piece. For more about Watts Phillips, read “Watts Phillips: Artist and Playwright.” Here is a link to a free pdf of the book: https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=CB_zKT2aMrsC&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA11

In 1869 “Sharpe’s London Magazine” described the Phillip’s new production (Vol 34, Jan 1869, page 166):

“’Not Guilty’ the new melodrama at the Queen’s, possesses Anglo-Indian incidents connected with the dreadful mutiny of 1857; but there are more incidents relating to home life, including that convict-life which the stage too often holds up to the view, and which the convict-life is low, disgusting, and so unfit to be reproduced in dramatic pictures, that we wonder at its toleration by any audience. Before dismissing “Not Guilty,” we will admit that it possesses highly sensational elements, but protest against any phase of that terrible mutiny of the troops being represented by a man or two prowling about the side of a wall as British soldiers, and another man or two bobbing their heads up, now and then, on the other side of the wall as mutineers. The main incident in “Not Guilty” is founded on a fact recorded in a remarkable criminal trial: we allude to the fate of Silas Jarrett, the convict.”

“Not Guilty,” received unfavorable reviews when the show premiered in 1869. Even American newspapers reported that it was “rather roughly handed” and “a bad specimen of the worst class of plays” (“Buffalo Courier,” 1 April, 1869, page 4). However, the production was still running a year later, premiering in America at Niblo’s Garden in New York. On June 6, 1870, the “New York Daily” announced, “Another novelty will be the new military drama by Watt’s Phillips entitled ‘Not Guilty,’ which will be brought out at Niblos’s to-night with  all the paraphernalia of war, love, murder, virtue, villainy, and every sensation that the stage is capable of” (page 7).

By June 13, 1870, “Brooklyn Daily Eagle,” reported, “Whatever may be the literary and artistic deficiencies of the play ‘Not Guilty,’ it is met with a decided popular success at Niblo’s. It is a succession of varied and exciting incidents, happening in three quarters of the globe, introducing Australians, Sepoys and English convicts. The interest never flags, there is so much life in every scene. This is why it attracts and pleases, and fills the house” (“Brooklyn Daily Eagle,” 13 June 1870, page 3).  The failure of the production in London was now credited to poor production values. In New York, the “Brooklyn Daily Eagle,” reported, “Great preparations have been made for its proper production,” including 150 soldiers from the Garibaldi Guard and the Fifth Infantry Regimental band and drum corps (“Brooklyn Daily Eagle,” 7 June 1870, page 2). The increased spectacle immediately won popularity with American audiences. Niblo’s advertised the show as a “grand romantic military drama in four acts,” produced with new scenery, new mechanism, new properties, new uniforms, new overtures, &c., &c.” (New York Times, 9 June 1870, page 7).

“Not Guilty” was playing again at Queen’s Theatre in 1882; the same year that it was produced in Salt Lake City. Of the Salt Lake production, the “Deseret News” reported, “The Salt Lake Dramatic Combination will repeat the play of ‘Not Guilty,’ with its thrilling sensations and beautiful scenery, including the Great Steamship Scene, painted by Mr. Henry C. Tryon of the Tabor Opera House, on Saturday evening, October 28.” The Dramatic Combination was “composed of Messrs. McKenzie, Margetts, Graham, and Lindsay,” assisted by a full company and full orchestra (Ogden Standard, 30 Sept 1882, page 3). On October 29, 1882, the “Salt Lake Herald,” announced “the painting that has recently been done by the scenic artist, Mr. Tryon has added wonderfully to the attractive appearance of the stage and shows Mr. Tryon to be a scenic artist of the highest order. It is hoped that while he is here, the gentleman’s services will be secured to make other improvements which would not only contribute to the appearance of the interior but add to the stage effects and thus add materially to the pleasure of its patrons. What has been done so far has given a taste to the public for more – and the more the better.”

To be continued…

Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

When the Tabor Opera House opened in 1879, the “Leadville Weekly Herald” included an article about the new structure entitled, “The Opera House. Description of Leadville’s New Place of Amusement” (November 15, 1879,  page 3 ). In addition to an extensive description of the building and stage area, the article reported, “Mr. Lamphere, one of the finest scenic artists in the west, has charge of the scenes, their preparation and management, and he promises to produce as fine an effect as can be had in any of the largest theatres of the east, even including New York and Philadelphia, in both of which places he has at times been engaged. Mr. Barber is the stage carpenter and has always been considered first class in his line, and second to none in New York city, from which he has recently arrived…The drop curtain is a masterpiece from the brush of Mr. Lamphere, and represents a glorious mountain scene, at the base of which is a fine old castle, with a stream running at the foot; alongside of the water is a rugged road, which ends in the winding of  canyon.” Two years later the building and stage were renovated. The scenery and stage machinery delivered by Lamphere and Barber was less than ideal.

Some recounts suggest that Lamphere was a well-known artist; very successful and from the east. Well, east is relative and can mean Denver or Omaha, as both are still geographically east. Lamphere moved from Omaha to Denver by 1872 and was still working as a decorative artist in 1879. He later marketed himself as a scenic artist, but was primarily a fresco painter when the Tabor Opera House was built.

James “Edgar” Lamphere was the son of Orrin Lamphere and Malinda Post. Born in 1839, J. E. Lamphere was the second of five sons born to the couple. His brothers were Milan “Milton” (b. 1840) George (b. 1842), William (b. 1864) and Alonzo Horace (b. 1848).The young boys moved with their parents from New York to Tompkins, Illinois, during the mid 1840s. Tragedy struck, and their mother passed away shortly thereafter, in 1850. Their father immediately remarried a woman called Harriet, and the couple celebrated the birth of a daughter in 1851. Harriet was almost twenty years his junior, and the couple added three daughters to the expanding family: Melissa (b. 1851), Alma (B. 1853) and Ida May (b. 1857).  One by one, the sons from the first family moved out of the household, including James who soon married and began painting.

Although I have yet to discover a definitive marriage date, by 1860, James was married and had a daughter. By 1868, James was working as a house and sign painter, listed in the Omaha directory. He had his own establishment, working with his younger brother Alonzo Horatio Lamphere. The two were listed in the Omaha directory, each living at 515 12^th. The 1870 U. S. Federal Census still listed J. E. Lamphere as a painter in Omaha. His wife Delia was 28 years old, with his children Clara and George, ten yrs. old and two years old respectively. The family also had a live-in servant. His younger brother, listed as “A. H. Lamphere” was still working in Omaha, but now living with another painter at a boarding house – A. N. Dobbins. Both James and Alonzo remained in Omaha until 1872, when they headed west to Denver. It remains unclear if Lamphere left his family, or if they chose to stay. However, he did remarry by 1879.

As far as Alonzo, he occasionally worked as a scenic artist as he continued west, eventually settling in California by 1880. Interestingly, their brother George also became a house painter in Chicago.

