Brooklyn CDV

[ramram]

It's been a while, so I think it's safe to "out" this ebay auction from a couple of months ago. Not sure how many saw this, but obviously enough that the owner was bombarded with BIN offers. The owner ended up pulling the item and reportedly has now consigned it to an unknown auction house. When it first went up on ebay, the owner had no idea what he had. This is the 1865 Atlantics of Brooklyn. It is shown in Mark Rucker's "Base Ball Cartes" book with a "Champions of America" attachment to the bottom of the image. Unless others have surfaced recently, the only other copy (the one shown in Rucker's book) is in the Library of Congress.

Rob M.

73963

[D. Bergin]

Wow! Nice yard sale find. :eek:

[bmarlowe1]

HoF has another one taken at the same session but with Norton and Pratt trading positions.

[barrysloate]

I heard about it but this is the first time I've seen an image. That is an extraordinary find; it is also known in a mammoth plate format, owned by one of our board members. I think the seller could have let it run its course on ebay and gotten a really great price for it, but he must have gotten a little nervous and decided to pull it.

Among the notables are Dickey Pearce (third from left); manager Peter O'Brien (in suit); and Joe Start standing between them.

[ramram]

He pulled it to get it authenticated after several questioned its provenance, which is understandable. After he got it back, he had decided to sell it through a big auction house.

Rob M.

[barrysloate]

Rob- do you know who will be auctioning it? Getting it authenticated was a smart thing to do.

[ramram]

Barry -

He didn't say and, for some odd reason, didn't seem interested in divulging that yet.

Rob M.

[bcbgcbrcb]

My guess would be REA.......

[bmarlowe1]

I heard about it but this is the first time I've seen an image. That is an extraordinary find; it is also known in a mammoth plate format, owned by one of our board members. I think the seller could have let it run its course on ebay and gotten a really great price for it, but he must have gotten a little nervous and decided to pull it.

Among the notables are Dickey Pearce (third from left); manager Peter O'Brien (in suit); and Joe Start standing between them.

They are L to R:
Frank Norton, Sid Smith, Dickie Pearce, Joe Start, Pete O'Brien (in suit), Charlie Smith, Jack Chapman, John Galvin (seated), Fred Crane (standing), Tom Pratt

[GaryPassamonte]

I spoke with the seller when the CdV was on ebay. He said he wasn't the owner, but was listing it for another party. I believe the CdV originated from an group found somewhere in Maine.

[ullmandds]

it seems it may be possible this cdv originated in the same trunk as those n173's that were auctioned a few weeks ago?

[barrysloate]

Mark- in the mammoth plate photo pictured in The National Pastime, catcher Norton is on the far right. In the CdV he is on the far left. So players changed position during this photo shoot.

[bmarlowe1]

Mark- in the mammoth plate photo pictured in The National Pastime, catcher Norton is on the far right. In the CdV he is on the far left. So players changed position during this photo shoot.

Barry - Yes, that's what I was referring to in post #3 above. The image in National Pastime (I don't have it handy right now) is probably the same as the one at HoF. The ID's I gave above do match the image at the top of this thread.

[oldjudge]

It has not been consigned to REA, Heritage, Legendary or Goodwin. Perhaps it is at Mile High or SCP. Those are the only other major auction houses I can think of.

[benjulmag]

Barry - Yes, that's what I was referring to in post #3 above. The image in National Pastime (I don't have it handy right now) is probably the same as the one at HoF. The ID's I gave above do match the image at the top of this thread.

The image in the National Pastime is in fact the one at the NBL. It is not a period image, as the caligraphy on the mount refers to the Atlantics being champions as late as 1870. I am aware of only one copy in mammoth plate format where the image is period.

The image, besides depicting arguably the most significant team of the 1860's, is extraordinary in the sense that it is the only example I can think of where the studio appears to have created the CdV and mammoth plate from different shoots. Assuming this is the case, the CdV is a first generation photo (i.e., printed from the original negative, instead of being a photo of the mammoth plate). Should someday a period mammoth plate of the precise player configuation as appears in the CdV turn up, then this previous statement will have been incorrect.

What is also interesting is that the mammoth plate is a salt print. I'd be curious to know if this CdV is a salt print or an albumen print. Should it be the former, then it will be the first CdV of which I am aware that is not an albumen print.

[barrysloate]

Never heard of a CdV salt print. That would indeed be interesting.

[GaryPassamonte]

Corey,
What is your opinion about the image depicted in Rucker's book on pg. 8 and credited to the Library of Congress? It appears that the image is CdV sized. It even uses the same photo as the CdV with the same photo credits. Interestingly the photo credits are on the left side of the image while the CdV has the credits on the right.

[benjulmag]

Gary,

Here is the image of the copy in the Library of Congress.

It appears to have been created by adhering the CdV to a larger mount. The fact that the studio credit is on the left as opposed to the right I do not believe to be significant, but merely a manifestation of the studio mount being in the reverse direction whent the photo was adhered to it.

I might add that the Library of Congress describes the image as being an albumen photo.

[GaryPassamonte]

I've never seen the complete piece before. Rucker says that the entire piece is 5 x 7. That would make the center image with mount CdV size.

[Saco River Auction]

Hello all, its been awhile. As you may know we recently sold all those Old Judge Cabinets in August 2012 including King Kelly in street clothes.

Well we have some amazing news that should rock the industry. We have been commissioned to sell The Brooklyn Atlantics 1865 CDV that generated these posts and was found in Maine. This card is the rarest of the rare.

We have sent the card to SGC and they determined that the card is 100% Authentic. This card is the only example to ever come to market and the only other example is locked away in the Library of Congress.

I will be doing a formal post on Friday December 20th 2012 and I will include photos of the card encapsulated. The auction is planned for February 6, 2013.

[barrysloate]

That CdV is a great pickup. It's going to garner a lot of attention and a huge bid. Congratulations to you!

[Saco River Auction]

Thank you very much Barry we are excited!!!

[oldjudge]

I am hearing that the CdV was rejected by Leland's as being a laser copy on a period mount. After that it was deemed authentic by SGC. If all that is true, then it seems like a photographic expert needs to cast the deciding vote.

[GaryPassamonte]

Jay- What was it a laser copy of? Where is the original? A copy of the LOC example?

[bcbgcbrcb]

If that is the question, it should not be too hard to tell if you have the actual piece in hand and can look at the photo under magnification. I would think that SGC would have done that so it most likely is good but can't tell from where I'm sitting........

[oldjudge]

Agreed Phil. But then would an established auction house reject it? They are not in the business of refusing good (and potentially valuable) consignments.

[bcbgcbrcb]

I wonder if the fact that it was rejected by Leland's was brought to SGC's attention upon submission? My guess is that it was not.

That being said, I feel confident that SGC would be able to identify a fraudulant card as they are experts in the field, especially when reviewing one as rare and potentially valuable as this one.

"Established Auction Houses" have taken consignments which I have deemed to be fake and still continued to run the auctions even after this info was disclosed to them.

[Saco River Auction]

The staff at Saco River Auction have been hearing speculation and discussion in this forum and others regarding the authenticity of this card. I felt it was important to share all the information known on this card and its origin so that all of you can make an informed decision on the validity of this rare and unique card.

This card was found in Washington County Maine by a guy that buys used stuff. He was picking through a wood shed that held old furniture and coke bottles and a cardboard box on the floor caught his attention. In the box was some books and papers and a photo album. He bought a few chairs, the coke bottles and the box full of papers and the photo album. The guy brought the photo album home and cleaned all the mold off it and began to inspect the photos. He found a tin type from the civil war that showed Alcatraz Prison which he sold on ebay, and numerous other photos from the 1860's that were also sold on ebay. In the album was a curious cdv of a baseball team. He did minimal research and listed it on ebay. He was bombarded with emails and offers and decided to pull it down.

He then decided to sell the card to a gentlemen who he picks with, that guy then sent the card to Lelands for possible consignment. Lelands kept the card for two months and then mailed it back(no other communication like a courtesy call) was made and the card was mailed back stating that it was fake, made by an inkjet printer. The "expert" at Leland's claimed that the period mount it is attached and claimed the dot pattern of the mount is indicative of a inkjet printer and no mention of the actual image was made.

We were aware of this info and determined that the card needed to be examined by the best grading/authentication company around for 19th century sports items and images. We submitted the card for examination by SGC and they spent the better part of 4 days researching and examining this card. They are the experts and in speaking to the head examiner he is 100% sure that this is a authentic 19th century Albumen Process CDV depicting the 1865 Brooklyn Atlantics Team. SGC stands by their expertise and take pride in their work. They told me that they always approach a rare item with a large amount of skeptism until the evidence removes any doubt in their mind.

We intend to proceed without doubt or reservation in the sale of this rare and unique item as the evidence of its authenticity is not in question in our minds. We have also had what we consider an expert in 19th century photography, examine the card prior to sending it out and he is convinced that the item is right as rain.
Please keep in mind that Leland's is an excellent auction company with world class knowledge and experience, however no one in any auction house is an absolute expert in every catagory of items that they sell. That is why we defer to experts like SGC and PSA and JSA to assist us in verifying the items that we sell. It is obvious to us that this one slipped by the staff at Lelands and it is unfortunate for them as they lost a large potential commission, but this does not detract from the validity of The Saco River Auction Company or our upcoming sale. We are an established auction house in all phases of items and although we are not in a big city and have not been around for 50 years, we known how to manage and handle valuable items, and we get great prices for our consignors.

Thank You For Your Time and Interest
Troy Thibodeau
Manager/Auctioneer
Saco River Auction

[oldjudge]

I spoke to someone in your shop today and suggested that you get an opinion from Paul Messier, a Boston conservator who is an expert on albumen photographs. Will you be doing that? One other question-- the right side of the CdV looks like there is an area to the right of the photograph that once had something attached to it( looks like a glue line parallel to the edge of the current photograph). Do you know if Leland's thought that there was originally a larger photograph attached to the mount and then that photograph was removed and replaced by the current one? Looking at a scan is certainly a tough way to evaluate a piece, which is why I am asking how this area to the right of the photograph looks in person. Thanks for your help!

[oldjudge]

Gary--sorry I missed your post before. I don't know. I guess that you could print a copy from the LOC image. In my mind the real question is if someone could download a copy of the LOC image and print something like an albumen print from it. I find it hard to believe that SGC would think a laser copy is an albumen print. I would feel a lot better if there was some feature in this photo that, due to cropping differences, is not in the LOC photo. However, I can't find anything. Can you?

[Runscott]

Lelands kept the card for two months and then mailed it back(no other communication like a courtesy call) was made and the card was mailed back stating that it was fake, made by an inkjet printer. The "expert" at Leland's claimed that the period mount it is attached and claimed the dot pattern of the mount is indicative of a inkjet printer and no mention of the actual image was made.


Thank You For Your Time and Interest
Troy Thibodeau
Manager/Auctioneer
Saco River Auction

Troy, the above comment is in poor taste, and doesn't ring true based on my dealings with Lelands. I hear the 'inkjet printer' comment often when people are describing fakes, but it's generally from ebayers or people who know very little about 1800's photography. In actuality, it wouldn't take someone who is even a half-blind albumen collector two minutes to identify a photograph as having been created by an inkjet printer.

I sincerely hope your comment was an error, and that if someone at Leland's actually used the term 'inkjet' to refer to this photo, that it was either in jest, or your comment about SGC saying it's legit, was a mistake on your part.

There's something very fishy about your story.

[oldjudge]

Corey or Barry-- you kow this type of material really well. Do ou have a view?

[bmarlowe1]

(Never mind my original comment which confused the HoF and LoC images.)

It would be nice to see the item in higher res to see if it shares flaws with the LoC image.

[prewarsports]

A couple of thoughts

First, if someone was going to go to the trouble and fake this, it seems like they would extend the photo past the marks Jay is talking about to hide them if this was a recycled mount, and trim it tighter on the sides. However back in the 1860's most people hand cut these so authentic CDV's do have weird cuts like this one ALL THE TIME. So that is a good thing.

Second, it would be hard if not impossible to fake the tone of the photo with the fading on the item in question from the crystal clear image on the LOC example. SO thats a good thign too.

Third, the line Jay is talking about is troubling because it absolutely looks like something else was once glued there. Anyone that collects CDV photos will know that the photo itself is VERY thin, see through in fact when held to the light, so it would be almost impossible to reback something like this. Only thought I have on that front is perhaps a label was glued there at one point?

From a scan, it looks good and if it is encapsulated by SGC I would find it hard to believe they could make a mistake this big. However, the line Jay mentioned and the rejection from Lelands are both Red Flags.

Rhys

[oldjudge]

Mark--the CdV image and he LOC image shown in this post are the same. The guys at the ends are the same.

[bmarlowe1]

You're right - I confused the HoF and LoC images - fixed above.

[oldjudge]

Rhys--like I said, the easy way to end all questions is to have an albumen photo expert look at it. There is one of the best in the world within a short drive from the auction house. Seems like a no brainer.

[benjulmag]

Jay,

I have the greatest respect for the people at SGC and the work they do, but I am concerned that the task of determining whether an image is a period albumen photo attached to a period mount does not fall squarely within their area of expertise. Certainly there are other people out there who would be better qualified to address this question. In addition, the fact that Lelands, an experienced and well-respected auction house that over the years has handled many CdVs, would not accept the consignment of a CdV that if authentic would be as significant a 19th century image as they have ever offered is very troubling. I'm not saying the item is not authentic, but based on the disclosures made I would feel much more comfortable if the item was examined by a recognized expert in both albumen photographs and CdV mounts. I also believe that the auction house should disclose the identity of the person they said examined the item.

[oldjudge]

Thanks Corey! Like I said above, I would like to see one detail in the CdV that is not in the LOC version. I can find none. The photo in the CdV has more image area on its' right than does the LOC copy. However, the additional area shows nothing, not even a wall board edge.

