How can you tell if a photo is an original? 1915 Hans Lobert Photo

[packs]

Hello everyone,

I picked up this Hans Lobert photo as an original 1915 photo of Lobert while playing third base for the New York Giants. I was hoping my fellow collectors could educate me as to how to determine if a photo is an original. The photo paper feels thin, it's got some gloss to it and Lobert's name is written in pencil on the back with the date of 1915. I've only seen this particular image one other time and believe this may be from Opening Day 1915. Any help is appreciated.

http://s107.photobucket.com/albums/m294/madjams/LObert.jpg


http://s107.photobucket.com/albums/m294/madjams/Lobertback.jpg

[prewarsports]

Most photographers and archives were really good about stampping their photos so the lack of a stamp is not usually a good sign, BUT that does not mean one without anything on the back is not original. It would be hard to tell without seeing it in person but sometimes you can tell from a Hi-Res scan if you could do that.

[packs]

I wish I could get a better scan but I'm not in the same place as my photo. It's back home and I'm on the road. I have until June 9th to file a paypal claim and will be back home the 23rd. Are there any properties of the photo paper that I should pay attention to that would give away that it is not from 1915?

[packs]

Here is a close up of Lobert's face. The size of the photo is 10 by 12. There is some browning on the bottom left corner and the paper is what i would call very thin. You can see some slight wrinkling in my first scan. The back of the photo is brownish. There is a lot of detail in the photo and it is very clear. That's one of the reasons I thought it could be an original, or at least from the original negative. Just look at that glove!

http://s107.photobucket.com/albums/m294/madjams/Lobertcloseup.jpg

[prewarsports]

It is really hard to tell. One thing you can do to see if it is old (although it doesnt pinpoint it that much) is to get a corner a little damp. As the photo starts to dry it should be VERY sticky before it dries totally. I think photos after the 1940's or 1950's will not be sticky when wet because they did not use gelatin in the process. This will not tell you it is from 1915 but it can tell you if it was made in the last 40 years or so. Without seeing it in person it is impossible to tell but the lack of stamps on the back and it being a known published image would make me think it is probably a more recent print, but it is impossible to tell for sure so dont take that as gospel.

[packs]

I'll try the sticky test when I get back.

As for it being published: Well it isn't exactly a known published photo. I did some Googling and found this Lobert photo on someone's site. It isn't exactly the same, but is similar. This person's photo WAS printed and contained a tagline on the back of it that denoted it as being Opening Day 1915 Giants against the Dodgers. This photo I could tell is definitely a later printing because it is not clear and looks like it has been reprinted a ton. The only real similarities it shares with my photo is that it is Lobert throwing at third base, but the time of day, positioning, shadows and cropping is totally different. For comparison:

http://s107.photobucket.com/albums/m294/madjams/Lobert2.jpg

[bmarlowe1]

From what I am seeing from carefully looking at the shadows, the population of the bleachers, and some off the patterns in the dirt - these both were taken very close in time to each other.

[D. Bergin]

Might be a large size albumen print. Great shot. Mr. Rudd might be able to tell a little better.

[packs]

I'm thinking these two photos were taken the same day too. Maybe in between warm up tosses? Which would be really fantastic because an original photo from Opening Day 1915 would be an incredible piece to own. The other photo that I posted is clearly a reprinted photo. Everything about it screams that it's been through a lot of copying, the dissolving of fine details and general shadowy nature of that particular print. Mine however, is very clear and even clearer than the close up scan I posted makes it seem. I've been doing some research online about early photography and from what I'm reading it seems as though the clearer the image, the more likely it is to at least come from the original negative, if not an original print. However, it's extremely hard to do any real investigating because me and my photo are 3,000 miles apart.

I'm going to try the sticky test next week when I return home. I wish I had a black light, but I do not. Can you tell me a little bit more about Albumen prints? Is 10 by 12 any indication of printing? Anything else you guys could tell me I should look for in the characteristics of the photo paper? All help and discussion has been greatly appreiciated. Thanks guys!

[prewarsports]

Albumem photos are VERY thin, thinner than a piece of paper and they had to glue them to cabinets because they were so thin and brittle. It is not going to be albumem even if original from 1915, but will be a gelatin photo of some type (many were Silver gelatin from that era).

[D. Bergin]

Albumem photos are VERY thin, thinner than a piece of paper and they had to glue them to cabinets because they were so thin and brittle. It is not going to be albumem even if original from 1915, but will be a gelatin photo of some type (many were Silver gelatin from that era).


I was thinking we were looking at a trimmed photo with a paper backing if that was an albumen, but yeah, it's probably too late and the toning doesn't look right.

Hard to tell not having it in hand. First impression is it's a print pretty close to the era. Whether it fits into the 2 year Type I designation is up for debate, as are a great many non-press professional photographer photos.

[drc]

I can't tell you from the scans, but if the paper is thin, the image is sharp (as it appears to be) and the back is toned, it could be original. Early 1900s photo paper was thinner and modern photo paper usually bright white on back. If the paper seems very thin compared to modern photos, that' your best sign it's vintage.

One thing is 10x12 is an unusual size for a photo back then. On the other hand, that's an unusual size for a modern reprint too. The vast majority of 1950s- reprints of old baseball images like that are 8x10.

As I said, I can't tell you it's original just from the scans, but I also don't see anything that says it isn't.

[packs]

Are there any authentication services available for dating or authenticating original photos? Like an SGC for photos?

If the photo is an authentic 1915 print, and is from Opening Day 1915, what do you think the value for a piece like this would be? I paid $50. Did I do well?

[Lordstan]

PSA/DNA has a photo authentication service. Their expert authenticators are Marshall Fogel and Henry Yee.
http://www.psadna.com/photo_authentication.chtml

Beckett also the same service. Dr Cycleback is their expert authenticator.
http://www.beckett.com/estore/info.asp?T=CP&D=2034&eskin=beckett&utm_source=vanity&utm_medium=Print&utm_campaign=Photos
Though I do have to say, I can't find how much it costs or how to submit pictures to Beckett.

I am not employed by nor in favor of one vs. the other.

Good Luck with your picture.

Mark

[packs]

Wow thanks a lot for the info. PSA will do it for $25. After everyone's advice and information, it seems as though there is at least a chance that it could be an original. It would cost me $75 in all to find out. Is it worthwhile to put the money into it or is a piece like this valued below $75? I'm not knowledgeable on photographs at all. Can't thank everyone enough for their help.

[prewarsports]

If all you want to know is if it is an original type 1 photo in case you want to return it, you can send it to me and I will tell you for free (maybe $5 round trip shipping). But if you want the certification to go with it, $75 total into a type 1 original photo from opening day in 1915 is worth it. You may not turn a big profit but it certainly is not too much to spend for that item assuming it is an original type 1 photo.

[sphere and ash]

This is almost certainly a silver gelatin print. Silver is the element that reacts to light and actually holds or contains the image; gelatin is the binding agent that binds the silver to the paper. This is definitely not an albument print.

It is not worth having the photograph "authenticated" unless your authenticator can test for the presence of brightening agents in the paper, which would indicate that the paper is later (1950s). Put another way, there is no way to know if the print dates from 1915 or 1935. I do not believe there is any other scientific means for dating a silver gelatin print.

I hope this helps.

[drc]

If you take the photo, look at it at a sharp angle to a light like a desk lamp and see 'silvering' the photo is old. Usually appearing in dark areas, silvering is like a silver patina that gets light and dark as you change the angle of the photo to the light. Silvering is an aging process, and only appears on old photos. Silvering would show that the photo is antique.