In 1872 J. E. Lamphere was working in Colorado as an artist. He remained in the west for at least a decade before fading from historical records. The Digital Collections at the Denver Public library have three mentions of J. E. Lamphere, as recorded in the Western History Subject Index. The index only lists the name, profession, date and newspaper. So, there is no way of knowing the context, and Lamphere may have simply been listed in the business cards section of the paper. In 1872, 1879 and 1881, Lamphere was mentioned in the “Rocky Mountain News.” In 1872, he was listed as an artist (March 27, page 1, column 4). In 1879, he was noted as a fresco painter ( Feb 25, 1879, page 4, column 5). Finally, in 1881, Lamphere was listed as a scenic artist (Sept. 4, page 8, column 3).

In 1879, the Denver Directory lists James E. Lamphere as a fresco painter and grainer, not a scenic artist or connected to any theatre, instead working for C. A. Trea. Charles A. Treat ran a wallpaper and sign works company located at 306 15th St. in Denver (Western Magazine, Vol. 4, 1880, page 5). Treat had been a fixture in Denver’s decorative artist scene for some time, placing advertisements as early as 1872 in the ”Denver Daily Times” (9 Aug. 1872).  By the time Lamphere was working for Treat in 1879, Lamphere was living at the West Lindell Hotel. By 1880, Lamphere had moved to Leadville, living with his second wife.

On January 1, 1881, the “Leadville Daily Herald” included James E. Lamphere and Mary S. Faxson (nee Ainsworth) as one of the couples married in Leadville during 1880 (page 5). Mrs. M. S. Faxon was listed in the 1880 Leadville City Directory as living at 314 W 8^th. The couple’s marriage did not last long, as a notice of their divorce was published in the “Leadville Weekly Democrat” on Feb. 1, 1881: “Mary S. Lamphere vs Lamphere; judgement and decree of divorce for plaintiff at her costs.” Mary remained in Leadville, and remarried on June 5, 1881. Her next husband was Thomas J. Lanchan; they were also married in Leadville. I have yet to uncover any mention of Lamphere after that date.

In past writings, I proposed that James E. Lamphere solely functioned as the interior decorator for the Tabor Opera House; someone else painted the scenic art. My rationale was that there were plenty of well-known scenic artists working at theaters in Leadville by 1879; why hire a fresco painter from Denver who did not specialize in scenery? Furthermore, I suggested that as Tabor was ordering the best of everything, why skimp on the painted scenery. Well, I think that I found my reason: a lack of understanding pertaining to theatre production and the architectural construction of the Tabor Opera House auditorium and stage may have been the reason.

Significant funds were spent on the direct patron experience, such as the façade of the building, the entrance and theatre seats. The stage mechanism as a whole, or the necessary accommodations for productions would have taken a back seat to the opera boxes, fancy opera chairs and auditorium lighting on the main level.  The balcony, scenic appointments, other areas vacated less by Tabor or affluent patrons may have been considered trivial. A lack of attention to detail in other areas beyond those that Tabor would have had direct contact may have taken a backseat, even the basic engineering of the building.

On November 15, 1879, the “Leadville Weekly Herald” described the new Tabor Opera House in detail, reporting “One of the greatest attractions on Harrison avenue is the newly erected Tabor Opera House next door to the Clarendon hotel. It is a three-story brick structure trimmed with Portland cement, and has a frontage on the avenue of sixty feet and extends back one hundred and twenty feet.” The article then described each area of the structure in detail, noting that 450 individuals could be comfortably accommodated on the first floor,

Less than a month later, a much larger venue opened in Leadville – the Grand Central Opera House. It was one particular article about this opera house that made me reevaluate my previous notions about the the Tabor.

The Grand Central Theatre opened on Dec. 12, 1879, located on the same spot as the previous  the Theatre Comique and boasting 1,500 seats. The large size and shady location were a problem from the beginning, but the stage accommodations were much more complete than the small stage and ten settings at the Tabor. The proscenium opening measured 26’ w x 27’h and there were fifty-five sets of scenes. Tabor’s second theatre, the Tabor Grand, would also boast fifty settings in 1881.

An 1880 article in “The Leadville Daily Herald” made an interesting comment about the Tabor Opera House in relation to the Grand Central Theatre. On Dec. 9, 1880, the article reported “As the Tabor Opera House has no company, all stars and combinations are obliged to contract with the Grand Central, and [Billy] Nuttall is using his utmost endeavors to secure the best talent which is available. Having a stage possessing accommodation far superior to any other, and with a company which embraces all the dramatic talent in the state, together with the liberality of expenditure for which he has always been noted, even from his earliest connection with the camp, there is no reason why this theatre should not become a recognized resort for the most respectable people.” This really places the Tabor Opera House in perspective, especially when considering the scenic appointments for each stage.

Furthermore, money was spent on the exterior façade and not the structural integrity of the Tabor Opera House. Keep in mind that the Tabor Opera House was built in 102 days, with groundbreaking occurring Aug. 1, 1879. Of the Tabor Opera House’s construction article placed in the “Leadville Weekly Herald” reported Messrs. Roberts took the contract for erecting the building for $30,000. Some three weeks ago Mr. J. T. Roberts sold out his interest in the business, and Mr. L. E. Roberts continued, and has finished the building to the satisfaction of the gentlemen interested (15 Nov. 1879). It appears that corners were cut and details overlooked in the process. Furthermore, without a theatre company or extensive scenery collection, possibilities for booking productions were limited. Recognizing the deficiencies, the Tabor Opera House underwent a massive renovation to fix several problems by August 1882. The building was less than two years old at the time and there were significant areas of concern. 

The improvements were described in detail under the heading “Improving the Tabor” (Leadville Daily Herald, August 23, 1882, page 4).  On August 22, 1882, work commenced on the auditorium ceiling. The article reported, “All plastering and ceiling of the hall will be removed, and then eighty-six jack-screws will be put in and the building roof raised three inches. New iron plates and screws will be put into the roof, and instead of plastering there will be put the best quality of ducking canvas on the ceiling, which will be thoroughly calcimined. New and substantial columns of support will be placed throughout the building. The interior arrangements of the hall will be left at present as they are, with the exception of the gallery, which will be materially improved. Its ventilation, which has heretofore not been what it ought to be will be made as perfect as possible, and the seats arranged in such a manner that they will no longer be a source of trouble and annoyance. The guttering of the whole building throughout will be  put in new, and much larger than heretofore, and the sewage of the lower floor will be materially improved.” Big changes for big problems.

This renovation extended to fixing other problems associated with the Tabor Opera House in the stage area. The “Leadville Daily Herald” reported, “Of the stage there will be a change for the better in regard to scenery, scene shifting and drop curtains. Those ridiculous hitches in scene shifting that have heretofore occurred on one or two occasions will no longer take place. An experienced stage man has been secured in the person of Mr. H. C. Sprague, who has had extensive experience in the east, and was in Leadville before, in the early days. All these improvements will take until about the first of September to execute. As soon as the house is in perfect order, say about the fourth of September, J. Rial’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin troupe will commence an engagement of three nights” (August 23, 1882).

Havens & Beman were contracted for the improvements, and the firm appointed J. T. Roberts as their superintendent. Remember that this is the half of the Roberts construction team that walked away mid-construction progress, leaving the project to L. E. Roberts.

