A&G/Goodwin Photo [Archive] - Net54baseball.com Forums

Archive

03-14-2004, 07:25 AM

Posted By: Nickinvegas<a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2791790643&category=204&sspagename=STRK%3AMEBDW%3AIT&rd=1" target=_new>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2791790643&category=204&sspagename=STRK%3AMEBDW%3AIT&rd=1</a> I thought the photo was a nice shot, though I wouldn't have paid the final price. Has anyone seen this picture on a card? I couldn't locate one. Nick

Archive

03-14-2004, 09:30 AM

Posted By: petecldIt is a nice pose but the buyer really got suckered on this one. - There's no evidence this is a "proof". It's likely just a print. Albeit a nice looking one - The "ad" is for a competitior's brand so I don't see it being legitimate. Why would Allen & Ginter advertise with a Goodwin item? - Even the frame is even faked. The top/bottom match styles but the sides are a different style. Look at the corners of the inner edges - they don't meet. In my eyes this greatly lessens the probability the print is even real.

Archive

03-14-2004, 09:43 AM

Posted By: NickinvegasPete, Do you believe it is a modern print? I do not think it is as the seller says, a "proof". I think the ad on the back of the photo has nothing to do with the photo itself. The photo is a really great shot, even if it isn't a proof for a T card.But, again not worth the final price. Nick

Archive

03-14-2004, 09:50 AM

Posted By: Jay MillerNick--In answer to your original question I have seen the pose on an N172. Without looking at the item it is difficult to determine if it is a genuine proof or not but it seems, based on the seller's handle, to come from Vermont where most of the Old Judge proofs and all of the Old Judge glass plate negatives were discovered. The A&G ad on the back seems a little wierd but, if I remember correctly, Rob Lifson had a similar item in one of his auctions several years ago. I think (and I am stretching my memory on this one) he hypothesized that the item may have come from a failed joint venture between A&G and Goodwin to produce cards together.

Archive

03-14-2004, 01:19 PM

Posted By: CyclebackMy advice to the average collector who wants a cabinet style Old Judge image, but is unsure how to exactly interpret those proofs on the market, is to buy the regular ho hum N173 Cabinet. It's the safest bet for your money.

Archive

03-14-2004, 02:51 PM

Posted By: petecldNick, I didn't mean to imply it is a modern print, I don't know. It may very well be a 19th century print but certainly not a proof. The seller starts his description off with "Here is a nice proof photo by Goodwin Co. NY". Not a glaring statement but the "it's a proof" implication is certainly there. When you make a paper photo(print) from an original negative (or any negative) you are not making proofs, you are making prints. For production purposes a paper photo or print is made and is used "as a proof" or for proofing purposes for checking quality or a clients approval but these are always marked as such in some way because signatures are required. If that same negative is used to produce 10, 100 or 1000 photos(prints) you don't have 10, 100 or 1000 proofs, you have prints. Even paper prints made from the original glass plate negatives aren't proofs, they are 1st generation prints. Granted we are looking at a low res image but notice the Goodwin 1888, etc. lettering in the one pcture. Notice how some letters are starting to disappear? That's due to poor developing or mayeb a bad negative but I doubt it. This print looks over exposed to me. Over exposed images are rejected and trashed. This one was kept and saved obviously. If Rob Lifson did hypothesize that the item like this may have come from a failed joint venture between A&G and Goodwin to produce cards together he was probably just trying hyping a marginal peice to generate bids. That label clearly has Allen & Ginter in large copy and no mention of Goodwin at all. That makes no sense at all for a cross promotion. Believe me, I've done cross promotional material and corporations are fanatics about getting equal billing. Also, why would two companies who sell the same product advertise with/for each other? Even if it was a case of both companies being owned by the same larger corporation sales aren't "one for all & all for one". Like you said Nick. Not really worth the price.

Archive

03-14-2004, 04:56 PM

Posted By: CyclebackI agree with Pete in that I would like to hear a coherent and plausible explanation for why it says Goodwin on front and Allen & Ginter on back. Companies competing in the same tough market advertise against the competing company, not for. Adidas doesn't have television spots promoting their shoes and ending with "but make sure to also buy some Nike shoes, because they make quality shoes too" ... The only reason a tobacco company issued tobacco cards and premiums was to increase its market share versus that of its competitors. Also if it really was a Allen & Ginter proof, they wouldn't put that kind of sticker on the back. Proofs are test or trial prints for the printers' eyes only, and are not given to the public or intended to be viewed by the public. A company might stamp something like the company name, address and copyright on the back of a proof, but there would be no logical point to stick a sticker with a lengthy and detailed advertisement for a specific brand of cigarette-- as no one in the general public is going to read it. Lastly, when has anyone on this board seen a late 1800s advertising on the back of a baseball card, trade card or cabinet card in the form of a sticker?