[bmarlowe1]

For what it's worth, in spite of the fairly large file size, the LoC tiff file for this image is not very sharp. This is the case not just for the photo, but for the lettering around the photo. LoC scans do vary in quality (so they have told me), so the item in hand may be sharper.

I have a hi-res scan of the similar HoF image discussed earlier, and it is sharper than the LoC scan.

[Runscott]

Williamson of Brooklyn was a popular photographer - finding a cdv mount with their logo wouldn't have been out of the question. In addition, the only images I've seen of the new 'find' are faded images - not near as crisp as the loc image. Maybe that was intentional? I have owned plenty of legitimate albumens that were even less well-defined, so if you were going to make a fake based on the loc image, I don't see the problem. Just create a 'faded' albumen.

[barrysloate]

Corey or Barry-- you kow this type of material really well. Do ou have a view?

Hi Jay- one rule of thumb is never try to authenticate a piece via a scan. I can offer a few thoughts: when I look at the scan of the LOC piece and see that rich photo quality, and then look at the muddiness of the CdV, it does concern me. Maybe one scan is crystal clear and the other isn't, or maybe there is a real issue. So I would have to have the piece in hand to make any real determination.

I would say based on what has transpired, if I were an interested bidder I would want at least one more photo expert to look at it. There is enough here to warrant it. I respect SGC but this isn't a T206, where they grade a hundred a day. The number of 1860's photographs that cross their desk is small.

[GaryPassamonte]

Jay-I have compared the CdV to the LOC image in Mark Rucker's CdV book. To the right of John Chapman's head there is a visible mark. In the example Corey posted on this thread, the mark cannot be seen. This mark is also not visible on the CdV in question. This difference would mean the CdV is not a copy. The only other option is that a forger would have eliminated this mark by creating the vignette style of the CdV.

[yanks12025]

Leland's posts on the board, so why not ask them about it.

[benjulmag]

Barry is correct in that one should be very cautious when comparing scanned images. Examination of and comparison to original images should, if possible, be the preferred approach. I also agree with Scott's point that one could find a genuine Williamson mount and replace its photo with a fake.

I'd be very interested to compare the resolution (as opposed to the contrast) of this image to the one at the LOC. Even the slightest difference would suggest to me that it is a fake. Same too for the lettering on the mount. Differences in resolution can be very subtle and such a comparison should be made by comparing originals.

As has been discussed in this thread, there is a lot that can be done to assuage concerns that the CdV is not authentic, and I would respectfully urge the auction house to do it.

[Leon]

Lelands, not Josh as he didn't see it, but other executives, think it is a color xerox. If I were bidding I would want further authentication....and I trust SGC a ton but no one, even me :), is perfect. I am not making any claims personally as I have not handled it, nor am I a photo expert though I have handled quite a few.

[oldjudge]

Leon--a color photocopy of what image? These don't pop up every day. It doesn't look like a color photocopy of the LOC image as it is not clear enough.

[Leon]

Leon--a color photocopy of what image? These don't pop up every day. It doesn't look like a color photocopy of the LOC image as it is not clear enough.

I just got a message that said the Lelands execs that looked at it thought it was a color Xerox. That is all and I have no other info. You might contact Josh or Mike Heff.ner for more info.

[Jacklitsch]

Rhys +1

[Runscott]

If Leland's said it's a fake, then it's a fake.

I also can't believe SGC slabbed it, and I won't believe it until I see an image of this card in an SGC slab.

This isn't something that either Leland's or SGC would have missed. Also not something that any of the photograph collectors I respect would have missed - it's just not possible to slip a copy by anyone with a decent eye, unless you actually use a real photograph, and even that's not going to be easy unless it's a damned good one that reasonably approximates an actual albumen.

[GaryPassamonte]

The one thing that keeps coming back to me about this CdV is why the individual that put it on ebay started it at $.99 and why he didn't take one of the many substantial offers he had for it at that time. If he was trying to perpetuate a fraud, he would have taken the money and run.

[benjulmag]

The one thing that keeps coming back to me about this CdV is why the individual that put it on ebay started it at $.99 and why he didn't take one of the many substantial offers he had for it at that time. If he was trying to perpetuate a fraud, he would have taken the money and run.

The disclosure from the auction house says the person who put it on eBay did take one of the offers he had for it.

[GaryPassamonte]

Back to square one, Corey.

[Saco River Auction]

Due to overwelming speculation and debate I have decided to heed the advice of one of my customers(thanks Jay) and have the card examined by a recognized expert in 19th century photography. I have an appointment on January 7th with Paul Messier of Boston who is a world renowned expert in photography and photographic process.

He will inspect the card to determine whether this is a "laser copy". He will also determine if there is the microscopic presence of gold an silver using xray technology and this will give us the absolute answer to all of our questions. He will also provide documentation in support of his scientific findings. I had hoped to put this issue to rest earlier than January 7th, however Mr. Messier is booked until that date. On Monday December 24th I am going to post photos of the SGC slabbed card for all of you who do not believe that it has been authenticated, and this will allow all of you to inspect the work performed so far.

As far as the 99 cent auction speculation, it is true that my seller did put it on ebay and was offered pretty good sums of money to end it. However he is an intelligent man who buys and sells for a living and decided to find out what he had. He then decided to sell the card to his partner. It was his partner who sent it to Leland's for their auction. When the card was returned by leland's the partner requested his money back as it was deemed a fake. My seller gave his partner the money back and mailed me the card for further inspection. I sent the card out not knowing the entire story at the time. I am still very certain that this card is real and SGC has confirmed that. Unfortunately I do not feel comfortable moving forward without getting a second opinion. I respect and appreciate all of the members of this forum and as an auction house we cannot proceed with even an ounce of doubt. In this business your reputation is all you have and it is paramount that all of the questions and rumors are put to rest prior to the sale.

This unfortunately is going to change the timing of the auction for this card. If this card is in fact genuine as we believe, we will have to postpone the auction until March 6 2013. This will allow the scientific process to be completed and adequate time for marketing.

I thank you all for your patience in this process as we all want to know the truth.

Troy Thibodeau
Saco River Auction

[barrysloate]

You're doing the right thing Troy. If the card is a laser copy you don't want to sell it, and if Messier says it's good you have some strong documentation. It's a win-win.

[Runscott]

You'e doing the right thing Troy. If the card is a laser copy you don't want to sell it, and if Messier says it's good you have some strong documentation. It's a win-win.

+++1

[benjulmag]

Troy,

Kudos for the disclosures you've made and the actions you are taking!

[GaryPassamonte]

Bravo, Troy.

[yanks12025]

I don't understand why he would sell it to his friend and not take one of the other offers which i guess would have been higher?

[Runscott]

I want to see a clear scan of this cdv, while it's residing in an SGC holder.

???

[Jay Wolt]

Troy Solid move!

[Jacklitsch]

Presume it will have to be cracked out of the SGC case for proper examination.

[Leon]

Kudos to Troy for having it authenticated even more. As a follow up, I am told that the SGC folks spoke with the Lelands folks and the issue Lelands had might have been more with the printing on the back of it than the photo itself. Sending it to a photo expert for re-evaluation is certainly a smart move. The piece will do much better in auction when all doubt is cleared.

[Runscott]

Kudos to Troy for having it authenticated even more. As a follow up, I am told that the SGC folks spoke with the Lelands folks and the issue Lelands had might have been more with the printing on the back of it than the photo itself. Sending it to a photo expert for re-evaluation is certainly a smart move. The piece will do much better in auction when all doubt is cleared.

That's a whole different story from 'xerox photo' or 'inkjet printer' - significantly different.

[MW1]

<< As far as the 99 cent auction speculation, it is true that my seller did put it on ebay and was offered pretty good sums of money to end it. However he is an intelligent man who buys and sells for a living and decided to find out what he had. He then decided to sell the card to his partner. It was his partner who sent it to Leland's for their auction. >>

These two folks wouldn't happen to live in Cincinnati, would they?

[Saco River Auction]

They live in Washington county maine

[oldjudge]

Good work Troy!

Brian--that one slipped by.

[e107collector]

I really don't follow 19th century cards, but let's just say this turns out to be real, - which I hope it does.

What would this card be worth, $30K, or is my guess way off?

Any info is appreciated.

Tony

[barrysloate]

I'll guess 50K.

[yanks12025]

I'll guess 50K.

Really 50K?? I think it's ugly looking, lol Also what would be the reason for it to be worth that much?

[Matthew H]

Really 50K?? I think it's ugly looking, lol Also what would be the reason for it to be worth that much?

For the same reason other rare 19th century items are worth that much.

[barrysloate]

The Brooklyn Atlantics were among the strongest clubs in the 1860's, and any team photos of them from that era are very rare and in very high demand. It will certainly go for a lot.

[bmarlowe1]

It's one of the earlier known images of a high caliber team. I can think of images of the '59 Excelsiors (plus Knicks), the '60 Excelsiors, c1860 Atlantics, 1864 Mutuals, and the 1865 photo under discussion here.

[GaryPassamonte]

I think Barry is spot on. $50K may be the highest price ever paid for a baseball CdV. Only the 1860/61 Atlantics CdV may have exceeded this amount. I am unsure how much that CdV sold for.

[barrysloate]

Gary- I sold the 1861 Atlantics CdV privately at least ten years ago, before the prices escalated. I think it was somewhere in the 15K range at the time. That's one I let get away.:o:(

[GaryPassamonte]

Barry-I remember the CdV well, the price I didn't know. If only we had known. I looked at some old correspondence from you and found a copy of the CdV. This is without a doubt, the best baseball CdV I know of. It was 1997. Time flies.

[Saco River Auction]

Happy Holidays from SRA and here are the scans I promised.81901

81902

81903

81904

81905

81906

81907

81908

81909

81910

81911

[Saco River Auction]

While we all are waiting for the results, feel free to bid on the cool old judge items we have in the January 1st sale including an 1888 Grays Studio Charlie Ferguson, Old Judge N-172's and 1889 Bean Eater photo.

Again Happy Holidays

Troy

[Runscott]

Thanks for posting, Troy. I sent an email regarding the Jan 1 auction and didn't receive any response.

[e107collector]

Troy,

Great looking piece. I hope for your sake, and the sake of the hobby, everything turns out to be authentic when the expert reviews it in a few weeks.

You are doing the right thing.

Happy Holidays,

Tony

[Saco River Auction]

I just went through the email and there is no email from you. Our email is info@sacoriverauction.com or you can call me 207-650-5677 that is my cell phone and i can answer any questions you have.

Troy

[Runscott]

edited after speaking with Troy :)

Thanks for the discussion!

[benjulmag]

While I recognize I am comparing only scans, the scans posted by the auction house do not differ in any significant way from the initial scan of the image. They exhibit a degradation in resolution (in ways having nothing to do with contrast) compared to the LOC copy that make me struggle to understand how they can be printed from the same negative. I have never before seen such differences in identical albumen photos where each are genuine. While I'm interested to hear what Mr. Messier has to say, unless he can establish that one cannot in the 21st century create an albumen photo that is chemically indistinguishable from one printed in the 19th century, I would regard his results as inconclusive.

[Saco River Auction]

There are going to be distinct differences in this Cdv and the loc one because this one is a vignette process albumen whereas the loc version is a full view non vignette version of the same pose. If you look at the photographers branding label on the rear of our Cdv it says vignette specialty.

[Saco River Auction]

The vignette process has clearly been mistaken for photo degradation. Vignette was used to make the center pieces of the pose, In this case the team, stand out, rather than the back ground. It was a very common practice in the mid 19th century especially by this photographer. Mr. Messier will be the deciding factor on this because as a scientific expert on 19th century photography there is no way to rule his results(good or bad) as inconclusive. His findings either combined with sgc or aside from sgc will be the final verdict on this card.
Troy

[GaryPassamonte]

Corey- The 1875 Hartfords CdV comes with both the actual background visible or obscured. Could this CdV have been produced in a similar manner? Also, some images from the same photo shoot are slightly different such as the those of the 1874 Red Stockings. The placement of the equipment is different in the few copies known suggesting multiple negatives. Could the Atlantics CdV be from a different negative from the same shoot? I realize there appear to be no differences between the LOC copy and the CdV, but isn't it possible they may actually be from different negatives?

[benjulmag]

Troy,

The differences in resolution pertain to the players themselves. Perhaps the vignette process caused this. If so. then I will have learned something. In addition, I will point out that the printing in the verso (where the vignette process is identified) has been mentioned as the aspect of this CdV that caused Lelands to reject it. Accordingly I would hope that as part of Mr Messier's analysis he examine the verso. Finally I must respectfully disagree with your view as to the capabilities of forensic testing. It is a negative process which tells one what something is not, as opposed to what something is. If an item flunks forensic testing, then we know it is a fake. It it passes then we can say it is consistent with authentic items but that doesn't mean it MUST be authentic. It raises then the feasibility of whether a forger could recreate the process in current times.

In saying all this I am not saying the CdV has to be a fake. Rather I am simply noting aspects of it that trouble me in the hope they will be directly addressed by Mr. Messier. I should also reiterate that while we may disagree about certain aspects about this item, I do appreciate your openness about this item and responsiveness to expressed concerns.

[benjulmag]

Gary,

The difference in background in the 1875 Hartford CdV was created by the studio applying white paint to the background in the mammoth plate from which the CdV was made. I say this because I have seen the mammoth plate. Also, there are multiple copies known of each version of that CdV thus giving reassurance as to the legitimacy of the difference.

[barrysloate]

I owned the mammoth plate at one time and you could easily see the gobs of white paint (it looked like white out) that was applied to the background.

[GaryPassamonte]

I have never seen that mammoth plate. Very interesting.
What about the possibility of multiple negatives from the same sitting?

[benjulmag]

I have never seen that mammoth plate. Very interesting.
What about the possibility of multiple negatives from the same sitting?


I suppose anything is possible but unless a single shoot can generate multiple negatives, I would think there would be a least some noticeable difference in the pose, no matter how minor. And if the single shoot of this pose did generate multiple negatives, wouldn't they generate prints of identical resolution?