By September 1, the “Leadville Daily Herald” described, “The ceiling has been elevated six inches in the center, thus giving it a slight arch. The plaster has all been removed there from and canvas will be substituted, both of which improvements will greatly improve the acoustic properties of the theatre. The roof has been raised three feet in the centre and materially strengthened with Howe trusses, while heavy timber braces and supports have been introduced in the stage which will make the house so secure that there can be no possibility of its ever taking a tumble unless it drops through the ground. The canvas ceiling is now being put in place and will be taken down and a few seats that remain on the stage will be put intact. Three new ventilators have been inserted in the ceiling and will aide very materially in keeping a large supply of air in the house at all times. While the work has been pushed in every particular and Mr. Roberts is to be thanked for the punctuality and correctness which he has displayed in the repairs. Had not Messrs. Havens & Beman known his ability and trustworthiness they would have never left such a responsible piece of work to his solo charge.”

The completed opera house improvements attracted a new class of production. The Abbott English Company performed “Chimes of Normandy”  and “King for a Day” that fall. The September 26, the “Amusements” section announced. “For the first time in the history of the carbonate camp, there was presented at the Tabor opera house last evening, a perfect representation of grand opera, not only in so far as the mis en scene was concerned, but also in regard to the caliber of the artists appearing on the stage (Leadville Daily Herald, page 1). But Tabor’s troubled did not end with the repairs and eventually extended to the Tabor Grand Opera House in Denver. This was before long before Tabor fell on hard times financially.

 On September 28, 1882, the “Fairplay Flume” reported, “Governor Tabor, while inspecting the improvements in the Tabor opera house, accidentally stepped through a trap on the stage, falling a distance of several feet. Happily, he was uninjured beyond a few slight bruises” (page 2). This is yet another indication of Tabor’s ignorance concerning the stage. It is understandable, as Tabor had no understanding of theatre beyond that of an audience member; he would not think to look down for open traps.

Structural issues carried over to his Denver venue. On February 24, 1883, newspapers reported “A rumor comes from Denver, Col., that the Tabor [Grand] Opera House is falling in. The bricks made in Denver are so porous that a nail can be readily driven into them. Hence, they are not suitable for buildings of the Tabor Opera House magnitude” (Lima Democrat, Lima, Ohio, 24 Feb 1883, page 5). To be continued…

Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

In the 1880s, one well-received scene could guarantee a whole host of other projects for a scenic artist in the city. This is exactly what happened to Henry C. Tryon in Salt Lake City, Utah, after he completed the stock scenery for both the Tabor Grand Opera House and the Tivoli Theatre in Denver. By mid-summer in 1882, Tryon ventured west to paint a ship scene for the Salt Lake Theatre. Although it was solely produced for the touring production of “Old Shipmates,” it was a hit with local theatre patrons and immediately secured additional painting projects for Tryon in Salt lake City.

“Salt Lake Herald” advertisements for “Old Shipmates” announced, “The piece will be produced with entirely new scenery, including the great  SHIP SCENE! Which is now being painted by Mr. Henry C. Tryon, of the Tabor Opera House, Denver” (23 Sept 1882, page 4). “Old Shipmates” was performed at the Salt Lake Theatre on September 26 and 27, 1882 (“Salt Lake Herald,” 23 Sept 1882, page 4).

“Old Shipmates” was the comedy-drama by Robert Griffin Morris. In 1882, the touring production starred Frank Mordaunt and toured the country, playing to audiences in New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, St. Louis, New Orleans and many other large metropolitan cities. As standard with most touring productions of the time, the show relied heavily on stock scenery provided at each venue.  A ship set was not considered standard stock scenery, so this left both stage managers and scenic artists scrambling to improvise before the performance date. In the 1880s, the deck of a ship was not a standard stock setting. Even elaborate stock scenery collections only horizon settings, generic ocean views with water and sky. Site-specific sea settings, such as the deck of a ship, would have to be quickly painted before the touring production arrived at the venue.

After performing in front of Tryon’s ship setting, the touring “star” of “Old Shipmates” congratulated the scenic accommodations at the Salt Lake Theatre. Mordaunt stated that nowhere had the piece been better produced with better stage or scenic effect than at the Salt Lake Theatre, even in New York (“Salt Lake Herald” 28 Sept. 1882,  page 8). This was quite a compliment and added to Tryon’s credibility as a topline scenic artist in Salt Lake City.

When “Old Shipmates” opened, the “Deseret News” reported, “There was a crowded house at the Theatre last night to witness the performance of the genuine old-fashioned nautical drama of ‘Old Shipmates.’ It had been liberally advertised and the public naturally  looked forward to an evening of genuine enjoyment and they were not disappointed. It was clearly evident that the performance gave very general satisfaction. The scenery was admirable and appropriate and too much cannot be said in praise of the large, new, spectacular Ship Scene painted by Mr. H. C. Tryon, of Chicago. Everything moved like clockwork. The ship extended the full width and length of the large stage and presented a realistic picture of a ‘Life on the Ocean Wave” (27 September 1882, page 2).

Another review of the production reported, “As on the first presentation, the ship scene in the last act forced admiration and applause form all, and it shows Mr. Tryon to be a first class scenic artist, and the public will be pleased to learn that this gentleman has been engaged to do a considerable amount of work of the kind” (Salt Lake Herald, 28 Sept 1882, page 8). The “Ogden Standard” reported, “the scenery provided by the Salt Lake management was excellent. Especially was this the case with the ship scene painted for this play, by Mr. Tryon, of Chicago. I understand that this gentleman is going to paint the new scenery for the theatre before returning East” (30 Sept. 1882, page 3). The popularity of Tryon’s ship scene guaranteed him additional employment. 

By Nov. 8, 1882, the “Deseret News” included an article that featured Tryon and his work for the Salt Lake Theatre (page 3). The headline read, “Artistic Scenery, Effective Work by Mr. Henry C. Tryon,” and the article continued:

“Mr. Henry C. Tryon, the artistic scene painter, now engaged at the Salt Lake Theatre, is doing some splendid work. The ship scene introduced in “Old Shipmates” caused him at once to leap into favor with the Salt Lake public, and every piece of work executed subsequently has increased the estimate of his ability, being the most capable in his line that ever painted in Utah. Mr. Tryon is quite and original in his style and pays great attention to details. He first conceives the general plan of his picture, and fresh ideas brighten his mind in flashes while at work, enabling him to throw fine effects, with which the canvas on which he operates is always illuminated. One of the secrets of his success lies in the fact that he is passionately in love with his labor.”

The article went onto described some of the scenes painted by Tryon, “One of Mr. Tryon’s latest is an old garret, which conveys such a vivid picture of dry, dirty, dingy old beams that it looks as if one could brush away accumulated cobwebs. A powerful effect is introduced by bringing a dash of warm sunlight through an open skylight. But the best piece from the brush of this genius is a wood scene, the body of which is finished. It exhibits the depth of perspective combined with intensity of light and shadow that render wooded scenery so attractive, and when the foliage borders are done, to take the place of the proscenium wings and drapery in woodland scenes the spacious stage will wear the appearance of a forest glade. One of the chief points of excellence displayed in Tryon’s work is the effect of largeness which he throws into it, having the seeming appearance of expanding the stage, making it look larger than it really is. A moonlight woodland is among the future scenes to be painted by Mr. Tryon, and, judging from the work he has already done, and the scope presented in such a subject, it may be confidently expected to fairly gleam with strong and brilliant effects.”