Archive

03-14-2004, 06:22 PM

Posted By: warshawlawIt looks like a coupon or paper ad or insert glued to the back of the mount. Note the apparent crease in the item but not in the photo.

Archive

03-20-2004, 07:22 AM

Posted By: Jon CanfieldHello everyone. I've kept quiet on the issue but I was the high bidder on the Goodwin photo/proof. I own a couple of the Doran proof's, one framed and unframed, so when the similar Boyce came up for sale - I liked the pose and wanted to have it. I was going to say anything until I was able to return from college and inspect it. Anyway, when I arrived home last night for my spring break, I finally got a chance to look at it so here are the details I can tell you... First and foremost, the frame. I know there was some debate over the frame. Actually, the frame looked misleading in the scan on eBay. It has a slight curve to it and when it scanned, it made the sides look different than the top. It is actually the same all the way around. The frame is slightly different in size than the Doran frame I have, however the age appears to be the same or close. There fram is held together with nails in the back, and while removing the nails, the rust of the nails went deep into the holes and was absorbed by the surrounding wood. It appears as though the nails rusted in the frame and weren't added after in an attempt to make a more modern frame look older. The photo itself. The scan on eBay was a little misleading - but not in a bad way. The photo is the same size of my Doran's. It is not glossy, but not matte either. It does have side cracks going up both sides which are natural and not added after the fact. Also, it has almost like pinhole dimples on the surface. (I was hoping David could explain those). All in and all, I inspected the photo for quite some time and it appears to be genuine. The photo is actually elevated almost 1/4 inch with a cardboard backing. The black backing is original, but both of my Doran's were attached right to the black backing, not elevated off. I was curious as to why - but I can't explain it. Again, everything appears to be legit - I just don't know why it was elavted off the backing. Interesting side notes... I don't have a copy of the card to compare, but here are some little things I noticed. 1. Boyce's eyes are almost closed in the photo. 2. The ball is very blurry. 3. The Goodwin appears to be a lot less faded in person than it did on the eBay scan (this was a topic of discussion on the boards) 4. The ad on back had me worried, but probably added after the fact. It is not a sticker and is quite long - 7inches maybe. It is on thin paper and is of age. I at first thought it might have been an insert in 20 count cig box based on the fold, but even folded in half, it would have been too long to fit into the box. Not really sure how to explain this other than it was probably added after. All in all, a nice piece and a new change for the Dorans. You all might not have agreed with the price I paid but I don't believe I got suckered either. After all, I'm sure we all have paid more than we wanted to for a piece we wanted for our collections?!

Archive

03-20-2004, 08:18 AM

Posted By: NickinvegasJohn, I don't think you got a bad deal, I just wouldn't have paid that much. But, most would not pay as much as I pay for the items I collect. I rarely bid on items that don't pertain to the focus of my collection. But, the photo you won is very appealing and I too could not resist bidding. You are fortunate to have it. Regards, Nick

Archive

03-20-2004, 07:58 PM

Posted By: CyclebackIt is my opinion that people should not be purchasing these unusual shaped Old Judge Proofs unless they have been judged authentic by a reliable source. As I said earlier, if a collector wants to invest in a big Old Judge image he or she should be putting the money into the regular old N173s. I'm aware that many won't follow this advice, but I felt it important that I offer my opinion in this situation.

Archive

03-20-2004, 11:38 PM

Posted By: Joe P.There are investors, and there are collectors. You've done some homework. It's not like you're new and getting your feet wet. The terrain is not entirely foreign to you. The piece appealed to your eyes, and win lose or draw, you took a gut shot. Bravo! There were many interesting points brought up, except for one that left me cold. "if a collector wants to invest in a big Old Judge image he or she should be putting the money into the regular old N173s." Although the above quote was meant as good advice, it failed to acknowledge that there are some collectors on this board that are not driven by the slab and invest mindset. ..... not that there's anything wrong with that. I also want to say that I totally respect and appreciate the inputs and contributions of Cycleback, and many others on this forum. The sharing and exchanges, whether it's in a tribal form, or under the Geneva Convention, .... it's what makes this forum stand out. Jon, again I say, Good Show, and keep us posted on your findings. .... that's what keeps this Show on the road. Joe P.

