Jack Johnson photos by Van Oeyen

[Runscott]

This one sold last night: Van Oeyen Jack Johnson Photo (http://www.hakes.com/item.asp?Auction=205&ItemNo=111034)

Because the image was curiously poor for a Van Oeyen (in my opinion), I looked to see if there were other photos by Van Oeyen, of Jack Johnson. I found this one, which is incredibly clear and apparently of much higher quality:

LOC Van Oeyen Jack Johnson Photo (http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2011649816/)

The Van Oeyen stamp on the first one looks good, and the handwriting compares exactly to other Van Oeyen images from other years, all making me think the Hake's photo is a Type 1 Van Oeyen. Why the disparity in image quality?

Just wondering.

Edited to add: Here's a 1931 Van Oeyen with the same handwriting on the back as the 1914 Jack Johnson from the Hakes auction:

1931 Van Oeyen of Ruth (http://www.legendaryauctions.com/LotDetail.aspx?lotid=38858)

[D. Bergin]

I don't think the Hake's is a Type I. It may be from Van Oeyan, but I don't think it was printed until later, and may even have been printed from another photo and not from the original negative.

[Runscott]

I don't think the Hake's is a Type I. It may be from Van Oeyan, but I don't think it was printed until later, and may even have been printed from another photo and not from the original negative.

The image quality certainly supports your conclusion. I was giving them the benefit of the doubt, based on the Van Oeyen stamp and handwriting, hoping they had their scanner settings incorrect.

But this is a good example of why newbie photo collectors can't throw blind faith behind what they are told by those who are motivated by maximizing profit. I wanted this one pretty badly, but 'gut feel' kept me from bidding higher.

[D. Bergin]

The image quality certainly supports your conclusion. I was giving them the benefit of the doubt, based on the Van Oeyen stamp and handwriting, hoping they had their scanner settings incorrect.

But this is a good example of why newbie photo collectors can't throw blind faith behind what they are told by those who are motivated by maximizing profit. I wanted this one pretty badly, but 'gut feel' kept me from bidding higher.


I don't think anything in the description is misleading. It's never described as a Type I.

Good front and back scans are all that are really needed, along with an educated buyer who knows what they are looking for.

The borders look all wrong for 1914 to. Looks like a standard 7x9, trimmed down to a slightly smaller size. Probably from the same era as the Ruth photo you posted. It helps that they posted the actual size.

Stamp looks good and it's probably from Van Oeyen's files, but that would have little significance to me.

Probably a $50 photo without the Van Oeyen stamp or with just a standard United Press stamping IMO.

[Runscott]

The borders look all wrong for 1914 to. Looks like a standard 7x9, trimmed down to a slightly smaller size. Probably from the same era as the Ruth photo you posted. It helps that they posted the actual size.


You know, that might explain the handwriting being similar in the two photos - might not even be Van Oeyen's. I was unable to find any other images of possible Van Oeyen handwriting.