To be continued…

Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

From 1882 to 1884, Henry C. Tryon  (1847-1892) worked and wrote in the Salt Lake City area. As a scenic artist and author, Tryon’s name constantly appeared in the papers. In addition to painting new scenery during the Salt Lake Theatre stage renovation, Tryon also exhibited much of his easel art. He was in the perfect town to market himself. The “Salt Lake Daily Herald” published articles on a variety of artistic activities, including art exhibitions, theatrical productions and other creative ponderings in detail. In some ways this newspaper carried more information about theatrical productions and stage artists than many larger metropolitan publications across the country.

In 1883, an article on art exhibitions noted, “Henry C. Tryon stated when he came here, that he had never seen a range of mountains that afforded better opportunities” (9 Aug 1883, page 8). On May 18, 1883, “The Salt Lake Herald,” reported “Mr. Henry C. Tryon is at work on an oil painting which he has already presented to Mr. H. B. Clawson. It is a landscape in oil and is a gem much to be desired” (page 8). That spring, newspapers also reported, “Speaking of matters of art reminds us that Mr. Henry C. Tryon is still hard at work on scenery for the Salt Lake Theatre…There will not be a foot of old canvas in the building when Tryon leaves for pastures new…We congratulate Mr. Tryon, and are pleased to see the interest he takes in all that he does; and if the work referred to above is not art in its truest sense, then we would be happy to know just what art is” (Salt Lake Daily Herald, 22 April 883, page 12). Tryon was completely a large stock scenery collection, painting fine art pieces for local citizens and taking time to write on a variety of artistic subjects during the first half of 1883.  

He submitted several articles to the “Salt Lake Daily Herald” throughout 1883. In his article, “Artistic Flashes,” he ended with the statement, “Don’t falsify nature by attempting, with your petty vanity, to improve upon her work. You will fail, because nature as an artist is pre-eminently superior to you” (9 Feb 1883, page 3).

On Sunday, August 12, 1883, he elaborated on this sentiment in Tryon’s “Art vs Skill.” Here is the article in its entirety:

ART vs. SKILL

By HENRY C. TRYON

There is a story familiar to most people of two rival artists, whose relative merits were disputed by their several admirers. To settle the dispute, they engaged in a friendly contest. On painted some fruit and put it in the window. It was so skillfully executed that the birds tried to get at this fruit. The other then had his picture ready and draped. His rival, attempting to raise the curtain that covered the supposed picture, learned that it was a clever deception being a skillfully painted representation of a cloth. The first artist exclaimed enthusiastically, “You are the greater artist: for, while I deceived only the birds, you have deceived an artist.”

This story, like most of those written about artists, is the verist nonsense. Two artists are not likely to enter into a “go-as-you-please” contest, nor to put on gloves to try which is the better man for a prize medal and the applause of the public. That always has been left to public performers and to mountebanks. By assuming the story to be true, it is no proof that either of them was an artist in a real sense. It proves nothing whatever. The popular idea of art is that skill, imitation, projection and perspective are the ends of all efforts in art; and that a work of art practically is to be judges by the skill shown in these directions, with a kind of vague idea that sentiment of color, tone, harmony, force, tenderness and feeling are but a means intended for the connoisseur to “ring them in,” – as one would pretty talk, which may be thrown in indiscriminately.

An artist, for instance, paints a street scene. It matters not how inartistic and mechanical the scene may be, nor how harsh and crude may be the color, if the perspective and light and shadow be correct, the average observer will look upon the scene as a marvelous work, for ‘It appears to reach back for a mile,’ and his surprise and wonder at this success overcomes any other feeling. This misunderstanding of the aim and object of true art prevents him from being even critical or even interested in anything beyond. Yet all this is a mechanical success, pure and simple. That linear perspective has no art quality of itself, and is not even difficult of attainment, all artists know who know anything about it. It is the same with projection. Draw an object and cast  shadow from it, and it will apparently project from the paper. Anybody can do it. So, with imitation.

Every portrait painter knows the necessity of not painting laces or jewels or other flippant accessories with too much realism, else the general observer (who imagines imitation to be the greatest achievement) will never see the face at all. A certain eminent artist in painting a subject introduced in the picture a mat. After the attention of a few people had been fastened on that mat and they had analyzed its material, texture, and probably cost per yard, in disgust he painted it over, so that nobody afterward would think of it except that it was a mat, and pass on to the real picture – the material which made up the sentiment and the story he desired to express.  Suppose a person in describing in writing the wonderful grandeur and beauty of the Wasatch range, should pause lovingly in the description of some pig pen, making this description so vivid and realistic that the total impression remained with the reader that it was a picture of a pig pen with an accessory of Wasatch mountains. What would the reader think? (assuming the purpose of this piece of literature was to convey a sentiment of the grandeur of the mountains) It is exactly so with art; mere imitation requires nothing but a little knowledge, more practice, and more or less patience; but these qualities alone do not make an artist; they simply enable an artist to express art feeling. The mere mechanical ability to touch the right keys on a piano in the translation of a musical composition, does not make a musician. It merely enables one to express musical thought and feeling, if he has it; and if he has it not, he is recognized by musicians as a musical artist, but is considered a musical mechanic. We all understand what is meant by “machine poetry.” The rhyme and the metre maybe faultless, but if it contains no grand beautiful or ennobling thought, it is recognized by all as mere verse; and there is all the difference in the world between verse and poetry. Literature and the arts are precisely similar in their objects. The poet paints with language, the musician with harmonies, the sculptor and draughtsman forms. The arts are so intimately blended that the mechanical phrases even are the same throughout. Who does not feel what is meant by color as applied to musical composition, and tenderness, strength, feeling and harmony as applied to painting? Follow the terms used in all the aria and they can be applied indiscriminately to each. Art is poetry, or it is nothing. If a picture, painted never so skillfully has nothing in it except the skill and knowledge of the artist, and does not contain poetic feeling, or is in any purpose or poetic cause why should it be painted, it ranks as a work of art, no higher than a piece of literature produced for the sole object of showing the author’s knowledge of words and of the grammatical arrangement of them.

A picture should be painted to express some of the sentiment (and assuming that that has been successfully accomplished) the nobility, purity and beauty of that sentiment will determine the position of the picture as a work of art. What is generally considered to be the end of art is properly the means to an end; the real end depends upon the genius of the artist. It is always conceded that an artist thoroughly understands the mechanical means to art (before mentioned), just as it is presupposed that an author understands grammatical rules and the skillful construction of sentences. When each is thus equipped, then he has within his grasp all that is required to give expression to high thoughts and sublime images; but unless the genius – the spirit of poetry – is inherent, he can only give to the world that which time, patience and perseverance will do for any intelligent person.”

To be continued…

Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

On January 30, 1883, “The Salt Lake Herald” reported, “Mr. Spencer Tryon is a brother and pupil of Henry C. Tyron, the artist of the Salt Lake Theatre. He is very talented, and although scarcely more than a boy in years, he has produced some very fine work here and at the Tabor Grand Opera” (page 8). At the time, Spencer was twenty years old.