[Runscott]

I suppose anything is possible but unless a single shoot can generate multiple negatives, I would think there would be a least some noticeable difference in the pose, no matter how minor. And if the single shoot of this pose did generate multiple negatives, wouldn't they generate prints of identical resolution?

It depends - it's basically another photograph. Because of this, there would be differences in the composition, even if very very small.

[GaryPassamonte]

It would be ideal to have the LOC image and the CdV in hand to compare, but I don't believe that is going to happen. Given the current situation, it seems that nothing will completely dispel some doubts about the CdV. This is unfortunate because this is a CdV we would all want to be positively genuine due to its historical and hobby significance.

[Runscott]

It would be ideal to have the LOC image and the CdV in hand to compare, but I don't believe that is going to happen. Given the current situation, it seems that nothing will completely dispel some doubts about the CdV. This is unfortunate because this is a CdV we would all want to be positively genuine due to its historical and hobby significance.

Gary, if a 19th century albumen expert (including yourself) took a look at it and gave your opinion, I think all doubts that mattered, would be dispelled. This is about to happen, which should be very exciting.

[oldjudge]

The following is the process to create an albumen photograph. I am no photo expert, but after reading this it appears that there could be variations in quality amongst prints made from the same negative:


The process of making an albumen print

A piece of paper, usually 100% cotton, is coated with an emulsion of egg white (albumen) and salt (sodium chloride or ammonium chloride), then dried. The albumen seals the paper and creates a slightly glossy surface for the sensitizer to rest on.
The paper is then dipped in a solution of silver nitrate and water which renders the surface sensitive to UV light.
The paper is then dried in the absence of UV light.
The dried, prepared paper is placed in a frame in direct contact under a negative. The negative is traditionally a glass negative with collodion emulsion, but this step can be performed with a modern silver halide negative, too. The paper with negative is then exposed to light until the image achieves the desired level of darkness, which is typically a little lighter than the end product. Though direct sunlight was used long ago, a UV exposure unit is preferable because it is more predictable, as the paper is most sensitive to ultraviolet light.
A bath of sodium thiosulfate fixes the print’s exposure, preventing further darkening.
Optional gold or selenium toning improves the photograph’s tone and stabilizes against fading. Depending on the toner, toning may be performed before or after fixing the print.

[drc]

Albumen prints can range in quality (light, dark, etc), cuts, placement on the card. The prints can sometimes have goofy cuts and not be straight on the card.

Albumen prints are on very thin paper, you can see the paper fibers under a microscope, and sometimes have silvering (like a patina) the dark areas of the image. They also usually have a gloss.

All 19th century real photo baseball cards (N172, N173, Gypsy Queens, Peck and Snyder, Newsboy cabinets) are albumen photos. It was the most common paper photo process of the day. I would imagine you find variations of the image qualities of these cards, and how the prints were cut and placed on the mount for the cabinet cards.

[bmarlowe1]

To the extent that I can discern all the head, hand and other body part positions, IMO both images are derived from the same negative. It is extremely unlikely that they all could have so perfectly held their positions.

[GaryPassamonte]

At this point, I would have to agree with you, Mark.

[Saco River Auction]

On January 7 2013 Paul Messier Conservator of Boston inspected the card and his findings are in the detailed report which I am including.

A Quick summary of his findings are as follows.

This is a 19th century Albumen Print, and was not created with a laser, inket, or any other kind of modern photography process.

We have spent the time to be certain and to make all of you certain that this is an authentic 19th century albumen print. We have provided conclusive evidence from SGC and Paul Messier.

It is now time to move forward and sell this card. We have scheduled the sale for February 6 2013@5PM at our auction hall in Biddeford Maine.

I am currently registering phone bidders and absentee bidders, internet bidding will begin later this week.

If you would like to schedule a phone bid or have any questions please call Troy 207-650-5677

[ullmandds]

Alrighty...let the pigeons loose!!!!

[Matthew H]

On January 7 2013 Paul Messier Conservator of Boston inspected the card and his findings are in the detailed report which I am including.

A Quick summary of his findings are as follows.

This is a 19th century Albumen Print, and was not created with a laser, inket, or any other kind of modern photography process.

We have spent the time to be certain and to make all of you certain that this is an authentic 19th century albumen print. We have provided conclusive evidence from SGC and Paul Messier.

It is now time to move forward and sell this card. We have scheduled the sale for February 6 2013@5PM at our auction hall in Biddeford Maine.

I am currently registering phone bidders and absentee bidders, internet bidding will begin later this week.


If you would like to schedule a phone bid or have any questions please call Troy 207-650-5677


Such a beautiful item... Best of luck to you.

[Saco River Auction]

http://www.sacoriverauction.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/2013_3_brooklyn_atlantics.pdf

[Runscott]

On January 7 2013 Paul Messier Conservator of Boston inspected the card and his findings are in the detailed report which I am including.

A Quick summary of his findings are as follows.

This is a 19th century Albumen Print, and was not created with a laser, inket, or any other kind of modern photography process.

We have spent the time to be certain and to make all of you certain that this is an authentic 19th century albumen print. We have provided conclusive evidence from SGC and Paul Messier.

It is now time to move forward and sell this card. We have scheduled the sale for February 6 2013@5PM at our auction hall in Biddeford Maine.

I am currently registering phone bidders and absentee bidders, internet bidding will begin later this week.

If you would like to schedule a phone bid or have any questions please call Troy 207-650-5677

Hi Troy. Messier's report does not say that it IS a 19th century albumen print - it says "the photograph is consistent with a 19th century albumen print." There is a huge difference. My concern, and that of several others, was that this might be a 20th century albumen created by a forger who took the time to learn the process described in Jay's earlier post - I think the additional testing described at the end of Messier's report is what it would take to dispel that concern: "Additional work to confirm the process could include identification of the final image material, an assessment of paper fibers and an analysis of the binder."

Just my opinion. I think it's great that you took the item to Messier and I hope that whoever wins it doesn't have a bad 'gut feel' when they finally have it in hand, and end up having to send it off for the testing of the actual image.

[yanks12025]

On January 7 2013 Paul Messier Conservator of Boston inspected the card and his findings are in the detailed report which I am including.

A Quick summary of his findings are as follows.

This is a 19th century Albumen Print, and was not created with a laser, inket, or any other kind of modern photography process.

We have spent the time to be certain and to make all of you certain that this is an authentic 19th century albumen print. We have provided conclusive evidence from SGC and Paul Messier.

It is now time to move forward and sell this card. We have scheduled the sale for February 6 2013@5PM at our auction hall in Biddeford Maine.

I am currently registering phone bidders and absentee bidders, internet bidding will begin later this week.

If you would like to schedule a phone bid or have any questions please call Troy 207-650-5677


What happened to the Boston pic in your last auction? I couldn't find it.

[Leon]

What happened to the Boston pic in your last auction? I couldn't find it.

If I am not mistaking it was counterfeit and got pulled.

[jhs5120]

Hi Troy. Messier's report does not say that it IS a 19th century albumen print - it says "the photograph is consistent with a 19th century albumen print." There is a huge difference.


This is just the common wording for any COA, LOA or legal opinion. If you read a PSA/DNA LOA it states, "The signature(s) is/are consistent considering slant, flow, pen pressure, letter size and other characteristics [...]" It never says, "This IS an authentic signature." It's simply an opinion of an expert.

Kudos to the seller for getting multiple opinions. Personally, I'm surprised the pitchforks are still out. It is a beautiful piece and anyone who is still questioning it needs to send me whatever they're smoking. ;)

[Runscott]

This is just the common wording for any COA, LOA or legal opinion. If you read a PSA/DNA LOA it states, "The signature(s) is/are consistent considering slant, flow, pen pressure, letter size and other characteristics [...]" It never says, "This IS an authentic signature." It's simply an opinion of an expert.

Kudos to the seller for getting multiple opinions. Personally, I'm surprised the pitchforks are still out. It is a beautiful piece and anyone who is still questioning it needs to send me whatever they're smoking. ;)

I speak and read the English for what it states in English. If he had wanted to, he could have said that his opinion is that it IS a 19th century albumen print.

Scott <=== consistent in facial structure with Mel Gibson

[Donscards]

Come on Guys---I would say we all know this is a outstanding piece and find---Saco River has done everything you have asked of them---the cdv is graded by SGC (to me the best for pre 1900) and now Paul Messier has certified it. I know alot of collectors would want this and with the skepticism shown on the board-are a few people trying to keep the price down----I was at the last Saco River auction were King Kelly went for $70,000---there was a phonebank of like 10 phones plus the pc's---so I think u will see the same thing here. Good Luck to the bidders on this board---The Brooklyn Team CDV will go high----Don

[asoriano]

I agree, Don. Awesome piece and best of luck to the auction house.

[Runscott]

Come on Guys---I would say we all know this is a outstanding piece and find---Saco River has done everything you have asked of them---the cdv is graded by SGC (to me the best for pre 1900) and now Paul Messier has certified it.

Don, have you read the posts that you are rebutting? As an albumen collector, I clearly and respectfully stated my opinion (on a discussion forum where we talk about such things - I am guessing that you are glad we do so, as otherwise collectors would be getting screwed right and left. Am I correct?). The additional tests that Messier mentioned are available for a reason, and if a cdv that you think is worth $70K does not warrant such tests, please tell me what cdv would?

I know alot of collectors would want this and with the skepticism shown on the board-are a few people trying to keep the price down

Absolute rubbish. I have no reason to want to "keep the price down", as I will not be bidding on it and have no idea who will be. In addition, I've spoken with Troy several times and he's a very likable guy. I would like the price to be very high if it's legit, and be pulled if it's not. Sound fair?


----I was at the last Saco River auction were King Kelly went for $70,000---there was a phonebank of like 10 phones plus the pc's


So what?

[Saco River Auction]

We at SRA have satisfied our obligations and have done our due diligence in assuring members of this forum and potential bidders that this is the genuine item that we all know it is. I have listened to the conspiracy theories and skeptics and have gone above and beyond to alleviate any fears. The time is at hand for individuals who are going to be players on this item, to line up and get your chance at one of the best, most historic finds to arrive on the market in years. We will not be performing any further forensic testing as we are convinced as to what this item is. Make no mistake, the evidence is clear, this is a 19th century Albumen print made in the 1860's by CH Williamson, and was not made by anyone else at any other time. I know that it is great fodder for forums like this in which rumor and innuendo sometimes supercede facts, for the sake of conversation. If this were a legal trial we would have proven our case "beyond a resonable doubt". I like that we as a forum are excited about this item, and no talk is bad talk, but let's focus on the excitement the sale of this item is going to create for my industry and your hobby.

Troy

[GaryPassamonte]

Troy,
Forgive us for being skeptical about the CdV, but that trait comes with the territory. Many of us have been stung before and we want to be positive about authenticity. The " beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is not 100%. The onus of proving absolute authenticity and instilling confidence in buyers rests with the seller and with the auction house. That said, I believe you have done everything possible to authenticate the CdV. As I've said before, we all want this to be real. I would still recommend an in person inspection of the CdV prior to bidding.

[Leon]

Troy,
Forgive us for being skeptical about the CdV, but that trait comes with the territory. Many of us have been stung before and we want to be positive about authenticity. The " beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is not 100%. The onus of proving absolute authenticity and instilling confidence in buyers rests with the seller and with the auction house. That said, I believe you have done everything possible to authenticate the CdV. As I've said before, we all want this to be real. I would still recommend an in person inspection of the CdV prior to bidding.

According to the report they did a lot, but certainly not everything possible.

"Additional work to confirm the process could include identification of the final image material, an assessment of paper fibers and an analysis of the binder. "




.

[GaryPassamonte]

Agreed, Leon. Everything was too strong a word.

[Saco River Auction]

I also would recommend and would invite any potential bidder to make the trip to Maine prior to the sale date to inspect the CDV themselves in order to formulate their own opinion prior to bidding. We are open by appointment Monday-Friday from 8-4 or other times by appointment. As I have stated in my prior post we will not be doing anymore testing, but I do encourage anyone to view the item in person.

Troy

[Runscott]

We at SRA have satisfied our obligations and have done our due diligence in assuring members of this forum and potential bidders that this is the genuine item that we all know it is. I have listened to the conspiracy theories and skeptics and have gone above and beyond to alleviate any fears. The time is at hand for individuals who are going to be players on this item, to line up and get your chance at one of the best, most historic finds to arrive on the market in years. We will not be performing any further forensic testing as we are convinced as to what this item is. Make no mistake, the evidence is clear, this is a 19th century Albumen print made in the 1860's by CH Williamson, and was not made by anyone else at any other time. I know that it is great fodder for forums like this in which rumor and innuendo sometimes supercede facts, for the sake of conversation. If this were a legal trial we would have proven our case "beyond a resonable doubt". I like that we as a forum are excited about this item, and no talk is bad talk, but let's focus on the excitement the sale of this item is going to create for my industry and your hobby.

Troy

Troy, echoing what Gary said, this is a vintage baseball forum and so we discuss vintage baseball stuff - the very expensive rare items are going to be the spotlight of our discussions.

We have shown you the utmost respect and nothing in this thread has had the slightest resemblance to a "conspiracy theory". Nor were there any "rumors", "innuendos" or anything else that "superceded facts". This was just an honest discussion based on cdv traits that were in line with problems we have seen in the past.

I do realize that auction houses would prefer that all discussions about their items be positive. There have been many high-dollar items discussed here that have received nothing but praise, with no questions regarding their authenticity. You have been very forthright in your responses and a real pleasure to talk with, so there really is no reason for anyone to question your cdv, other than that it begs questioning.

[Saco River Auction]

The additional tests that Messier mentions are tests that I decided not to have completed due to two major factors. 1st each test takes a sample of the material from the image and card itself. This is a forensic test that removes a physical sample of the card and a machine determines the chemical makeup of the image and the card. I am not about to have part of the treasure snipped or extracted from the original......probably will hurt the value....don't you think. Secondly, this round of additional testing is very expensive and is not something I decided(along with the seller) made much sense.