Archive

03-21-2004, 01:05 AM

Posted By: CyclebackI am confident that time will prove my advice to be wise. My advice rose from concerns about authenticity, not investment potential or the type of vintage material people should collect. Again, people may disagree with or ignore my original advice, but I stand by what I said.

Archive

03-21-2004, 02:25 AM

Posted By: Joe P.Please re-read your quote. "if a collector wants to invest in a big Old Judge image he or she should be putting the money into the regular old N173s." Your advice was sound, but you're treating it as if all collectors are stock market aficionados. Jon the collector was mot interested in N173 stocks. He was interested in the Goodwin photo/proof, he owns a couple of Doran proofs. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't believe he was buying it for an investment purpose. On this board it's easy to see who are the collectors, and who are the speculators. The combination and contribution of the two is what makes this board what it is. Cycleback, the other day I was checking out a card with a black light, and I owe that to you. However, I do see that I need more work in that area. I'm interested in hearing further information from Jon about his Goodwin photo/proof project. We can only benefit from the extra knowledge. Stay well. Joe P.

Archive

03-21-2004, 07:00 AM

Posted By: runscott...and your post was very clear.

Archive

03-21-2004, 08:10 AM

Posted By: petecldAgreed. Joe, If the phrase "putting your money into" is just meant for investors then what exactly do us collector do? We all "put our money" into our collections, I think you just took David's remark the wrong way. it's good advice. Jay, The N172 that you have of this pose - are the players eyes closed and is the ball blurry is Jon mentioned? If not, this could be a print from a negative that was rejected because of those two features. Considering the longer exposure time I would think holding that pose would get quite tiresome.

Archive

03-21-2004, 09:11 AM

Posted By: Jay MillerPete--Unfortunately, my cards are prisoners to a bank safe deposit box. Next visiting day I will check(assuming a senior moment does not occur simultaneously). I'm not sure, however, how much information such an observation will ad since I have seen multiple copies of exactly the same card, some clear and others fuzzy.

Archive

03-21-2004, 12:23 PM

Posted By: CyclebackI have questions about the authenticity of these odd shaped Old Judge Proofs. I can't comment on each and every one on the market as I haven't seen in person each and everyone on the market, but I examined three in person and they were fakes. This is why I recommended that the average collector who wants to own a big Old Judge image should play it safe and purchase an N173 Cabinet. Assuming you didn't buy a cheap counterfeit, you can be confident when you go to sleep at night that that N173 Old Judge Cabinet on your desk or in your drawer is genuine and vintage.

Archive

03-21-2004, 09:53 PM

Posted By: Joe P.Knowing that a Dr Danny Dupchek or his clone have never soiled an N173. Pete's question: "Joe, If the phrase "putting your money into" is just meant for investors then what exactly do us collector do? We all "put our money" into our collections, I think you just took David's remark the wrong way. it's good advice." * * Pedro, I don't know about you, but when I want to go after something, regardless of the price, the question of what can it fetch later, never crosses my mind. You're absolutely right, the seller usually wants to get paid by the investor or collector in the coinage of the realm. What is apparent is that you and a few others may have dismissed the fact that I said that David Rudd's advice was sound. It is also apparent that David and a few others are having a problem accepting the fact that Jon might just want to add a companion to go along with his two Doran's. If he wants to collect N173's, he'll collect N173's. I don't know about SOME of you guys, but I still get a great deal of pleasure of filling in an empty slot. Why I even like that more than sitting down and reading the Wall Street Journal. Jon, go for the Gusto! Keep us posted on that beautiful photo. Joe P.

Archive

03-21-2004, 10:53 PM

Posted By: petecld"Pedro" Wow Joey, I had no idea what a sophisticate you were - I mean - you speak two languages. How impressive. I know some Spanish too but Bill probably won't let me use those words here. Let see ",,,but when I want to go after something, regardless of the price, the question of of what can it fetch later, never crosses my mind." P.T. Barnum LOVED people like you. Said there was one of you born every minute. "You're absolutely right, the seller usually wants to get paid by the investor or collector in the coinage of the realm." Not sure what this is about. Did your broker call and tell you about that Enron stock that you just HAD to have regardless of the price? I'm tickled pink or as you would say - "el tickledo pinko" Jon is happy with his new print but there is nothing wrong with NOT looking like an idiot since if the photo was a fake or modern print it wouldn't serve as a hole filler in Jon's collection now would it - even if he got it for free. "I don't know about SOME of you guys, but I still get a great deal of pleasure of filling in an empty slot." - Even if the slot is filled by a fake you paid way over market price for? What genius. "Why I even like that more than sitting down and reading the Wall Street Journal." Really? The WSJ has a comics section? The WSJ tells investors how be intelligent investors - you just recommended that others buy whatever you like regardless of the price so you must just stick to the comics. You might want to have someone read a few of those articles to you sometime. I'm sure you'll find lots of want ads from out-of-work investors who lived by your "buy-at-any-price" mentality.