Like his older brother, Spencer changed his last name from Hoornbeck to Tryon when he began working as a scenic artist. To learn more about Henry B. Hoornbeck’s name change to Henry C. Tryon, visit: https://drypigment.net2020/10/16/tales-from-a-scenic-artist-and-scholar-part-1092-henry-b-hoornbeck-and-henry-c-tryon-1847-1892/ Their brother William Hoornbeck also adopted the last name of Tryon while living with Henry C. in 1878.

In 1870, Spencer was living with his mother, Ann M. Hoornbeck, and two brothers (Henry and Dell) at 384 Lake Street. This was the last year that Henry Hoornbeck (later Henry C. Tryon) was listed in directories under his birth name. Mrs. Hoornbeck and her children had moved to Chicago after the death of her husband in 1864.  Like Henry, Spencer was educated in Chicago public schools.

The earliest mention of Spencer working as a scenic artist is in 1882. At the time, he was listed as his older brother’s assistant and painting scenery for a hall in Springville, Utah.  On Dec. 13, 1882, the “Deseret News” reported, “Not only is the intention to have this model theatrical hall up to the times in point of architectural construction, by the scenery is to be of the very best description. With this object in view Mr. D. C. Johnson, who takes a leading part in the management has secured the services of Mr. H. C. Tryon and Mr. Alfred Lambourne. The latter accompanied by Mr. Spencer Tryon – Mr. H. C. Tryon’s assistant – left for Springville to-day, to begin the work, and Mr. Tryon will follow in a few days. The institution will have thirteen scenes complete, with sidewings, etc., and an appropriate drop curtain. The fact that Messrs. Tryon and Lambourne will do the painting is a guaranty [sic.] that the scenes will be of the most excellent description” (page 15). The venue was described as “a genuine opera house in a theatrical hall. The  extent of the stage from the footlights to the back is twenty-five feet, besides dressing and other rooms in the rear. The height of the stage from the floor to the rigging apparatus is twenty-two feet.”

The three artists were also credited with painting railroad scene a month later. Of the setting, the “Salt Lake Herald”  reported, “A. Railroad Scene in ‘Forbidden Fruit.’ A feature in the performance, on Monday night, which was not scene in the original production, will be the grand office scene, just painted by Mr. H. C. Tryon, Mr. W. C. Morris and Mr. Spencer Tryon, and now shown for the first time, represent the waiting room for the Pennsylvania Central Railroad. A number of gentlemen who saw the artists at work on the scene consider it one of the finest efforts the painters have yet made. It will be seen in act II, of “Forbidden Fruit” (Salt Lake Herald, 26 Jan. 1883, page 8). A later article stated, “The railroad scene painted by Mr. W. C. Morris, of Salt Lake City, and Mr. Spencer Tryon – and displayed last night for the first time in “Forbidden Fruit” – called forth a well-deserved round of applause. It was excellently painted, being full of character, and although (from the nature of the subject) without any pretense of color, was beauty owing to its truth and solidity.” The “Deseret News: reported, “The office of the P.C.R.R.. a new interior scene, painted by the Tryon Brothers and W. C. Morris, Esq., will be exhibited for the first time” (26 Jan 1883, page 3).

On January 27, 1883, the “Deseret News” reported that the new office scene for “Forbidden Fruit” was by Mr. W. C. Morris and Mr. Spencer Tryon” (page 3).

By the spring of 1883, the Tryon brothers were back working at the Salt Lake Theatre. Interestingly, Spencer was erroneously listed as his older brother’s manager on the project. On May 31, 1883, “The Salt Lake Herald” reported, “Henry C. Tryon and his manager, Spencer Tryon, are still industriously engaged. At present, Mr. Tryon is working on one or two special scenes for Lawrence Barratt [sic.], when he appears at the Theatre in ‘Francisca.’ The borders and wood scenes are all finished, and there is any amount of new scenes which have never yet been in use, and which, if occasion came, would show how well stocked the Theatre is even now, when the work is far from finished” (page 10). Spencer would soon be left alone in Salt lake City, without his older brother’s countenance.

On September 17, 1883 the “Deseret News” published a farewell letter to Henry C. Tryon: “Good Bye – Mr. Henry Tryon, the skillful scenic artist, leaves for the East to-morrow. Beside his remarkable talent he is the fortunate possessor of a genial disposition and a mind remarkably free from that species of petty jealously by which otherwise capable men too often dim the lustre of their capacities. He has made numerous friends here whose best wishes he carries with him. Good bye” (page 3).

I have to wonder what was worse for Spencer; living in his famous brother’s shadow or painting at the same venue renowned for your brother’s artwork. Regardless, Spencer remained in Salt Lake City area for at least another year after his brother’s departure in 1883. For a while, he worked at the Salt Lake Theatre, but soon began working at the venue’s competitor – the Walker Opera House.

In 1884 Spencer was working, and sleeping, at the Walker Opera House. The Walker Opera House was located on the south side of 200 South Street between Main and West Temple streets. Unfortunately, the venue caught fire one night as Spencer slept inside. On October 16, 1884, “The Salt Lake Herald” headlined “A Narrow Escape. The Opera House Barely Saved from Destruction” (page 8).

The article continued:

“On Wednesday morning at about 4 o’clock, Nightwatchman Henry Heath in passing the Walker Opera House noticed that the glass windows of Evans & Spencer’s gun store wore a peculiar color. On looking closer he perceived the appearance was caused by the store being full of smoke, Hastily running down stairs to the saloon owned by Mr. A. G. Bechtol, he saw that its interior was also black with smoke, With all possible dispatch he hurried to the rear of the building and awoke Dave McElroy and Spencer Tryon, who were sleeping in the Opera House, rigging the hose from under the stage and in the parquette circle, and going to the rear door of the saloon himself, and upon bursting open the door he was almost stifled by the smoke, but throwing himself upon his face, with a hose in each hand, he turned a stream of water upon the ice chest and billiard table, from whence the flames were issuing. With the assistance of Messrs. McElroy and Tryon the fire was gotten under control before the fire brigade was summoned. The firemen made good time to the scene, but were not needed.” Interestingly, the 1884 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map provides a basic floor plan for the building. The two-store front were occupied by an ammunition shop and a confectionary. Records indicate that the scenery on stage was non-combustible; this means treatment with a product considered to be a flame retardant. Layout (https://utahtheaters.info/Theater/Facts/250/Walker-Opera-House).

After Spencer’s near miss at the Walker Opera House, he seems to fade away from published history. Spencer remained out of the spotlight for the remainder of his life, unlike his older brother who continued to receive recognition at theatres across the country. I have yet to uncovered any mention of either Spencer Tryon or Spencer Hornbeck between 1885 and 1890. By 1891, however, he was back in Chicago and listed in the city directory, having resumed his birth name of “Spencer Hoornbeck.”  Interestingly, 1891 is the same year that the Walker Opera House burned down.