Troy

[yanks12025]

Did it have to get reslabbed after?

[Saco River Auction]

It has been reglued back to its original form. Scott at SGC said that anyone who buys it can have it reslabbed by him or we may send it to him prior to sale to have it done.

[barrysloate]

I would have it reslabbed Troy. Regluing a holder that has been taken apart doesn't sound like a good plan moving forward. It's worth the extra fifty bucks, or whatever they charge.

[bigfish]

Kudos to Troy and Saco River for getting two opinions. Folks that are skeptical shouldn't bid. I am sure there won't be a shortage of people wanting this item. Best of luck.

[oldjudge]

Toby-I think you are right that a lot of people will want the item. However, I'm not sure that there are many people, if any, who will want to pay a significant price. I don't know anyone who will go crazy for this item. Do you?

[bigfish]

Hi Jay, hard to predict where this item will go pricewise. A rare item will bring serious interest. I guess we will see once the auction ends. I wouldn't be surprised if the price is strong.

[Runscott]

Kudos to Troy and Saco River for getting two opinions. Folks that are skeptical shouldn't bid. I am sure there won't be a shortage of people wanting this item. Best of luck.

If I'm ever selling anything that you are skeptical about, please feel free to ask questions. Troy doesn't mind either. The only people that seemed to mind are forum members, which really surprises me - this is a discussion forum and we're talking about a $50,000 collectible.

[Old Hoss]

The additional tests that Messier mentions are tests that I decided not to have completed due to two major factors. 1st each test takes a sample of the material from the image and card itself. This is a forensic test that removes a physical sample of the card and a machine determines the chemical makeup of the image and the card. I am not about to have part of the treasure snipped or extracted from the original......probably will hurt the value....don't you think. Secondly, this round of additional testing is very expensive and is not something I decided(along with the seller) made much sense.

Troy

In my past exposure to people working with items worth much more than this cdv (fine art prints and photographs), samples can be taken that probably do not diminish the value of the items and are probably not visible to the naked eye.

If you never asked, or were never told, how large of a sample would be taken, or where on the item it would be taken from, it is impossible to know if it would be detrimental to the item.

Just thought I'd share my thoughts. This has been really interesting to read, and I wish you good luck with your auction.

Charles

[Matthew H]

Just looking at pages 5 - 11 in Messier's report... If it's fake, that's scary.

[teetwoohsix]

I am hearing that the CdV was rejected by Leland's as being a laser copy on a period mount. After that it was deemed authentic by SGC. If all that is true, then it seems like a photographic expert needs to cast the deciding vote.

I know nothing about these CDV's to have any opinion, but I thought this ^^ was the main reason some were skeptical on the board. It was suggested to add faith for the potential bidders and to the claims of it being a laser/inkjet copy that the CDV be sent to Messier to clear this up. And, to his credit, he (Troy) went the extra mile and did as suggested.

Believe me, I am a skeptical person myself in general, but you guys still aren't satisfied with the effort and results? I'm definatley not knocking anyone for being skeptical, as I like that collectors are-but I thought the issue was with Lelands and the inkjet rejection. I'm just trying to figure out how now it's moving to processing fibers? Please educate me- thanks.

Sincerely, Clayton

[Matthew H]

Clayton, I think people are interested in the card and want to know everything they can.

[benjulmag]

I know nothing about these CDV's to have any opinion, but I thought this ^^ was the main reason some were skeptical on the board. It was suggested to add faith for the potential bidders and to the claims of it being a laser/inkjet copy that the CDV be sent to Messier to clear this up. And, to his credit, he (Troy) went the extra mile and did as suggested.

Believe me, I am a skeptical person myself in general, but you guys still aren't satisfied with the effort and results? I'm definatley not knocking anyone for being skeptical, as I like that collectors are-but I thought the issue was with Lelands and the inkjet rejection. I'm just trying to figure out how now it's moving to processing fibers? Please educate me- thanks.

Sincerely, Clayton



Clayton,

Forensic testing is a negative process, which means it does not say what something is but rather what something is not. So if the testing shows an item contains substances that were not in existence at the time the item was to have been created, then it must be a fake. But that is quite different from saying it is real. How do we know a skilled forger, knowledgeable in how items were made, could not have recreated the process in current times using materials that were commercially available in the period when the item was to have originated? In the case at hand, Mr. Messier says the photo is consistent with a 19th century albumen photo. That certainly is nice to know because had he said it is inconsistent, then case closed, the item must be a fake. But to me that says little because I never thought the image was not albumen. Any forger with half a brain would know for a fake to pass muster, it had to be an albumen photo. Why? Because, as Mr. Messier has shown, to a person with knowledge of 19th photography, determining the type of photo is not difficult. But why couldn't a forger take a genuine Williamson mount, create an albumen copy of the LOC image, and adhere it to the mount? If that was to be done then presto, you will have created a CdV in the same fashion that Willimason did in his studio. Far fetched you say? Well given the simplicity of doing it and the tremendous payoff if it passes muster, why is this possibility not plausible? This hobby has seen fakes of so many kinds. Why then not fake CdVs?

The reason for my concern is because not only has a genuine CdV of this image never before been seen (the LOC version is not techically a CdV because of the size of its mount), but of much more serious concern is that this image reflects a degradation in resolution that IMO raises the most serious questions whether it was printed from the same negative as produced the LOC image. Resolution is different from contrast. Prints generated from the same negative can and do vary widely in contrast. Think of N172s, say. A card of a particular player can come with crisp contrast or instead appear very light. But that has nothing to do with resolution, or the detail that can be seen in the image. If on a scale of 1 to 10 the LOC image is a 10 in terms of resolution, I would call the Saco River image a 5. That to me is an enormous difference, and not only have I never before seen such a difference in images generated from the same negative, I don't understand how the printing process could cause such a precipitous drop. Troy offers as an explanation that perhaps the vignette process used by the studio caused resolution degradation that reached into player images themselves. To this point all I can say is that I would want someone knowledgeable in vignette photography to corroborate that as a reasonable explaination. In the absence of such an explanation, there certainly is reasonable doubt the image is real, and the additional tests Mr. Messier describes should be undertaken.

To anticipate a question, why must these additional tests be conclusive if forensic testing is, as I have said, a negative proces? The answer is that they are not conclusive, but they would substantially reduce the chances the image is not real because the more layers of testing one does, the greater the difficulty for a forger to be so skilled as to create something that passes all known forensic testing, and too the greater the attendant expense. Is it theoretically possible, yes, but as a practical matter, in most cases unlikely.

[barrysloate]

Clayton,

Forensic testing is a negative process, which means it does not say what something is but rather what something is not. So if the testing shows an item contains substances that were not in existence at the time the item was to have been created, then it must be a fake. But that is quite different from saying it is real. How do we know a skilled forger, knowledgeable in how items were made, could not have recreated the process in current times using materials that were commercially available in the period when the item was to have originated? In the case at hand, Mr. Messier says the photo is consistent with a 19th century albumen photo. That certainly is nice to know because had he said it is inconsistent, then case closed, the item must be a fake. But to me that says little because I never thought the image was not albumen. Any forger with half a brain would know for a fake to pass muster, it had to be an albumen photo. Why? Because, as Mr. Messier has shown, to a person with knowledge of 19th photography, determining the type of photo is not difficult. But why couldn't a forger didn't take a genuine Williamson mount, create an albumen copy of the LOC image, and adhere it to the mount? If that was to be done then presto, you will have created a CdV in the same fashion that Willimason did in his studio. Far fetched you say? Well given the simplicity of doing it and the tremendous payoff if it passes muster, why is this possibility not plausible? This hobby has seen fakes of so many kinds. Why then not fake CdVs?

The reason for my concern is not only has a genuine CdV of this image never before been seen (the LOC version is not techically a CdV because of the size of its mount), but of much more serious concern is that this image reflects a degradation in resolution that IMO raises the most serious questions whether it was printed from the same negative as produced the LOC image. Resolution is different from contrast. Prints generated from the same negative can and do vary widely in contrast. Think of N172s, say. A card of a particular player can come with crisp contrast or instead appear very light. But that has nothing to do with resolution, or the detail that can be seen in the image. If on a scale of 1 to 10 the LOC image is a 10 in terms of resolution, I would call the Saco River image a 5. That to me is an enormous difference, and not only have I never before seen such a difference in images generated from the same negative, I don't understand how the printing process could cause such a preciptous drop. Troy suggests that perhaps the vignette process used by the studio caused resolution degradation that reached into player images themselves to explain this descrepancy. To this point all I can is that I would want someone knowledgeable in vignette photography to corroborate that as a reasonable explaination. In the absence of such an explanation, there certainly is reasonable doubt the image is real, and the additional tests Mr. Messier describes should be undertaken.

To anticipate a question, why must these additional tests be conclusive if a forensic testing is, as I have said, a negative proces? The answer is that they are not conclusive, but they would substantially reduce the chances the image is not real because the more layers of testing one does, the greater the diffficulty for a forger to be so skilled as to create something that passes all known forensic testing. Is it theoretically possible, yes, but as a practical matter, very unlikely.

+1

Not saying the CdV isn't good, as it may be fine. But the Messier report doesn't prove it's real either. Corey is merely trying to explain what these reports actually tell us.

[yanks12025]

Say it was fake, how would he have printed the image if he doesn't have the negative. And remember the site white Betsy, they showed some items that a forger would do every little detail.

[benjulmag]

Say it was fake, how would he have printed the image if he doesn't have the negative. And remember the site white Betsy, they showed some items that a forger would do every little detail.

The process of taking a photo of the LOC image would create a new (2nd generation) negative, and he would make a print from this negative. This process would cause a degradation in resolution, in much the same way that xeroxing a document would create a copy of lesser resolution.

[teetwoohsix]

Clayton,

Forensic testing is a negative process, which means it does not say what something is but rather what something is not. So if the testing shows an item contains substances that were not in existence at the time the item was to have been created, then it must be a fake. But that is quite different from saying it is real. How do we know a skilled forger, knowledgeable in how items were made, could not have recreated the process in current times using materials that were commercially available in the period when the item was to have originated? In the case at hand, Mr. Messier says the photo is consistent with a 19th century albumen photo. That certainly is nice to know because had he said it is inconsistent, then case closed, the item must be a fake. But to me that says little because I never thought the image was not albumen. Any forger with half a brain would know for a fake to pass muster, it had to be an albumen photo. Why? Because, as Mr. Messier has shown, to a person with knowledge of 19th photography, determining the type of photo is not difficult. But why couldn't a forger take a genuine Williamson mount, create an albumen copy of the LOC image, and adhere it to the mount? If that was to be done then presto, you will have created a CdV in the same fashion that Willimason did in his studio. Far fetched you say? Well given the simplicity of doing it and the tremendous payoff if it passes muster, why is this possibility not plausible? This hobby has seen fakes of so many kinds. Why then not fake CdVs?

The reason for my concern is because not only has a genuine CdV of this image never before been seen (the LOC version is not techically a CdV because of the size of its mount), but of much more serious concern is that this image reflects a degradation in resolution that IMO raises the most serious questions whether it was printed from the same negative as produced the LOC image. Resolution is different from contrast. Prints generated from the same negative can and do vary widely in contrast. Think of N172s, say. A card of a particular player can come with crisp contrast or instead appear very light. But that has nothing to do with resolution, or the detail that can be seen in the image. If on a scale of 1 to 10 the LOC image is a 10 in terms of resolution, I would call the Saco River image a 5. That to me is an enormous difference, and not only have I never before seen such a difference in images generated from the same negative, I don't understand how the printing process could cause such a precipitous drop. Troy offers as an explanation that perhaps the vignette process used by the studio caused resolution degradation that reached into player images themselves. To this point all I can say is that I would want someone knowledgeable in vignette photography to corroborate that as a reasonable explaination. In the absence of such an explanation, there certainly is reasonable doubt the image is real, and the additional tests Mr. Messier describes should be undertaken.

To anticipate a question, why must these additional tests be conclusive if forensic testing is, as I have said, a negative proces? The answer is that they are not conclusive, but they would substantially reduce the chances the image is not real because the more layers of testing one does, the greater the difficulty for a forger to be so skilled as to create something that passes all known forensic testing, and too the greater the attendant expense. Is it theoretically possible, yes, but as a practical matter, in most cases unlikely.

Thank you Corey, that was an excellent explanation, exactly what I was looking for. And, I also understand that when someone is considering spending the type of money something like this would go for, they would want to have zero doubts.

I appreciate you taking the time to educate me on this, I learned alot from your post, as well as the whole thread. Very interesting. You guys know your stuff !!! Thanks again for the detailed response.

Sincerely, Clayton

[Peter_Spaeth]

To my eye, the examples the expert report used as comparisons all seem to have significantly clearer images.

[ctownboy]

I am not going to be bidding on this item (because I don't have nearly enough money to buy it if it is real) so I am not posting to try and bring the price down. Nor am I posting because I have anything against the auction house.

My main concern would be how the CDV smells.

The story, as I understand it, is that someone was going through a barn or out building and found an old trunk filled with stuff. One piece of this stuff was an old photo album that was musty and moldy. Inside this album were CDV's.

Now, if the album was musty and moldy then shouldn't some (or all) of the cards inside be musty and moldy? Shouldn't some (or all) SMELL musty and moldy if not also looking musty and moldy?

My thinking is, if a photo album has mold growing on it then it must have been around a source of water. If it had been around water long enough to have mold growing on it then the contents must also have some sort of mold residue on them.

But that is just me.....

David

[Runscott]

-but I thought the issue was with Lelands and the inkjet rejection. I'm just trying to figure out how now it's moving to processing fibers? Please educate me- thanks.

Sincerely, Clayton

Clayton, good question. Mr. Messier is an expert in this field and he states that the image is an albumen. Cory explained the need for 'processing fibers', etc, but Lelands' opinion is still a mystery and I hope we will get more detail.

