19th century experts (Jay etc.) any opinions on this... [Archive]

View Full Version : 19th century experts (Jay etc.) any opinions on this...

Archive

12-10-2002, 12:43 PM

Posted By: Brian H  <a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1980238595&category=31719" target=_new>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1980238595&category=31719</a> Interesting item. But, is it really what the seller suggests ?

Archive

12-10-2002, 01:14 PM

Posted By: Ryan ChristoffClearly they have stolen the image from Jerry Smolin's "About Time" auction website: <a href="http://www.abouttimeauctions.com/index3.html" target=_new>http://www.abouttimeauctions.com/index3.html</a> -Ryan

Archive

12-10-2002, 01:15 PM

Posted By: Jaime LeidermanNot an expert, but you have to be very careful with these kind of pieces. Writing is not from period, but don't know about that "PROOF" ink stamp. Seth's auction has the same Matthews pose picture w/o any advertising, listed as a proof, and looks like the real deal to me. <a href="http://www.19thcenturyonly.org/site/bid/bidplace.asp?itemid=117#pic" target=_new>http://www.19thcenturyonly.org/site/bid/bidplace.asp?itemid=117#pic</a>

Archive

12-10-2002, 01:16 PM

Posted By: Jay MillerBrian---I saw this earlier in the day. This same seller also has a George Wright tin type on ebay with no identification that it is Wright. As to the Mathews I want to do a little more research. My first response is to be skeptical but the picture does look like Mathews. Mathews, although his career ended in 1887, had no 1887 Old Judge card, only 1888 ones. I have never seen a Gypsy Queen card for which there is not an identical Old Judge card and since Gypsy Queens were only issued in 1887 and he had no 1887 Old Judge card and since this does not even correspond to any of the 1888 Old Judge poses I'm starting from the doubters camp. I guess, given what I have just said, that I don't know what this would be a proof of. It wouldn't have been of an issued Gypsy Queen. There are several possibilities---it could have been done at some point later as some sort of commemorative. It could have been some sort of prototype which was not issued. As I am typing I am thinking more...I have never seen a Goodwin product proof which was stamped PROOF. That also makes me a little leery. I also have never seen the manner of writing GYPSY QUEEN that is shown on the front of the "card". Gun to my head at this point I give it a thumbs down but, like I said, I want to do a little more research.

Archive

12-10-2002, 01:16 PM

Posted By: Ryan Christoffplease picture a winky smiley face somwhere in my last post. -Ryan

Archive

12-10-2002, 01:23 PM

Posted By: runscottRemember last year when you, me and Leon discussed this? To bring others up to speed, I almost got burned buying some OJ "proofs" and "original OJ tin types" that had been created recently from a huge lot of OJ negatives, and then made to look old. The seller released about five of these items, one or two at a time, saying that he got them from a Pennsylvania estate - he turned out to be the same guy who had won the negatives previously. Apparently he spent a lot of time preparing for his elaborate ebay scam, and I know for a fact that he managed to sell all of the ebay "proofs" off-line to high bidders. After nearly spending $2K on his fakes, I cringe any time I see the term "proof" associated with an 1800's photo card issue.

Archive

12-10-2002, 01:25 PM

Posted By: Jaime LeidermanDid't see the tintype before my last post... If this guy is nuts to mislead people to bid on a non-wright tintype, the Matthews item is also a fake... It's not even close to look like old George Wright!!

Archive

12-10-2002, 01:25 PM

Posted By: Jay MillerThe photo also seems incredibly clear and sharp. I have seen quite a few proofs but never one like that. It is always a bad sign when two very similar items appear suddenly for the first time. Something doesn't smell good.

Archive

12-10-2002, 01:33 PM

Posted By: Jay MillerScott---There wasn't a hoard of glass plate negatives found---only 44 if I remember correctly. However, you are right (not Wright--but then the tin type may not be either)that these could have been made from a glass plate negative. I hate to say it but Seth's item looks a little funny too. I saw a Mathews proof about five years ago (on a similar mount) and it did not have the massive edge damage that his does. The photo would not have been damaged that badly before it was mounted and the mount would have shielded it from that type of damage after it was mounted.

Archive

12-10-2002, 01:40 PM

Posted By: Jay MillerScott---By the way, I have a couple of those glass plate negatives. One is of a player unknown in the Old Judge set (Wilson-Omaha). I had a print made from the negative and I believe that I included it in my VCBC article on how Old Judge were made.

Archive

12-10-2002, 01:42 PM

Posted By: Jaime LeidermanJay, Seth has been offering the Matthews piece since he opened the 19thc.... store a while back without any response. (Like all the items he's offering now in the auction...) That damage sure looks strange, but I'll give him the benefit to answer that before I make any comments.