The 1891, the Chicago City Directory listed, “Hoornbeck, Spencer, painter, h. 621 N. Stephenson (P).” Within the next year, both his mother and his brother Henry would pass. At the time of Ann M. Hoornbeck’s passing, she was 68 years old and living with a son in Pullman, Illinois. Her internment was at Sandusky, Ohio, next to her husband. Sandusky was also the birthplace of their children.

By 1900, Spencer was again working under the name Tryon. The 1900 US Federal Census listed Spencer Tryon as boarding at 128 Throop Street in Chicago, working as a paper hanger and painter. Ten years later, he was still working in the same capacity and living alone, lodging a boarding house on Wabash in Chicago. Spencer passed away in 1912 at the age of 49 yrs. old. His older brother Henry had been only 45 yrs. old when he died the decade before.  At the time of Spencer’s death, he was listed as a painter, boarding at 19 E. 18^th Street in Chicago. The next day, Spencer was buried at Mt. Greenwood cemetery.

Just like his mother Ann and older brother Henry, Spencer exited this world without fanfare or any published remembrances. I have to wonder if he had any loved ones to mourn his passing.  

To be continued…

Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

In America, many nineteenth-century opera houses repeatedly purchased stage scenery, updating and expanding their existing stock. Scenic artists and their stage work drew crowds, just like popular stage personalities. The names of scenic artists were prominently displayed in many advertisements. Articles described their work and the scenic art process in detail, placing their contribution to a production on par with the leading performers.

Last February, I led a group of volunteers to document all of the scenery on stage at the Tabor Opera House in Leadville, Colorado.  It was the first phase of the project, with the second phase occurring in September. The second phase focused on a much older scenery collection stored in the attic, placed there after the stage was renovated by the Elks in 1902. There were several pieces painted by Tignal Frank Cox in both locations. The first piece that we discovered was a tree profile, constructed of roughhewn lumber and coarse cotton fabric. On the backside of the tree was a charcoal sketch; a cartoon depicting a scenic artist in coveralls. Above the scenic artist was the caption: “Frank Cox, Scenic Artist Jan. 30 ‘88.” Cox also painted his initials on the front of the tree. They appear to be carved into the trunk, alongside other initials.

Keep in mind that it is extremely rare to find a piece of stock scene signed and dated by the artist. Some pieces carried a studio mark, but seldom an individual artist’s name. Occasionally, individual artists and studios marked the corner of the central composition on a drop curtain (painted front curtain). Until my trip to Leadville, I had not encountered a signed and dated piece of nineteenth-century stock scenery.

Beginning in 1881, the Tabor Opera House was managed by J. H. Cragg. Cragg secured the painting services of Cox near the end of 1887. Cox completed his work for Cragg at the end of January 1888, and then headed to DeRemer’s Opera House in Pueblo. Cox painted a forest scene for both DeRemer’s Opera House and the Tabor Opera House. 

To date, I have identified three extant settings painted by Cox for the Tabor Opera House. This “Cox Scenery Collection” includes a forest scene, a street scene and a Rocky Pass. The forest setting consists of two full shutters, two cut shutters and a tree profile. Both the street scene and the Rocky Pass scene are composed of only two shutters.

Cox’s painting project for the Tabor was part of a much larger vision that involved the 1888 establishment of the Silver Circuit. In 1881, J. H. Cragg became manager of the Tabor Opera House in Leadville; the same year that H. A. W. Tabor built the Tabor Grand Opera House in Denver.  By 1884, Peter McCourt (Baby Doe’s brother) became the manager at the Tabor Grand, and was responsible for booking both the Tabor Grand and Tabor Opera House productions. McCourt soon expanded his bookings to other venues, establishing a Colorado Circuit, also known as the Tabor Circuit.  Stops in the circuit included opera houses throughout Colorado, Utah and southern Wyoming.  By March 1888, McCourt announced the official formation of a “Silver Circuit,” targeting the wealth associated with mining areas. Keep in mind that McCourt announced the establishment of a Silver Circuit only two months after Cragg hired Cox to paint the new scenes. The “official inauguration” of the Silver circuit, however, did not occur until July 1889. In the end, it included thirteen stops: Denver, Leadville, Aspen, Salida, Colorado Springs, Pueblo and Trinidad in Colorado; Salt Lake City, Provo, Ogden and Park City in Utah; and Evanston and Rawlins in Wyoming.

On January 14, 1888, the “Leadville Evening Chronicle” reported, “Frank Cox, a New York artist, is engaged painting several new scenes at the opera house. Manager Cragg has engaged him for a short time, and his productions are something unusual in the scene painting line. Mr. Cox painted the scenes that were so much admired in acts III and IV of Ingomar” (page 4). Act III of “Ingomar” was set in a mountain camp, likely using Cox’s recently painted rocky pass shutters. Act IV was set on the edge of a forest that possibly used Cox’s new forest setting. Lillian Olcott was featured in the touring production of  “Ingomar” during 1887 and the beginning of 1888. She and her company performed both “Ingomar” and “Theodora” in Leadville at the beginning of January. The Tabor Opera House was one of her last stops on tour before she passed away in March. Newspapers across the country reported that Olcott grew ill after surviving a blizzard and died in a hotel.

Then, as now, travel throughout the mountains in winter was unpredictable and often treacherous, but this did not prevent people from completing a theatrical tour or traveling to nearby venues. Cox completed his work at the Table Opera House by the end of January. On February 1, 1888, the “Leadville Evening Chronicle” announced, “A handsome new ‘set’ house and a new wood ‘flat’ has been added to the scenic properties of the Tabor, this city. Both were painted by Mr. Frank Cox, of New York, and are excellent examples of the scenic art” (page 4).

On a secondary note, the mention that Cox’s new scenery was used in “Ingomar” is also of interest, as Olcott’s shows purportedly toured with their own “special scenery.” Advertisements for both “Ingomar” and “Theodora” promised, “all the wealth of scenery and appointments that characterized their production in London and Paris” (The Courier, Lincoln, NE, 20 Dec 1887, page 6).  However, after “Theodora” played at the Tabor Opera House in January, one Leadville critic commented, “The company’s ‘special scenery’ was mainly conspicuous by its absence, but some very good stage settings were arranged, none the less.”

After completing his work in Leadville, Cox secured work in Pueblo, Colorado. In Pueblo, he not only worked as a scenic artist for DeRemer’s Opera House, but also performed as a “Lightning Artist.” Prior to his performance and work for DeRemer’s Cox flooded local newspapers with announcements, advertisements and articles about his art.

On Feb. 12, 1888, the “Colorado Daily Chieftain” included an article entitled “The Tramp Painter.” It read:

“The following has been handed us for publication, which explains itself.

PUEBLO, COLO, February 8, 1888.

Mr. Frank Cox,

Desiring to witness an exhibition of your rapid landscape painting and character sketching in charcoal, accompanied by your famous talk, “The Tramp Painter,” or “The Sketch Artist En Tour,” we respectfully request you to favor Pueblo with an early date most convenient yourself.

Jos. Hitchins, T.G. McCarthy, O. E. Pettis, L. B. Strait, Rev. W. C. Madison, Geo. M. Haight, W. W. Strait, A. B. Patton, and many others.