[bmarlowe1]

Say it was fake, how would he have printed the image if he doesn't have the negative. And remember the site white Betsy, they showed some items that a forger would do every little detail.

One can simply download the medium res scan from the LoC site and there are computer tools available to produce a negative directly from that. If one wanted very high res, a better scan can be ordered for about $75.

It's possible that a forger might want to then deliberately reduce resolution enough to obscure any small flaws or characteristics that might be attributable to the LoC item.

[sb1]

The CDV and auction just got a plug on Fox Business News

[benjulmag]

For those reading all the posts in this thread you know I have been expressing great skepticism as to the authenticity of the Saco River image due to the degradation in resolution compared to the LOC copy. That concern still exists. However, to be entirely fair I feel that should information come to my attention that would argue in favor of the item being authentic, I have a responsibility to present it.

Below is an image of the 1865 Atlantics mammoth plate (photographed from Stephen Wong's book "Smithsonian Baseball"). That photo resides in my collection and is a salt print. It first surfaced in the summer of 1991 when it was sold by the Connecticut auction house Nadeau's. The sister image that accompanied it in the sale was a mammoth plate composite of the 1873 Baltimores (consisting of CdVs of each player with a calligraphed overlay). Both photos were housed in identical period frames and both exhibited considerable aging. I have no doubt as to the authenticity of each image. When I asked the auctioneer where he got them, he responded he recently bought the entire contents of a local estate sale and those two images were part of that estate. The auctioneer claimed they were literally thrown into the deal for little or no consideration.

Why is this relevant? Examination of the background of the 1865 mammoth plate shows it to be essentially identical to the background of the Saco River image, and at variance with the background of the LOC image. So it would seem Williamson did use a vignette process to highlight the players. This match between backgrounds I regard as significant, though not dispositve because a forger could have used the mammoth plate to create his background. In addition, the fact remains that the resolution of the Saco River image is below what one would expect from an original CdV and signficantly less than that of the LOC copy made from the same negative. And I remain perplexed how that can be.

Taking all this into account in my view increases the possibility the Saco River image is genuine. I still feel further testing is warranted and that without it the leap of faith required to be comfortable it is real is more than I would be comfortable taking.

[Leon]

The CDV and auction just got a plug on Fox Business News

A writer from the Associated Press (AP) registered for our board earlier today. They will probably be doing a story on it too.

[yanks12025]

I just read a article about it and someone said it will go six figures.

[oldjudge]

LOL, does that count the numbers to the right of the decimal point?

[teetwoohsix]

Link to Fox Sports (AP) write up: http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/1865-baseball-card-auction-010913

Sincerely, Clayton

[oldjudge]

To me it's amazing how the press picks up a number that an auction house throws out and makes it seem like it is the gospel. If Troy had said a million they would be printing that too. What we have here is an old scarce photograph which, if Corey is right, could be a reproduction of the LOC original, or, if Peter Nash is right, could have come from the NYPL collection( if you get Peter's Halls of Shame email it is in today's edition). I have no idea how valid these concerns are, but that is a lot of questions for a little piece of cardboard to bear and still be advertised in the press as a six figure item. That said, for the sake of SRAs, the consignor, and to add some buzz to the hobby I hope it goes for a gazillion dollars.

[insidethewrapper]

This is really an interesting thread. I don't know much about early photography , but learning on this forum. One question: Have all these early baseball cards and photos etc been donated to the Library of Congress by individuals ? Thanks

[Runscott]

But Jay - haven't you heard? There is a conspiracy theory that skeptics are trying to reduce the value of the card by expressing their concerns about a piece of vintage cardboard, in a vintage cardboard discussion forum :eek:

I personally think that the attention that these skeptics have drawn to the card could actually INCREASE the final bid. The original estimate when it was first mentioned here, was around $50,000 I believe. The consignor recently stated that the value had increased to $100,000. Shouldn't the skeptic advertising team get a cut of the difference?

[yanks12025]

"Collectors have also commented that scans of the CDV appear to suggest that the albumen photograph may not have been original to the Williamson Studios mount. Messier’s report did not address this issue and what appears to have been a possible removal of a prior image close to the gilded Williamson identification. Messier removed the card from its SGC-graded holder for his examination and would have been able to determine if the albumen photograph was original to the mount if asked to do so. Messier declined comment on that issue stating he was not authorized by his client to speak beyond what is contained in his written report."

That section is from the haul of shame article. I don't understand why he can't comment on it more besides what's in the report. I know if I was going to be bidding 50-100k I should be able to ask him whatever I want about it after he looked at it. I bet after it sells in feb, it won't be the end up us hearing about it.

[Runscott]

Brock, the people who have the resources and willingness to bid on this are certainly going to try to find out as much as they possibly can about it. This board and the various articles are only some of the resources they have available.

Multiple photography experts are consulted by potential bidders ANY time an item like this becomes available, and discussions abound...behind the scenes. Our board is just a discussion forum and free advertising - nobody will be bidding on this without having done their research, and nothing that we have discussed here has not been discussed ten times as much in private.

If the winning bidder is present at the auction, then the show will be over. On the other hand, if he is not (which would be ridiculous, as the price of a plane ticket is minimal compared to the price of the cdv), then future episodes will hinge on his thoughts when he opens the package. I wish it were going to be me.

[oldjudge]

Brock-Paul was hired by Troy. He performed his analysis based upon what Troy requested (and paid for). If Troy had paid for additional services then they would have been performed and commented on in Paul's report. I don't know what the terms and conditions that SRAs operate under, but I would hope that a winning bidder, if he or she made arrangements in advance, would have the opportunity to return the CdV if it later proved to be a fake.

[wonkaticket]

Maybe it came from Peter Nash himself. :)

[benjulmag]

"......... I don't understand why he can't comment on it more besides what's in the report. I know if I was going to be bidding 50-100k I should be able to ask him whatever I want about it after he looked at it. I bet after it sells in feb, it won't be the end up us hearing about it.

Forensic experts such as Mr. Messier work only for the person who hired them, which in this case was Troy/the consigner. Unless and until Mr. Messier is given authorization by Troy/the consigner to discuss the card with prospective bidders, he may not do so. You do though raise a valid point -- that if Saco River Auctions is expecting a bidder to be willing to pony up a six-figure sum for the card, then that bidder should have the right to ask Mr. Messier anything he wants and Mr. Messier should be authorized to respond. The flip side to this argument is that I am certain Mr. Messier is a very busy man and that it is not practical for him to respond to a continuous stream of calls from prospective bidders over the next four weeks. Given the unusual circumstance of this situation -- a potential six-figure auction photograph with real authenticity issues, I believe Saco River Auctions should make some special arrangement. For example, there could be a designated phone-in period during which time Mr. Messier will be authorized to respond to questions from prospective bidders.

[E93]

Maybe it came from Peter Nash himself. :)

I would laugh if I wasn't crying.
JimB

[wonkaticket]

LOL, so true Jim.

I often wonder when we can expect the Hauls of Shame expose on fakes created by Peter Nash article written by Peter Nash to come out via email?

It shouldn’t be too hard for Peter to get the details for the article who would know better. :)

[e107collector]

Given the unusual circumstance of this situation -- a potential six-figure auction photograph with real authenticity issues, I believe Saco River Auctions should make some special arrangement. For example, there could be a designated phone-in period during which time Mr. Messier will be authorized to respond to questions from prospective bidders.

Corey - well said!

Tony

[Saco River Auction]

I have watched the discussions on the board lately, however I have chosen to stay out of it. I am not a collector of baseball cards and this truly is your forum. I have the utmost respect for all of you and I have learned tons from each of you regarding this hobby. There are a few things that I would like to address, and from time to time during the next 4 weeks I may chime in, but this is your forum.

I hired Mr. Messier to refute the claims and findings made by Leland's. At the time Leland's said that the cdv was a modern reproduction created with an inkjet or laser jet printer. They also viewed a dot pattern in the verso that indicated it was also made with the same technology. Mr. Messier was hired by me to determine whether their findings were accurate or not. His findings clearly show that they were not accurate. As I have stated before I did not see the need for the additional testing, as the cost and potential degradation to the card were not worth it.

Mr. Messier was hired by me and I made the decision that he is not to release any further info. This is not based on you all or any potential bidders. This decision was made due to the fact that Peter Nash was hounding him in the days leading up to Mr. Messier's examination. Nash has been hounding him since. Mr. Messier was hired to do the examination. His time is too valuable to be fielding calls from a "reporter". Likewise he does not know any of you, nor does he know who is on the other end of the phone line.

I have invited all of you to come and view the card yourself. For most of you on the east coast this is not an expensive endeavor and can be done in a day. I have a 40 power microscope that the card can be viewed with and I invite you all to bring your own expert. Other than being able to talk to Mr. CH Williamson(the photographer) and asking him if he produced this albumen, there is no way to make you all convinced of this. We are convinced that this is real, this is beautiful and this should bring a nice price on February 6th.

The last thing I would like to address is the figure that the press printed. I came to this number based on three large sports memorabilia auction houses that I called and spoke with about this card. I simply asked them the following question, "If this item was in your auction, what would be your low estimate for your catalogue" The answers from the three auction halls were averaged out this is how we came up with six figures. With a rare and unique item it is difficult to come up with estimates so I figured I would defer to auction house that deal with sports items of this caliber daily.

Again, I would invite any of you to call my cell phone with any questions 207-650-5677

Troy

[jhs5120]

I have watched the discussions on the board lately, however I have chosen to stay out of it. I am not a collector of baseball cards and this truly is your forum. I have the utmost respect for all of you and I have learned tons from each of you regarding this hobby. There are a few things that I would like to address, and from time to time during the next 4 weeks I may chime in, but this is your forum.

I hired Mr. Messier to refute the claims and findings made by Leland's. At the time Leland's said that the cdv was a modern reproduction created with an inkjet or laser jet printer. They also viewed a dot pattern in the verso that indicated it was also made with the same technology. Mr. Messier was hired by me to determine whether their findings were accurate or not. His findings clearly show that they were not accurate. As I have stated before I did not see the need for the additional testing, as the cost and potential degradation to the card were not worth it.

Mr. Messier was hired by me and I made the decision that he is not to release any further info. This is not based on you all or any potential bidders. This decision was made due to the fact that Peter Nash was hounding him in the days leading up to Mr. Messier's examination. Nash has been hounding him since. Mr. Messier was hired to do the examination. His time is too valuable to be fielding calls from a "reporter". Likewise he does not know any of you, nor does he know who is on the other end of the phone line.

I have invited all of you to come and view the card yourself. For most of you on the east coast this is not an expensive endeavor and can be done in a day. I have a 40 power microscope that the card can be viewed with and I invite you all to bring your own expert. Other than being able to talk to Mr. CH Williamson(the photographer) and asking him if he produced this albumen, there is no way to make you all convinced of this. We are convinced that this is real, this is beautiful and this should bring a nice price on February 6th.

The last thing I would like to address is the figure that the press printed. I came to this number based on three large sports memorabilia auction houses that I called and spoke with about this card. I simply asked them the following question, "If this item was in your auction, what would be your low estimate for your catalogue" The answers from the three auction halls were averaged out this is how we came up with six figures. With a rare and unique item it is difficult to come up with estimates so I figured I would defer to auction house that deal with sports items of this caliber daily.

Again, I would invite any of you to call my cell phone with any questions 207-650-5677

Troy

Well said Troy.

I am no expert in this field, so I won't pretend to be. I am just wondering, Lelands rejected it because they thought it was an inkjet copy - that is where the skeptism is coming from. Troy did everything within reason to disprove that. Yes, there is always some obscure, outside chance that this card (or any for that matter) is a counterfeit, but hasn't he done enough? I trust SGC over Lelands and I certainly trust the expertise of SGC and Messier over any auction house. Enough is enough. I think it's time to put the pitchforks down and enjoy the auction.

[yanks12025]

I just have one more question and it's for in general. Say any high priced item is sold and then in acouple months determined it was stolen years ago. So I'd guess the FBI or whoever would take the item back and return to where it was stolen from. So would the buyer get their money back? Then say the seller who didn't know it was stolen spent the money? So what would happen.

[GaryPassamonte]

Troy,
Given the potential value of this card, the additional cost of testing the paper would not seem prohibitive. This testing would allay doubts about the age of the CdV. The pool of prospective serious bidders for this CdV is small. Excluding any from this group could have a detrimental effect on the final price. If I were the seller, I would not hesitate to bear the expense of reducing existing doubts about the CdV with further testing. Although I agree that you have gone above and beyond what would be normally considered sufficient authentication for this type of item, doubts are in the minds of many in your serious bidding pool for various reasons. Why not remove these doubts?

[bmarlowe1]

Yes, there is always some obscure, outside chance that this card (or any for that matter) is a counterfeit.....

Compare that to the improbability of the find as described.

[Leon]

Compare that to the improbability of the find as described.

Mark- I am not sure he understands how GREAT some of the fraudsters are at their trade. Several in this thread do.

As for the photo, I am not an expert but hope the pitchforks stay out, only in the name of safety. The CDV very well could be perfect with a clean pedigree, I will let others argue that.

[Saco River Auction]

I just have one more question and it's for in general. Say any high priced item is sold and then in acouple months determined it was stolen years ago. So I'd guess the FBI or whoever would take the item back and return to where it was stolen from. So would the buyer get their money back? Then say the seller who didn't know it was stolen spent the money? So what would happen.

Hi, this is whats crazy about this whole thing. Are we talking about this being a fake or are we now talking about this thing being stolen? As far as I am concerned the only person claiming this is stolen has zero credibilty and is in fact linked to fraud, deception and forgery himself.....and you all know who I am referring to. When you google a persons name and everything you find is negative, but that same individual spends his time crusading for a hobby that he himself has helped to taint, I give zero credibility to anything he says. We at SRA have never had anything stolen in our hands to the best of our knowledge. We keep meticulous records on every item we buy or take on consignment and we are regularly inspected by Local Law Enforcement and the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms(we have an FFL). We are also under the jurisdiction and regulations of the Maine Auctioneers Board and we have an unblemished record. I am not sure what the ramifications would be if an item was sold at auction and later determined to be stolen. That may be a better question for law enforcement.
One thing I will tell you all and then I am going to stop posting on this site is, this card is not stolen and this card is not a fake. From here you all will have to determine the fate and legacy of this card. We have done out job authenticating it and promoting it. The question now is do you want to own a rare piece of baseball history, or do you not?