Archive

03-21-2004, 11:06 PM

Posted By: Joe P.How long have you had a this reading comprehension problem?

Archive

03-22-2004, 05:21 AM

Posted By: runscottI disagreed with Joe P once and he immediately renamed me as well. It'a a playground tactic. We've dealt with this guy before - last time around he was "Paul". Anyone figuring this out yet?

Archive

03-22-2004, 09:24 AM

Posted By: CyclebackIt was not a fruitless discussion, as I learned that Pedro is Spanish for Peter.

Archive

03-22-2004, 04:08 PM

Posted By: Joe P.It appears that David Rudd, Laddie Boy and Pete are very sensitive to opposing thoughts. They almost treat it like if it's life threatening. The question is Why? Is it a question of insecurity? The beauty of this forum is the exchanges of thoughts and information. I have given credit to all of the above for their contributions, but I don't believe that the "One Thought, And One Mind" is the Credo and driving force of this forum. IMHO, I still feel that Jon's photo might just be the real deal. It's part of his gut feeling. It's part of his research. I't his money. Win lose or draw, we'll all learn something from his findings. Some people have pelotas, and some don't. If you haven't guessed it by now, I'm pulling for Jon. Joe P.

Archive

03-22-2004, 05:12 PM

Posted By: Cycleback<a href="http://www.urban75.com/Mag/trolling.html" target=_new>http://www.urban75.com/Mag/trolling.html</a>

Archive

03-22-2004, 05:27 PM

Posted By: Bill CornellI think we can all see that this thread is heading into the abyss. That might be tolerable, but the topic was an interesting one and it's been sidetracked. On a related note, challenging the manhood of posters was a favorite device of Dr. Dupcak-Koos. We're not going down that boring path again. Bill

Archive

03-22-2004, 05:55 PM

Posted By: runscottI'll just say it: Koos = Paul = Joe P. This is a "man" who does not want to run into any of us in a dark alley.

Archive

03-22-2004, 06:51 PM

Posted By: Joe P.No one challenged anyones manhood. The point that was obviously missed is that it sometimes takes huge pelotas to bid on your convictions. You're right about one thing, the reading comprehension of some is becoming increasingly booring. It looks like I was wrong. This board might be better suited for the One Thought And One Mind set. BTW, don't be too surprised if you were to find some termites in Cyclebacks background. Adios Caballeros

Archive

03-23-2004, 03:35 AM

Posted By: Joe P.To the ever clueless Laddie Boy Runscott. You're also a flop as Charlie Chan. Let me help you before you make a totally complete fool of yourself. At the Fort Washington show I had a chance to chat with Bob Lemke. Lemke knows me. Although I was being represented by my counselor, I felt that it might not be a bad idea before proceeding with the charges to try mediation. Unbeknown to SCD Dupcek had been using some of their ads as a vehicle for their devious deeds. I approached Lemke, and he agreed to mediate. Lemke has never actually met Danny Dupcek, but he was the mediator in the Doyle alteration scam. Bob did a good job and I thank him for it. The mediation called for the exchanges of gifts between Dr Dupchek and I. He got his fakes, and I got my money. A scam in 1990 that would have fooled the best of your grading slabbers out there. Come to think of it, didn't Keith Olbermann recently return another altered Doyle that had been passed by a slabber? I'm the only one on this board that has stood up, taken on and tried to expose your favorite tormenter to the dealers back in 1990. The fact that he's still around is not my fault. The mayority of the forewarned dealers that I talked to at the 1990 Texas Convention, all preferred to go to a Kit Young bash in Hawaii every Feb than try to get rid of a malignant growth. Laddie Boy, I wouldn't show this thread to your wife. You're an embarrassment. But - she probably knows that already. ----------------------------------------------- Bill, this is a quote from one of your favorites. You tell me, who is doing the threatening? quote by runscott: "I'll just say it: Koos = Paul = Joe P. This is a "man" who does not want to run into any of us in a dark alley." * * I have three words for him. "Bring It On."

Archive

03-23-2004, 06:22 AM

Posted By: runscottThis guy's just a name-dropping loser. When does he exit stage left?