___

Messrs. Haight, Hitchins and others,

GENTLEMEN – In reply to the above request, I will state that I will be pleased to respond, and will appoint Friday evening, February 17, as the date, and DeRemer opera house as the place of entertainment, at which time I will paint four landscapes in oil 4×6 feet, each in ten minutes besides numerous charcoal sketches of the same size in much less time.

Yours Truly,

Frank Cox.

In addition to this announcement, Cox daily advertised in the “Colorado Daily Chieftain.” From Feb. 14 to Feb. 17 the newspaper included mentions of his act. For example, on Feb. 15, 1888, the “Colorado Daily Chieftain” reported, “Mr. Frank Cox, the lighting landscape painter who will appear at DeRemer’s opera house on the evening of the 17th instant, will amuse and instruct all who attend, and we trust that he will be greeted by a large audience.”

The announcement was accompanied by a nearby advertisement:

Cox also posted short reminders in the “Colorado Daily Chieftain” – “Don’t miss seeing Frank Cox, the artist at DeRemer’s” (“Colorado Daily Chieftain”, Feb 17, 1888, page 4).

The day before his performance, Cox submitted another article entitled “A Fire at Sea.” It described, “The event of the season will be the appearance of Mr. Frank Cox, the lightning artist at DeRemer’s Friday evening, February 17. On this occasion Mr. Cox will paint his wonderful ‘Fire at Sea,’ in which he first paints a moonlight ocean, then a ship, then sets it on fire (with color), then brings another ship to the rescue, which also burns and the picture is left a calm, open sea, with no vessel in sight, and even the smoke is cleared away. You will probably never have an opportunity of witnessing such a grand spectacle and should not fail to attend. Tickets 25 and 50 cents.”

On the day of the performance, Cox was featured in the “Amusements” section. Under the heading “The Tramp Painter,” the article noted:

“To-night is the date of the most extraordinary and wonderful entertainment ever seen in Pueblo, on which occasion Mr. Frank Cox, the lighting artist, delivers his famous talk “The Tramp Painter” at DeRemer, illustrating it as he proceeds with numerus black and white sketches and four large oil paintings, all executed on the stage before your eyes. Fifty sketches will be made during the evening, and a more enjoyable affair has probably never been offered to the people of Pueblo. All lovers of the beautiful in art should attend and witness this performance. The price of admission is 15 and 50 cents, within the reach of all, and we hope to see the DeRemer crowded.”

In addition to performing, Cox also painted scenery for DeRemer’s Opera House. On February 19, the “Colorado Daily Chieftain” announced, “Frank Cox, the artist is at work on a new scene at the DeRemer opera house. It is what is known as a ‘cut wood’ scene, the first one yet made there. It shows large trees, with foliage overhead, while the canvas is cut away from around the trunks of the trees, making a very forest like appearance (page 4). This is exactly what Cox also painted for the Tabor Opera House in Leadville.

After Pueblo, Cox traveled to Trinidad, Colorado. On March 4, 1888, the “Colorado Daily Chieftain” announced, “Frank Cox, the artist, is lecturing at Trinidad” (page 4).

To be continued…

Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

From Sept. 21-27, 2020, I led a group of volunteers to document the nineteenth-century scenery collection stored in the attic at the Tabor Opera House in Leadville, Colorado. The wings, shutters, borders and other set pieces primarily dated from 1879 to 1890; each painted before the stage was renovated in 1902. One of the more interesting scenic pieces uncovered was a train. All that remained of the profile piece was the front end, with only a headlamp, chimney, cowcatcher (pilot) and boiler front remaining. The rest of the train was missing; the fabric likely removed and repainted for another setting over a century ago.

There were many nineteenth-century melodramas with exciting railroad scenes, complete with painted tracks and steaming locomotives. A variety of productions included that terrifying moment when a train raced full speed toward the hero or heroine. Whether the performer was tied to the tracks, or lying unconscious on the rails, the victim was always snatched away just prior to the train’s passing. 

On Dec. 30, 1886, Leadville’s “Herald Democrat” noted the train scene in the recent production of “Under the Gaslight” at the opera house. The review reports, “The opera house was crowded last evening to witness this great scenic melodrama, which so entertainingly depicts may phases of high and low life in the great city of New York…The exciting railroad scene was given in grand style and evoked the heartiest approbation.” The touring show featured Lew Morrison and his Dramatic Company. However, “Under the Gaslight” was just one of the troupe’s offerings. The company also performed in “Not Guilty,” “Celebrated Case,” and “Faust.”

It is almost impossible to determine the exact production that first used the painted train before it was relegated as part of the stock. There are clues, however, that help estimate manufacture date. First and foremost, the construction of the piece was with odds and ends, not finely planed theatrical lumber. The profile piece also incorporated remnants of a wood shipping container for the cut edge. A portion of a company name, stenciled for shipping purposes, remains – Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co. This helps determine an approximate date when added to the roughhewn board. Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co. means that the piece was created after 1884, and not before.

The Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co. has quite an interesting history, once running a regional office in Denver, Colorado. Founded by John Moses Brunswick, the J. M. Brunswick Manufacturing Co opened on September 15, 1845, in Cincinnati, Ohio. Although initially specializing in the manufacture of carriages, the firm soon turned their focus to billiard tables. Brunswick billiard tables were an immediate success, and soon the company expanded nationwide, opening regional branches across the country that included Chicago, St. Louis and New Orleans.  By 1866, the firm was renamed J. M. Brunswick & Brother, as Brunswick added family members to run their regional offices. Keep in mind that in the 1860s, there were three main billiard manufacturers in the United States: J. M. Brunswick & Bro; Julius Balke’s Great Western Billiard Manufactory, and Phelan & Collender.  In regard to Phelan & Collander, the name changed to the H. W. Collender Company after Hugh Collender’s father-in-law (Michael Phelan) passed away.

By 1874,  J. M. Brunswick & Brother merged with Julius Balke’s Great Western Billiard Manufactory, becoming J. M. Brunswick & Balke Co. The firm incorporated in 1879, and then merged with another competitor – H. W. Collender Company. In merging with Collender, Brunswick acquired Collender’s patented billiard cushions, but the company was not renamed for another five years.  In 1884, the formation of Brunswick-Balke-Collender Company indicated a monopoly of American billiard manufacturers.

As the years passed, the company manufactured many other products that included bar counters, saloon fixtures, bowling alley supplies, poker checks, cigar counters, beer coolers, refrigerators, chairs, tables, lamps, and other products. It remains unclear what was in the wooden shipping box that was used for the train profile at the Tabor Opera House. By the twentieth century the Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co. product line was further diversified, adding toilet seats, car tires, phonographs, WWII target drone aircraft, school furniture, golfing equipment and pinsetters. Such variety! The company again changed its name in 1960, becoming the Brunswick Corporation on August 10. For more information about the history of this fascinating company, visit: http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/brunswick-corporation-history/

For more information about the Tabor Opera House’s historic scenery collection, visit www.drypigment.net and keyword search “Tabor Opera House.”

To be continued…

Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

Manager W. S. Morse discussed Henry C. Tryon’s work for the Tabor Grand Opera House and Salt Lake Theatre with a “Salt Lake Herald” reporter in 1883. He was asked about his thoughts on the new Salt Lake Theatre and stock scenery. Morse noted similarities of the two houses and celebrated Tryon’s artistry. Here is the article in its entirety:

“A FINE STRUCTURE

What Denver Manager Thinks of the Salt Lake Theatre.