Troy

[yanks12025]

Hi, this is whats crazy about this whole thing. Are we talking about this being a fake or are we now talking about this thing being stolen? As far as I am concerned the only person claiming this is stolen has zero credibilty and is in fact linked to fraud, deception and forgery himself.....and you all know who I am referring to. When you google a persons name and everything you find is negative, but that same individual spends his time crusading for a hobby that he himself has helped to taint, I give zero credibility to anything he says. We at SRA have never had anything stolen in our hands to the best of our knowledge. We keep meticulous records on every item we buy or take on consignment and we are regularly inspected by Local Law Enforcement and the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms(we have an FFL). We are also under the jurisdiction and regulations of the Maine Auctioneers Board and we have an unblemished record. I am not sure what the ramifications would be if an item was sold at auction and later determined to be stolen. That may be a better question for law enforcement.
One thing I will tell you all and then I am going to stop posting on this site is, this card is not stolen and this card is not a fake. From here you all will have to determine the fate and legacy of this card. We have done out job authenticating it and promoting it. The question now is do you want to own a rare piece of baseball history, or do you not?

Troy

Well like I said in my post, it was in general referring to any high priced piece of memorable sold in any auction.

[Matthew H]

Does anyone here have a scan of some high quality 19th century albumen forgeries? I've been blissfully ignorant about this stuff and have always assumed stuff that looked real was real.

I guess if this CDV could be fake there could be plenty of fake OJs out there. At the very least, I doubt this CDV was a first attempt, if it is indeed fake.

[oldjudge]

Troy--will is auction have a reserve?

[Saco River Auction]

Troy--will is auction have a reserve?

Jay This is a no reserve absolute auction.

[teetwoohsix]

I commend you Troy, for coming on the board and trying to do what you thought was right to put everyone's fears to rest. I know you must be a bit frustrated at this point, as you did have SGC give it their stamp of approval, and then sent it to Messier to clear up the laser/inkjet speculation. I am no one to give any opinion on the item, as I only know what I've learned in this thread, but I myself was under the impression that the remainding issue was with the laser/inkjet thing, and that you did your best to clear this up by sending it to Messier for his opinion, upon the advice of board members.

Please understand that (in my opinion) no one is questioning your ethics, and any speculation about the item is normal amongst collectors. I am the same way about the type of cards I collect. The collectors who collect these types of items spend large amounts of money on them, and just want to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt. Please don't take any of it personal.

I hope interested parties take you up on your offer to come down and check it out for themselves. This may quell their speculation, and give them the confidence to bid on what appears to be a beautiful CDV. Good luck in your auction !!

Sincerely, Clayton

[wonkaticket]

Troy--will is auction have a reserve?

Surely your 100k bid will cover the reserve Jay. :)

[Runscott]

Other than being able to talk to Mr. CH Williamson(the photographer) and asking him if he produced this albumen, there is no way to make you all convinced of this.

Troy

Yes, there is. We've mentioned it on this board, and Mr. Messier mentioned it at the end of his report. The fact that your consignor doesn't want to incur the additional tests, doesn't invalidate their usefulness.

[terjung]

Yes, there is. We've mentioned it on this board, and Mr. Messier mentioned it at the end of his report. The fact that your consignor doesn't want to incur the additional tests, doesn't invalidate their usefulness.

Asking for the consignor or auction house to perform destructive investigation as part of the forensic process seems a bit much, IMO.

I do forensic investigations myself (not of anything related to this field), but it is very common to say that an investigation is limited to non-destructive means or to state that additional information could be gleaned from a destructive investigation. Analysis of the paper fibers and binder sounds like a destructive process to me.

It's simply not worth it IMO to tear apart something that is potentially so valuable only to say, well, how about that... it was still consistent with 19th c. paper and binder. Once again, that still would not be a conclusive "yes, it's authentic", but rather ruling out yet another possible avenue to prove the negative, as Corey pointed out.

Personally, I'm impressed with the efforts that were undertaken.

[wonkaticket]

Agree with Brian, I think much has been done above and beyond many other auction houses. If I was the auction house I would say bid accordingly or pass at this point.

[Runscott]

........

[autograf]

Seems like the definition of due diligence on Troys part. Best of luck on the auction. I've not been in Jays house but I bet he could make space on the mantel for that photo?.....

[Runscott]

...........

[Joe_G.]

I've resisted posting thus far, but will merely add that print quality (resolution) can be impacted by several factors including whether the negative is accidently nudged while creating the print or even the weather & time of day. If you take a dozen 1889 Charlie Bennett Old Judge cards, some will be more clear than others. Actually, many of them will have a pink tint which in itself tends to result in a lower quality image, but if you compare those that don't have a tint, you might find one that has a double image from the negative being bumped while creating the print. You might also find several that were created on overcast days or late in the afternoon that will not be as crisp as those that were created on a clear day at high noon (shorter exposure time, sun traverses negligible distance start to finish).

[cyseymour]

nm

[h2oya311]

the card has now been "outed" on Yahoo front page:

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/brooklyn-atlantics-1865-baseball-card-auction-could-ferch-164754590--mlb.html

[aabram23]

I hope you kill it at the auction with this piece. I think it's great for the hobby and baseball when finds like this arise. Look at the national attention this brings to our hobby. People need to realize this brings more people to the hobby when stuff like this happens which creates more potential buyers and leads to higher prices of our valuables. Like anything there are haters everywhere. This board is extremely helpful in so many areas with the deep knowledge and passion people have but there are a lot of jealous individuals and low ballers that also swarm. I first realized this with my first sell to test the waters with my Carolina brights lot. People offering me 100 a card. Come on. Lets be happy for people when they find this stuff and the good fortune that it brings. If its fake ill be in line to eat my helping of crow pie.

[Runscott]

Like anything there are haters everywhere.

I was wondering when someone would pull out this nonsense cliche.

Troy - did you sent the 1889 Boston Bean Eaters cabinet card to Lelands or SGC? (I'm referring to the forgery that I called about while it was still up for auction - the day before the January 1 auction).

Oh, wait...does calling an auction house to tell them they are auctioning a $10,000+ forgery....being a "hater"? :eek: Quite honestly, I sincerely wish I had never said a word about the Bean Eaters cabinet, and one of you had won it. Sometimes the best lessons cost a few bucks, and some of you really need to be educated.

[Leon]

I was wondering when someone would pull out this nonsense cliche.

Troy - did you sent the 1889 Boston Bean Eaters cabinet card to Lelands or SGC? (I'm referring to the forgery that I called about while it was still up for auction - the day before the January 1 auction).

Oh, wait...does calling an auction house to tell them they are auctioning a $10,000+ forgery....being a "hater"? :eek: Quite honestly, I sincerely wish I had never said a word about the Bean Eaters cabinet, and one of you had won it. Sometimes the best lessons cost a few bucks, and some of you really need to be educated.

Because we question something we are haters!!! How dare you Scott. :mad:

If anything I am sure this thread has helped the photo in question. And if the auctioneer really understand how adding a few high end bidders to the mix could add value, with lessening any leap of faith to the equation, he would have done so. But then again, we are haters. And would you please just forget about the fake that got pulled and the comment about just putting the photo back in the SGC holder? I cement holders back together all the time, don't you, you hater? Enough is enough with all of the questions.....just sell it.

[Matthew H]

Troys taken a few punches already... Is anyone ready to slam SGC for slabbing this without really knowing whether or not it was really authentic?

[Runscott]

And would you please just forget about the fake that got pulled and the comment about just putting the photo back in the SGC holder? I cement holders back together all the time, don't you, you hater? Enough is enough with all of the questions.....just sell it.

I'm wondering where all the non-'haters' were while we were discussing the Brooklyn cdv on this board WHILE the 1889 Boston cabinet was still up for auction on Saco's website? They are knowledgeable enough to insult the skeptics, but not diligent enough to check out Saco's other auctions. Hell, even Peter Nash checked them out!!! (you know, the guy you hate, but who actually does his research).

You would think that those of us who gave a damn enough to research this thoroughly and actually spot the Bean Eaters forgery, would get a little bit of respect, possibly even gratitude? Nah. We are haters. But I can tell you this much - without the skeptics the forgers would have a field day, and YOU will be their customers, not me.

[Leon]

Troys taken a few punches already... Is anyone ready to slam SGC for slabbing this without really knowing whether or not it was really authentic?

SGC gave their opinion. They think it's real. I think it's real. I just am not at 100% on it. The photo will do great in auction. Isn't that all that matters?

[wonkaticket]

Scott, no offense I have no issue with anyone questioning in this thread. But the Pete Nash does his research give me a break!

Maybe he does so much research to help make those fakes he sold?

I don’t like Peter Nash because….gee I don’t know he is uhhh….a forger responsible for countless fakes in peoples collections some well over 100k. Not to mention at least two fake photos BTW. I’ve said it time and time again….his site exists to draw attention away from the bad crap he has done and is most likely still doing. The fact that this guy is even listened too makes me throw up in my mouth a bit. I also love the recent drag a dead Barry Halper thru the mud classy guy.

Not hearsay public record look it up while you are speaking if his wonderful research.

Having Pete Nash shed light on crime is like have Jerry Sandusky going door to door letting folks know there are pedophiles in town.

John

[Runscott]

Troys taken a few punches already... Is anyone ready to slam SGC for slabbing this without really knowing whether or not it was really authentic?

Personally, I think SGC should stick to slabbing cards. I visited SGC's site and was unable to find their standards for slabbing photographs such as this cdv. It's probable that their photo-slabbing comes with a disclaimer as to what sort of tests they are willing to do. So you get what you buy. For example, if SGC performs all the tests that Mr. Messier performed, but does not perform the additional ones that he mentioned in his report, then you end up with the same level of authentication with each. You can't blame Mr. Messier for stopping where Troy asked him to, any more than you can blame SGC for performing a level of authentication that they contractually promise and that you agree to.

[Runscott]

Scott, no offense I have no issue with anyone questioning in this thread. But the Pete Nash does his research give me a break!
John

Haha. I was just saying that he dug a bit deeper than the non-skeptics here on Net54....who didn't actually dig at all.

[Runscott]

SGC gave their opinion. They think it's real. I think it's real. I just am not at 100% on it. The photo will do great in auction. Isn't that all that matters?

+1 to all of the above.

I actually would have stopped responding on this thread a while back, but a few of the comments kind of drug me back in against my will. But that's what these discussions are for - you see something that interests you and you comment. This is very interesting stuff. Hopefully everyone's learned a bit more about albumens, but not enough to outbid me on the far cheaper ones that I collect.

[bmarlowe1]

Maybe he does so much research to help make those fakes he sold? John

I think it is the relatively recent exposure of a number of very high dollar elaborate forgeries exposed by materials testing that has lead to the healthy skepticism that appears on this thread.

[Saco River Auction]

As I said yesterday I am going to try to stay out of the discussions on this forum from now on. Unfortunately I do not like being called out by Scott and Others. You can say what you want about this card and take your shots at the process or whatever. But do not take shots at the credibility of me or this auction hall. We have a unblemished reputation and I will not remain silent when I see Scott trying to smear our reputation over the bean eaters photo. For the record we are not experts on every item that walks through the door. Alot of the provenance and history of items come directly from the consignor. At times and on items that are not big hit items we rely on the statements of the consignor to formulate our descriptions for individual items. The bean eaters photo was explained to me that it was "a print taken off the original negative". We listed it as such, and withing days of the auction realized(based on the interest) that something was wrong. It was worded in a way in our description that lead people to believe that it was an original photo. We looked at it under high power magnification and determined that this was a very modern re-production of the original photo. We decided to pull the item from the sale and cancel all bids as we do not want our customers buying an item that we do not believe in. Pardon us Scott for making a mistake and correcting it before anyone was affected financially. I guess that gives us a bad reputation. Also Scott you are becoming very paranoid as everything to you is a forgery. I am shocked to learn that you feel that because a 19th century photo was re-produced for a decorative piece, there must be bad intentions behind it.

Lastly I have an appointment and have for days with SGC to re-holder the card. Scott at SGC has agreed to do it and it will be done long before the sale. We haven't been able to send it out yet because the press has been here at our hall looking to view the card and shoot their stories. He is going to verify that the card is the same one he authenticated in the first place and re-holder it for safety.

I feel that you all would love for me to stop posting on this site, and I would rather not post on here until after the sale, but I refuse to listen to a giant smear campaign of my reputation and the auction halls reputation without responding accordingly.

Troy

[novakjr]

As I said yesterday I am going to try to stay out of the discussions on this forum from now on. Unfortunately I do not like being called out by Scott and Others. You can say what you want about this card and take your shots at the process or whatever. But do not take shots at the credibility of me or this auction hall. We have a unblemished reputation and I will not remain silent when I see Scott trying to smear our reputation over the bean eaters photo. For the record we are not experts on every item that walks through the door. Alot of the provenance and history of items come directly from the consignor. At times and on items that are not big hit items we rely on the statements of the consignor to formulate our descriptions for individual items. The bean eaters photo was explained to me that it was "a print taken off the original negative". We listed it as such, and withing days of the auction realized(based on the interest) that something was wrong. It was worded in a way in our description that lead people to believe that it was an original photo. We looked at it under high power magnification and determined that this was a very modern re-production of the original photo. We decided to pull the item from the sale and cancel all bids as we do not want our customers buying an item that we do not believe in. Pardon us Scott for making a mistake and correcting it before anyone was affected financially. I guess that gives us a bad reputation. Also Scott you are becoming very paranoid as everything to you is a forgery. I am shocked to learn that you feel that because a 19th century photo was re-produced for a decorative piece, there must be bad intentions behind it.