Archive

12-10-2002, 01:45 PM

Posted By: runscott...as time goes by size increases in your mind! In about ten more years some of my ex-girlfriends may start calling me again.

Archive

12-10-2002, 01:47 PM

Posted By: runscottIt would be far more productive if the glass plate negative owners produced a set of high-quality prints from those negatives, and offered them for sale. Perhaps a set of 10 of the best, mounted in such a way that they couldn't be mistaken for vintage, but still had the nostalgic appearance.

Archive

12-10-2002, 01:49 PM

Posted By: runscott...some mounted, some framed - and they look great on the wall or on a small display stand on my desk. I've even created a "Forrest Studios" stamp (at David's suggestion) that I put on some of my cabinet reproductions.

Archive

12-10-2002, 01:50 PM

Posted By: Jay MillerIt's all relative. Your competition from back then will be magnified by a like amount.

Archive

12-10-2002, 01:52 PM

Posted By: Jay MillerI'm not suggesting anything about Seth. It is the piece, not the seller, that I have questions about.

Archive

12-10-2002, 02:11 PM

Posted By: Jaime LeidermanJay, I never said you had any questions about him. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

12-10-2002, 02:13 PM

Posted By: Jaime Leiderman... In fact, I'm not a very big fan of his items HUGE price tags.

Archive

12-10-2002, 03:07 PM

Posted By: DavidSuch 19th century photographs can be authenticated (and, alternately, forgeries identified) without difficulty for a variety of reasons. First, the photographic process used to make these types of photos (albumen) has not been used for about hundred years. It also, is not difficult to identify. Thre are some modern hobbiests and artists who used modernized forms of the albumen print pricess. However, it takes no ordinary skil, and the modern forms are easily distinguished from the 19th century process. An avid photograph collector with a handheld microscope can identify albumen print photographs, and, thus, week out almost all fakes. Second, the 19th century albumen paper can be dated as vintage. The albumn paper was no ordinary paper, like writing paper you can get at your local store. It was specialty paper, literally made with eggs, made for professional studios. Only about three companies in the entire country made it. This makes dating of the paper straightforeward. Third. Albumen prints were on very thin and delicate paper and almost always had to be mounted-- meaning pasted to a cardboard backing (ala Old Judge tobacco cards and cabinets), album or other. It was essentially impossible to do the albumen process directly onto postcard stock. If these seller says the image is directly on the cardstock, it is fair to assume it's a fake.

Archive

12-10-2002, 03:23 PM

Posted By: DavidOne more point, if he changes his tune and says it's not a photograph but a lithograph or such mechanical print, it's definitely a fake. While lithography, woodcut and those types of prints existed, it was impossible for them to make an image with that type of photo-realistic quality and subtle tones. I'm not offering any definitive opinion on the item, but will if I see it in person. So if the winner is in or near Seattle, give me a jingle.

Archive

12-10-2002, 03:26 PM

Posted By: DavidOne very last thing (I promise). While they may genuinely exist, I have never in my life a 'PROOF' stamp like that on a 19th century photograph.

Archive

12-10-2002, 04:07 PM

Posted By: runscottAre all tin types automatically vintage, or are there ways to make them now? If they can still be made, how could you tell the fakes from the real ones?

Archive

12-10-2002, 08:05 PM

Posted By: DavidThere is a long answer and a short answer. The short answer is that the collector shouldn't loose any sleep over forgery of 19th century baseball tintypes. If a collector owns one or is considering bidding on one at eBay, and there isn't anything fishy, it's safe to assume the baseball tintype is legit. Even if it does look fishy, it's still probably legitimate. If someone has one that appears goofy, I will be happy to look at it in person. Also, realize that tintypes are by nature one-of-a-kind. If you start seeing doubles or triples of your tintype offered around, you should start wondering what's going on-- otherwise, don't sweat it. Technically, there can be forgeries of tintypes, but, for a variety of reasons, the baseball collector shouldn't worry.

Archive

12-10-2002, 08:11 PM

Posted By: BROOKSI SURE DO NOT QUALIFY FOR EXPERT BUT THAT PROOF STAMP IS TOO CONVIENENT FOR ME AND I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO RECALL ANY 19TH CENTIRY CARDS WITH STAMPS......PROOF MARKS YES,STAMPS NO

Archive

12-15-2002, 03:02 PM

Posted By: Jaime LeidermanThe "Not George Wright" Tintype is over $1200 and reserve not yet met... Some well known guys bidding this thing up. Am I missing something here?

Archive

12-15-2002, 03:42 PM

Posted By: HankronJaime, it's not you. Your a smart cookie, and I'm confident that you know more about 19th century baseball photos than any of the bidders or seller.