A Compliment for the Theatre and a Puff for Tryon.

W. S. Morse, Esq., manager of the Tabor Grand Opera House, of Denver, has been in Salt Lake for a couple of days on a visit, the object of which was rest and entertainment. Being a theatrical man himself, he naturally takes an interest in the Temple of Thespis wherever found and of whatever character. Consequently, he visited, among other places, the Salt Lake Theatre, which is now undergoing repairs. A HERALD commissioner ran across him there, and naturally put some questions to the gentleman, which may prove of interest to the public. Here is the result of a series of profound inquiries and equally erudite responses.

Reporter – Mr. Morse, what do you think of the Salt Lake Theatre anyhow?

Mr. Morse – When completed according to the plans of management it will be one of the finest theatres in the country.

Rep.- In what respect?

Mr. M. – The auditorium is elegantly proportioned, the acoustic properties are wonderful, while the lines of light are so well arranged that in no portion of the house does the audience fail to get a good view of the stage. All that the audience requires is to be richly and tastefully decorated and then, with the elegant proscenium opening, this part of the theatre will be superb. Judging from appearances, there has been a marvelous change in the entire arrangement of the stage mechanism. The depth of the stage is greater than that of the Tabor Opera House, while the width is about the same. We have about ten feet more height to our rigging loft, but there is ample height here for all theatrical purposes. The whole arrangement seems to have been modelled after that of the Tabor Grand Opera House; and that structure, having been built in accordance with the latest knowledge and experience that could be secured, it necessarily follows that practically everything which could be done to make a perfect place, is found in the Tabor Opera House. The similarity between the two houses (though it may seem immodest for me to make the comparison) is decidedly to the credit of this theatre. There are very few theatres as thoroughly stocked with characteristic and elegant scenery as I see yours is. The artist, Mr. H. C. Tryon, was with us in Denver for about eight months and during that time painted a large portion of our stock scenery. The first scene he did for us was a “Mining Camp in Colorado,” which was greeted with spontaneous and hearty applause. The good opinion of our patrons, so early won, was continued during his entire engagement, so much so that we parted with him with reluctance.

The artwork which I noticed he has already done here, is calculated to give the Theatre a really metropolitan aspect. The changes which have already been made and are now making – as I understand it – at his suggestion, will greatly enhance this impression; and when these alterations are completed, I will venture the assertion that nowhere in the country will there be a better sticked theatre for scenery, nor one which will enjoy a greater number of the modern theatrical appliances and conveniences. I would have you understand that we think a great deal of Tryon in our selection, where he enjoys as a great reputation for oil painting as he does for scene painting. He enjoys a reputation all over the country and has been employed by the best managers and in the best theatres in the country. In every place, even where the art taste is old, cultivated and generally developed, the same appreciation of his work is manifested as it is here and in Denver, Tryon’s success is due to the fact that he has made of scene painting art in the highest sense; besides there is freshness of idea, richness of color, and originality of design. All these things have combined to give Tryon the reputation he enjoys. My admiration for Tryon may lead me to say some very flattering things of him, but I am sure all that I can say in his favor will be borne out by artist generally and by those who have had the acquaintance of years with him. It was really a fortunate – not to say wise – movement on the part of the management of the Theatre to secure the services of so talented an artist. I am equally confident that the nerve displayed by the management of the Salt Lake Theatre in undertaking such a heavy expenditure in restocking the Theatre, in remodeling the stage, and in making the auditorium more attractive, will not only be rewarded by liberal patronage consequent upon the satisfactory presentation of all pieces so far as stage mounting and settings are concerned, but it will be a source of pride and satisfaction alike to them and the public, to known that they have as handsome, as attractive and as well-appointed a theatre as the largest American cities can boast.

Mr. Morse seemed relieved after he had delivered the concluding peroration, and the reporter decided that to worry that gentleman further would be cruelty and beat a hasty retreat” (Salt Lake Herald, 31 May 1883, page 10).

The “Deseret News” published gave a little background about the venue and its renovation in an earlier article entitled “Stage Transformation” (21 Feb. 1883, page 2). The article reported:

“The Salt Lake Theatre, built twenty years ago, when much that entered into its construction had to be transported across the plains with ox teams, will be, in 1883, up to the very latest date. To sum up, we are soon to have one of the few really grand and perfect theatres in the United States.” The article explained, “The tearing away of old timbers and the introduction of various improvements has made a new rigging loft fifteen feet higher than the old one. In fact, there is a compete stage transformation in progress in the ‘old Drury.’ The result will be that the scenery hereafter will, with the increased height of ‘drops’ and the immense ‘borders’ which traverse over the scenes, give all the grandeur of the very finest theatres.” The “ Deseret News” commented, “Now there is no rolling of drops, as they are simply raised or lowered directly by an ingenious and straight-forward arrangement” (26 May 1883, page 2).

Each piece of Tryon’s stock scenery was gradually unveiled to the public, selected to accompany a specific production at the Salt Lake Theatre. By the end of May 1883, the “Deseret News” reported “The forest scene, painted by Henry C. Tryon, introduced last night and this afternoon in ‘The Serf,’ is a masterpiece. The foliage borders transform the stage into the appearance of a dense wood with actual timber, over hanging and spreading branches and leaves. It is the nearest approach to nature in the department of scene painting we have ever seen” (May 26, 1883, page 5).

Lawrence Barret’s secured Tryon’s services while performing at the Salt Lake Theatre in 1883. Barrett specifically asked Tryon to produce special scenery after encountering his work at the Tabor Grand Opera House. The “Salt Lake Herald” reported, “Learning that Mr. Tryon was engaged here, Mr. Barrett was not a little delighted with the information, for the reason that it implied a presentation of his pieces, so far as scenic effects were concerned, on a scale of grandeur equal to anything he could have hoped for in the best equipped theatres of the country. It is but proper to state in justice to the artist that the first satisfactory exhibitions of his labors will be made during the coming engagement of Mr. Barrett. The commingling of the higher dramatic art, as represented by Mr. Barrett, and the perfection of scenic art, such as will be witnessed next week, will prove a treat of rare and unequalled excellence, and will enable the management of the Theatre to show fully and completely to the public the possibilities of the stage, since the completion of the extensive alterations instituted some time ago, and carried out at a cost far beyond original anticipations” (7 June 1883, page 8).

On June 14, 1883, the “Salt Lake City Herald” announced “Five Applause” (page 8). The article reported, “That all the HERALD promised is already realized in the two performance so far given, is beyond question, and to show how deeply Mr. Tryon’s labor is appreciated here, it is but needful to state that his scenes were five times applauded last night, the rise of the curtain in each act being a clue for applause by the audience; but the artist states that it is to-night he will take a little pride in the special work he has done, and referred to last nights as only of indifferent excellence. We shall see what he calls good when that is but indifferent.”  

Other scenes credited to Tryon were described in local newspapers and included an ancient street, fancy chamber, winter scene and “quiet landscape.”

To be continued…