Lastly I have an appointment and have for days with SGC to re-holder the card. Scott at SGC has agreed to do it and it will be done long before the sale. We haven't been able to send it out yet because the press has been here at our hall looking to view the card and shoot their stories. He is going to verify that the card is the same one he authenticated in the first place and re-holder it for safety.

I feel that you all would love for me to stop posting on this site, and I would rather not post on here until after the sale, but I refuse to listen to a giant smear campaign of my reputation and the auction halls reputation without responding accordingly.

Troy

Troy, if interested parties may be coming in to see the photo, it might be in everyone's best interest to not re-holder it yet, so that they can get the best possible view of the raw item. Seeing documentation is great and all, but getting a clear in-person view may be required by some potential buyers as well. The holder can somewhat obstruct that.. I think leaving it raw for now, could help re-assure someone of their potential purchase, and could help lead to higher bids. Re-holdering can always be arranged at a later date, before final delivery of the item, if the buyer chooses..

No conspiracy theory, or anything. Just an honest opinion..

[Saco River Auction]

That's great advice and I thank you, however there are people on here that do not allow for a common sense approach and feel that every move we make is a way of decieving potential buyers of this card. To leave it out of the holder or in its current re-glued state is going to force a select number of people to continue to speculate that we are doing something ridiculous like a bait and switch or forgery. I would feel better if I could put that particular fire out long before the auction occurs.

Troy

[Runscott]

As I said yesterday I am going to try to stay out of the discussions on this forum from now on. Unfortunately I do not like being called out by Scott and Others. You can say what you want about this card and take your shots at the process or whatever. But do not take shots at the credibility of me or this auction hall.

You are creating a straw man. We asked valid questions and presented facts.

We have a unblemished reputation and I will not remain silent when I see Scott trying to smear our reputation over the bean eaters photo. For the record we are not experts on every item that walks through the door. Alot of the provenance and history of items come directly from the consignor. At times and on items that are not big hit items we rely on the statements of the consignor to formulate our descriptions for individual items. The bean eaters photo was explained to me that it was "a print taken off the original negative". We listed it as such, and withing days of the auction realized(based on the interest) that something was wrong. It was worded in a way in our description that lead people to believe that it was an original photo. We looked at it under high power magnification and determined that this was a very modern re-production of the original photo.

Any smearing of your reputation is being done by you, not me. If you are going to sell multi-thousand dollar cabinet photos, you better not rely on your consignors to write your descriptions. And you might want to determine the authenticity of items a bit sooner than the day before the auction.

When I called and told you that it was a forgery, I also responded to you that it was not taken from an original negative, and I explained to you how I knew this: an original negative would have to exist, which was highly unlikely, plus I matched your scan up with a scan on the internet and found a piece of residue on the 'real' photo, meaning that yours was copied from that image (not from a negative). This all occurred on December 31 - the day before the auction.

High-power magnification was not needed - I have bad eyes and was able to do it simply by looking at my computer screen. This should have been done before the item ever was put up for auction by you.



We decided to pull the item from the sale and cancel all bids as we do not want our customers buying an item that we do not believe in. Pardon us Scott for making a mistake and correcting it before anyone was affected financially. I guess that gives us a bad reputation. Also Scott you are becoming very paranoid as everything to you is a forgery. I am shocked to learn that you feel that because a 19th century photo was re-produced for a decorative piece, there must be bad intentions behind it.


You are pardoned for making this mistake. No, not all are forgeries, but the Bean Eaters cabinet is. Now you are back-peddling and calling it a "decorative piece" and telling us that you knew this all along? What kind of auction house would auction off real 19th century mounted photos, alongside a fake that they knew was a fake? Answer: No one. And either did you.


Lastly I have an appointment and have for days with SGC to re-holder the card. Scott at SGC has agreed to do it and it will be done long before the sale. We haven't been able to send it out yet because the press has been here at our hall looking to view the card and shoot their stories. He is going to verify that the card is the same one he authenticated in the first place and re-holder it for safety.

I feel that you all would love for me to stop posting on this site, and I would rather not post on here until after the sale, but I refuse to listen to a giant smear campaign of my reputation and the auction halls reputation without responding accordingly.

Troy

There is no "giant smear campaign" of your reputation, and playing the victim is a waste of everyone's time.

I will say this - my opinion of you has definitely changed. You were happy discussing these pieces with me until I started asking questions. This is a hobby where questions get asked, especially when we are talking about very expensive and rare pieces. If that bothers you, then you should stick to that other stuff you normally auction.

[Runscott]

That's great advice and I thank you, however there are people on here that do not allow for a common sense approach and feel that every move we make is a way of decieving potential buyers of this card. To leave it out of the holder or in its current re-glued state is going to force a select number of people to continue to speculate that we are doing something ridiculous like a bait and switch or forgery. I would feel better if I could put that particular fire out long before the auction occurs.

Troy

Troy, this is a ridiculous assertion. One thing we ALL have stated is that we are CERTAIN that you are NOT trying to deceive anyone.

There is absolutely no doubt here that you are honest. I can also assure you that no one thinks that your re-gluing the SGC holder would be akin to a 'bait and switch' - it would simply be indicative of ignorance regarding our hobby and slabbing.

Edited to add: Regarding the Bean Eaters cabinet, I felt that it was simply a case of your putting up something for auction that you did not know was a forgery. Yes, your practices are questioned, but not your honesty. There is a huge difference.

[Saco River Auction]

Scott your are completely delusional and I have no way (or need) to respond to you further. You love to stir up hornets nests and love the controversy. I am not going to get into a battle with you because your have no relevance in this matter. You are not going to be a bidder on this and would love to see this whole thing turn into a bad deal for the auction house and the consignor. In one breath you call me both honest and dishonest. Which is it scott? I have spoken with you numerous times on the phone and you seem like a decent guy, however I am not sure which one of your personalities I was speaking to at the time. This is counter productive as most of the negative comments have been in this forum.

To all prospective bidders who have an interest in this card, talk to me personally. I have supplied my personal cell phone number for you all and I encourage you to take advantage of it. I do not want unsure bidders. I want bidders who know that this is amazing opportunity to buy a piece of history. I feel that through dealing directly with me and ignoring these ridiculous comments, I can get your questions answered and your confidence level where it needs to be to purchase an item such as this.

Troy

[Runscott]

Scott your are completely delusional and I have no way (or need) to respond to you further. You love to stir up hornets nests and love the controversy. I am not going to get into a battle with you because your have no relevance in this matter. You are not going to be a bidder on this and would love to see this whole thing turn into a bad deal for the auction house and the consignor. In one breath you call me both honest and dishonest. Which is it scott? I have spoken with you numerous times on the phone and you seem like a decent guy, however I am not sure which one of your personalities I was speaking to at the time. This is counter productive as most of the negative comments have been in this forum.

Troy

"...and would love to see this whole thing turn into a bad deal for the auction house and the consignor." Where do you come up with this stuff?

You need to hope that your present consignors (and prospective future ones) aren't reading your comments here. The best thing that could happen for you is that you sprain your index finger.

[oldjudge]

Troy--if someone purchases the CdV and goes through the additional testing and the result is that it is not period, does that person have the right to get a full refund?

Thanks---Jay

[Bugsy]

I appreciate an auction house willing to come on here and thoroughly discuss an item they will be listing. I wish more would be willing to do so, although the way this thread has gone recently, I can't blame them for not wanting to.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I don't read Scott's posts as accusing anyone of dishonesty. I read him as simply making the point that the expert identified additional tests that could be done to provide a more definitive opinion on authenticity, that those tests have not been done and will not be done before the auction, and that therefore some question by definition remains.

[bmarlowe1]

I agree with Peter. After spending a considerable amount of time responding to what Scott did not say, hopefully Troy will spend just a bit of time responding to what Jay (oldjudge) did say.

[Matthew H]

I agree with Peter. After spending a considerable amount of time responding to what Scott did not say, hopefully Troy will spend just a bit of time responding to what Jay (oldjudge) did say.

+1. Jay's question needs a response.

[benjulmag]

There is nothing inappropriate about prospective bidders in a respectful manner asking an auction house penetrating questions about an item for which it is soliciting six-figure bids, especially when legitimate red flags have been raised and especially in a hobby riddled with high price forgeries. Saco River Auctions to its credit took the item to Paul Messier for examination. Clearly what the hobby was waiting to hear from Mr. Messier was his opinion whether the item was real, not some meaningless statement that the item is consistent with 19th century albumen photos. I can tomorrow create a CdV of the 1865 Atlantics, present it to Mr. Messier, and get an identical statement from him. Mr. Messier all but invites that additional testing be done. The consigner declines, not wanting to risk damage to the CdV. Fine, that is his decision to make, though if he is that certain the item is real, given the thinness of the market at that price level and the significant impact the addition of just one well-heeled bidder can make to the realized price, I'm not certain he is making the correct decision. I can also understand the auction house's reluctance to allow prospective bidders to inundate Mr. Messier with calls, though I still don't see why a one-time call-in period moderated by Troy, when he can filter calls from people he does not feel are legitimate bidders, is not a workable idea. So then I respectfully ask the following of Saco River Auctions. Could you please ask Mr. Messier to answer the following question, and relay his answer to the Board: "In your opinion was the Atlantics CdV printed in the 19th century?" When answering he is to choose one of the following answers: A. EXTREMELY LIKELY, B. LIKELY, C. POSSIBLY, D. UNLIKELY, E. EXTREMELY UNLIKELY.

I have little doubt Mr. Messier, having had the item in hand, has an opinion as to whether it is real and I believe prospective bidders have a right to know what that opinion is. On a personal level I would love it if he opined it is real, but I need to hear that from him.

[benjulmag]

Troy--if someone purchases the CdV and goes through the additional testing and the result is that it is not period, does that person have the right to get a full refund?

Thanks---Jay

The question I would ask is if the auction house would, at the instruction of the winning bidder, send the CdV to Mr. Messier for the additional testing before payment is tendered? I think it would be a smart business decision to make, as it might induce people to bid who otherwise would be reluctant due to concerns about the authenticity of the item and the risk that the refund might not be readily forthcoming.

[Saco River Auction]

Hello guys I was a little delayed on this because I was away from the pc for a while. First to jay. I will be calling you with follow up info regarding the official policy on this card. For all of you i am going to post sra's policy on this sale as well as any guarantees that my experts are willing to make. We will be crafting a joint policy on this matter which will clearly define the terms of the sale prior to the bidding beginning on this item.
To Corey. I will be contacting mr. Messier on Monday and I will pose that question to him and get you all an appropriate answer. I will also try to formulate a plan for bidders who are signed up for this sale to be authorized to speak with him if he is willing and has the time.
Troy

[benjulmag]

Thank you Troy. I very much appreciate your responsiveness to my post.

[oldjudge]

Thanks Troy. Mine was a simple question and I would hope that when you post you cold post a simple answer to it. There is no need to call.

[cyseymour]

nm

[goudeygold]

Do we really think REA/Legendary/etc... would do a destructive analysis if they were selling it? Would they be making dozens of posts jumping through hoops for anyone asking to do so on a public message board? Of course not.

I think I'd be saying if you aren't comfortable, please don't bid at this point if I was the AH.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The AH's responsibility is to get the highest bid for its consignor. If it sees there are significant questions from potential bidders in what is likely a very thinly traded market, it certainly should address them, as Saco River appears to be doing.

[yanks12025]

Do we really think REA/Legendary/etc... would do a destructive analysis if they were selling it? Would they be making dozens of posts jumping through hoops for anyone asking to do so on a public message board? Of course not.

I think I'd be saying if you aren't comfortable, please don't bid at this point if I was the AH.

You guys act like they have to cut the card in two to do tests on it. It's already beat up around the edges, so I'm sure a fiber can be taken without hurting it.

[GaryPassamonte]

Troy-Answering Jay with a simple yes or no on this thread would go a long way to resolving this. If you are certain the CdV is genuine, the answer is easy.

[Saco River Auction]

It is not easy as yes or no. I am not the owner of the company I simply run the show. This is not my decision to make and I need to get the final word from the ownership. When I am able to meet with the ownership after the weekend I will get you all the answer to jays question.
Troy

[GaryPassamonte]

Fair enough, Troy. I hope you're getting paid overtime on this project.

[Donscards]

Troy you get one of the finest pieces the hobby has seen in years and yet you are going through all of this----You are a good man and I do feel for you. I think you are doing a wonderful job with this CDV. Needless to say, there will be intense bidding on this card and everyone will do well. I will see you at the auction. Good Luck, Don

[Runscott]

One additional item regarding the mount.

I believe the mount is real, but this fact is useless when it comes to authentication. Williamson was a prolific photographer and a prolific creator of cdv's, so procuring a genuine Williamson mount is simple. Procuring a genuine Williamson mount with a photo the same size as the one on the Brooklyn cdv would be a bit more difficult, as this is not the normal image size that Williamson put on his cdv's. The normal size image would be the one that used to be on this mount, as evidenced by the residue that shows both above and below the image (especially below), from the placement of a previous photo. As prolific of a photographer as Williamson was, why wouldn't he simply use a new mount? I'm sure he had plenty of them.

You can google 'williamson brooklyn' images, and you will ONLY find cdv images of the larger size. Williamson had access to the original negative and could have shown more of the baseball players and still used his vignette process, AND produced his normal image-size. But he didn't. Curious. I'll create an example and post it here later.

Yet another reason to test the binder - a bit from just above 'Williamson', and a bit from a corner of the image. Simple process, and removes more doubt.

[oldjudge]

Scott-I agree 100%. That residue, which seems to imply that a larger photos was once attached to this mount, has bothered me since the beginning.

Don--it's only a great piece if it is period.

Troy--thanks! Without that type of guarantee I think you will lose a lot of bidders.

[Runscott]

Scott-I agree 100%. That residue, which seems to imply that a larger photos was once attached to this mount, has bothered me since the beginning.

Don--it's only a great piece if it is period.

Troy--thanks! Without that type of guarantee I think you will lose a lot of bidders.

This is kind of ugly, but you get the picture - imagine the 'vignette' spreading all the way to the new (normal) edge that I've added to the albumen part. (By the way - I used the loc image and had to reduce contrast significantly in order to approximate what's on the Brooklyn cdv)

[oldjudge]

Just thought of one other thing to look at. Since albumen prints are made from laying the photographic paper on the glassplate negative, all first generation albumen photos from the same glass plate negative have to have player images that are exactly the same size. If the SRA CdV is second generation then there is a possibility that the player images are of a slightly different size than the one in the LOC. If they are I would think that this would be a huge red flag.

[Runscott]

Just thought of one other thing to look at. Since albumen prints are made from laying the photographic paper on the glassplate negative, all first generation albumen photos from the same glass plate negative have to have player images that are exactly the same size. If the SRA CdV is second generation then there is a possibility that the player images are of a slightly different size than the one in the LOC. If they are I would think that this would be a huge red flag.

Based on the size of 'Brooklyn' and 'Williamson' on the two mounts, the player image sizes appear to be an exact match.

Everyone needs to keep in mind that those of us who think more tests are warranted, are NOT saying that this is a forgery - we are simply stating that the rarity and value of this piece, along with a couple of 'light red' flags (re-use of mount, blurry image) warrant additional tests. "Why?' you ask, would someone who isn't planning on bidding, be concerned? The answer is simple: I am an avid albumen collector. And if members of our hobby feel that a $50,000+ rare (only 1 in existence) does not warrant the tests that Mr. Messier mentions in his report, then what cdv does?

The above is a conclusion that prospective (and existing) forgers will come to as well. This means that, even if this cdv is legitimate, we are exposing our hobby by not doing additional tests. It's important enough that I personally would be willing to contribute $500 toward the testing that Mr. Messier mentions, if it's done prior to the auction.

If it proves to be what Troy says it is, then I'll be elated.

[oldjudge]

LOL, Don the consignor couldn't have said it better himself. Just interested, even if it is period, why do you think it is the best card to hit the hobby in years? You can probably count the people on one hand who collect this type of stuff. Rarity doesn't make a great card; it is rarity and demand.

[Donscards]

Jay you answered my earlier message---it is rarity and demand---The Brooklyn piece is the 2nd to be found---it is rare and one of the first cards made. I would say there will be a few bidders from this forum alone that will want this card. By the time the auction comes around and everyone is satisfied as to this being authentic---it will go for big money---I also believe some of the big boys will step in with their (big pockets)---I feel the CDV will go for big money and if the buyer wants to resell in a year or so, he then can make a tidy profit. It will be a interesting auction to watch. Don

[barrysloate]

No way this is a 100K card, even under the best of circumstances. Before this CdV became big news, how many people had even heard of the Brooklyn Atlantics?

[GaryPassamonte]

I believe the highest price ever paid for a Baseball CdV was in $40-50K range and the team was the circa 1864 Brooklyn Resolutes. Henry Chadwick is in the image to boot. The image is much sharper than the Atlantics CdV. I believe there are only two copies of this CdV, also. This price was attained in 2007 and I don't believe the baseball CdV market has changed that much in the past 5 or 6 years.

[ScottFandango]

You are some confident poster, not many would stand up and post what they feel for fear of backlash. I salute you sir . A true protector of the hobby

[ScottFandango]

It is not easy as yes or no. I am not the owner of the company I simply run the show. This is not my decision to make and I need to get the final word from the ownership. When I am able to meet with the ownership after the weekend I will get you all the answer to jays question.
Troy

I think it boils down to this ......if they are so certain its real then the answer should be a resounding YES we Will refund price if it's found to be fake...

And answer of NO REFUNDS may keep the big bidders away.

[oldjudge]

Barry is exactly right. This reminds me of the way that Memory Lane hyped the Cincinnati Peck & Snyder that was found several years ago by some elderly woman. Some rube actually stepped up and paid a big price for it but I'm sure that bidder sorely regrets that move today.
Also, we are far from being under the best of circumstances. The glue residue to the right of the photo still makes it look to me like the photo is not original to the mount. Is it a later made albumen image? Is it a period photo from another source that was attached to this mount at a later point? I don't know these answers and my guess is that Troy doesn't know either. That is why the lot needs a guarantee that if any part of it is not period it can be returned for a full refund. Otherwise, a bidder might as well go to a casino and put his money on red. At least at the casino you get free drinks.

[oldjudge]

One other question, if this is an 1865 CdV why is there no revenue stamp on the back of the mount? To finance the Civil War, between August, 1864 and August, 1866 photographs were taxed, requiring a revenue stamp to be attached and cancelled on the back of the photograph.

[yanks12025]

Could you find a Williamson mount and glue a photo to it?

[oldjudge]

Williamson was a very popular photographer at the time. The answer is yes.

[Runscott]

Could you find a Williamson mount and glue a photo to it?

That was addressed in post #213, and possibly earlier posts.

[teetwoohsix]

I was thinking about testing fibers- and I'm not a forensic examiner or anything- but I think this can be done without damaging the piece. I don't know what it costs, but when I look at my cards under a loupe, the corners have little strands that you can't really see to well with the naked eye. In fact, some of the fibers strands break off on their own, and will be loose in the TPG holder.

This piece is older than a T206, so I thought maybe it would be similar? You may be able to test the fibers without damaging the piece if this is the case. Unless you need a whole bunch, that is. If you only need a couple of small fibers, I don't see it doing much damage.

Sincerely, Clayton

[yanks12025]

Sorry missed that post.

[wonkaticket]

Troy would you be willing to let a psychic see the item? :)

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Q4Lad1YhnzQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[oldjudge]

If the psychic knows somthing about the binders used in 1865 that would be welcome.

John-I assume from your comment that you are not a potential bidder

[wonkaticket]

Jay, very neat item just no not my cup of tea no bidding from me. Besides its going to be like 100k right? :D

My comment wasn't a comment on the item just more making light of another test we can add to the mix. :p

I do think many good questions have been raised. If I was a serious bidder on this I would have my discussion with Troy or his bosses offline as to what I would need to feel comfortable at this point. If he gave me any more reasons to doubt the item beyond what was discussed here I would pass and not bid. I may share that here as we'll.

I can only assume from you and Corey's doubts/concerns you guys aren't keen or going to be bidding on this item right?

Cheers,

John

P.S. The psychic wont know anything either. LOL

[oldjudge]

John-I have signed up to bid but if my concerns are not satisfied I may cancel that. If I knew enough to examine the card and make an intelligent deduction about whether it is period I would. However, beyond being able to tell if the photo is albumen I bring nothing to the table. However, I and, from what I hear on the board, others have some genuine concerns about the card which have not yet been addressed. For virtually every card in the hobby, what we are asking is way over the top. However, for this card I don't believe it is. This card is merely a photo glued to a Williamson mount. Williamson mounts from is period are common. So really, to make this card all you need is an albumen photo of the team. How can you get one of those? Well you can have a modern photographer create a negative from the LOC image, fade out part of the background, print the photo using the albumen process and then attach this photo to the mount and presto, you have a CdV like this. The photo would be albumen so it would pass muster with Paul Messier, and SGC would have no reason to suspect anything(is SGC really expert on photographic images from this period?).
There is a second way to create the card. Suppose someone "comes upon" some rare period team photographs glued to scorebook or scrapbook pages. We see things like this in the NYPL and the HOF, photographs off their mounts just attached side by side to pages. Then, all one would have to do is soak the photo off the page and attach it to the aforementioned easily found Williamson mount and voila you have a card like this. Since in either case the photograph would have been attached in recent times there is a chance that a binder was used that was not available in 1865. That is why I would like to see the binder analyzed. This would not hurt the card if done by a professional.
We have all seen that forgers can do some amazing things. There are few people in the world more knowledgeable about memorabilia items from this period than Corey. There are also few people more thorough than Corey. Despite this, for a long time he was fooled by trophy balls from this era. I maintain that it was more difficult to create the phony trophy balls than it would be to create a phony CdV. I'm in no way saying this CdV is not everything it is claimed to be. I have no way of knowing and I am just trying to eliminate as much uncertainty as possible.

[wonkaticket]

Jay,

Makes sense. I understand what you are saying and your concerns.

Cheers,

John

[Runscott]

John-I have signed up to bid but...

Then you are not "irrelevant".

[GaryPassamonte]

Jay- I have a couple CdVs from the 1864-66 period without revenue stamps on the reverse. Whether the stamps were removed or not, I can't tell. This Atlantics CdV may have been made after 1866, also. The fact that the image is of the 1865 team doesn't necessarily date the CdV to 1865. The presentation pieces using this image were obviously made 1870 or later as referenced on the mount. We all know that dating these early pieces is an inexact science.

[barrysloate]

If Williamson reissued the image after 1866, it would help explain the photo's poor resolution. A reissue is not impossible, as the Atlantics were very popular in their day. The photo quality clearly isn't as rich or clear as one would hope, so our speculation and concerns center around that issue.

And a fair market value for this item is 30-40K. Anything above that is the hype factor.

[benjulmag]

If Williamson reissued the image after 1866, it would help explain the photo's poor resolution. A reissue is not impossible, as the Atlantics were very popular in their day. The photo quality clearly isn't as rich or clear as one would hope, so our speculation and concerns center around that issue.

And a fair market value for this item is 30-40K. Anything above that is the hype factor.

If the reissue was made from the original negative, why would the resolution be poorer?

[benjulmag]

Jay- I have a couple CdVs from the 1864-66 period without revenue stamps on the reverse. Whether the stamps were removed or not, I can't tell. This Atlantics CdV may have been made after 1866, also. The fact that the image is of the 1865 team doesn't necessarily date the CdV to 1865. The presentation pieces using this image were obviously made 1870 or later as referenced on the mount. We all know that dating these early pieces is an inexact science.

The presentation pieces to my knowledge were not made from this image. They were made from the same sitting, but a different shoot. The one in the NBL was obviously made post-1865, as you point out. The other, the salt print, was almost certainly made in 1865.

[GaryPassamonte]

Corey- We can never be certain of the date of issue. There is a reasonable chance many pieces were made later than the date the photograph was taken.

[barrysloate]

If the reissue was made from the original negative, why would the resolution be poorer?

Corey- I'm assuming if the same negative keeps getting used, the photograph will lose some clarity. That may not be correct, that is my assumption.

We've noted that the photo resolution on the Cincinnati Peck and Snyders with a red mount are not as strong as those on the black mounts, and have surmised that the red mounts were a later issue. I'm using the same principle with the Atlantics CdV.

[benjulmag]

Corey- I'm assuming if the same negative keeps getting used, the photograph will lose some clarity. That may not be correct, that is my assumption.

We've noted that the photo resolution on the Cincinnati Peck and Snyders with a red mount are not as strong as those on the black mounts, and have surmised that the red mounts were a later issue. I'm using the same principle with the Atlantics CdV.

Since there are many many more Red Stockings CdVs/trade cards that have survived, we can surmise they were printed in much greater quantity, thus likely causing degradation to the negative. Given the extraordinary rarity of the 1865 Atlantics CdV image, likely much less were printed leading to the question whether the quantity printed was enough to cause discernable degradation to the negative.

[benjulmag]

Corey- We can never be certain of the date of issue. There is a reasonable chance many pieces were made later than the date the photograph was taken.

Does anybody know if the NBL mammoth plate is an albumen print or a salt print?

[bmarlowe1]

I have a hi-res scan from them, but I don't know the process.

Try contacting HoF archivists PatK.elly or JohnH.orne

[Runscott]

Since there are many many more Red Stockings CdVs/trade cards that have survived, we can surmise they were printed in much greater quantity, thus likely causing degradation to the negative. Given the extraordinary rarity of the 1865 Atlantics CdV image, likely much less were printed leading to the question whether the quantity printed was enough to cause discernable degradation to the negative.

David (Cycleback) could answer this question - I have sent him a link to this thread.

Regardless of technical issue with re-using negatives, I believe the image degradation on this photo was done intentionally (real or not real).

[benjulmag]

Regardless of technical issue with re-using negatives, I believe the image degradation on this photo was done intentionally (real or not real).


Why would the studio want to intentionally degrade the quality of the image?

[Runscott]

Why would the studio want to intentionally degrade the quality of the image?

If it was not intentional, then we're left with it being some sort of test piece [edited to add: or a photo of a photo]. Perhaps someone at the studio was practicing his vignette skills and this print was the result. Still playing around, he glued it to an existing mount. He was, of course, surprised that his measurements were incorrect when he cut the photo, so he gave up and didn't create any more. Googling 'Williamson Brooklyn cdv', I have been unable to find any examples where the image does not fit the mount, which goes along with the possibility that it was a test piece.

Since 'vignettes' were a Williamson specialty, it should not be too difficult to find an example somewhere...

...Hey, I found one! You can see how Williamson 'faded out' the photograph at the top, being careful to preserve the integrity (and definition) of the little girl's image:

http://www.brownspath.com/antique/images/2008/08OCT29_10.JPG

Here's another (the Williamson markings are only on the reverse) Interestingly, despite all the 'white space' in the image, Williamson still created an albumen that fit the mount. This cdv was created by taking a photograph of a drawing. Certainly, with the Brooklyn Atlantics cdv, Williamson's studio could have taken a photograph of a photograph, which would account for loss of definition.

http://www.jcosmas.com/cdvimages/cdv-63.jpg

[smokelessjoe]

I wouldn't say that Williamson was well known for his Frame/crop work in regards to his CDVs.... Some are pretty sloppy.

[Runscott]

I wouldn't say that Williamson was well known for his Frame/crop work in regards to his CDVs.... Some are pretty sloppy.

Actually, those look pretty good, and he uses the entire available mount on both. That one on the left is a great example of his vignettes, and a very clear image.