Old Judge Proofs? [Archive] - Net54baseball.com Forums

Archive

08-28-2004, 04:02 PM

Posted By: John Freeman  Usually I just toss my SCD in the stack of newspapers as it does not feature anything that interests me. This week was different. The front cover of the SCD features some recently discovered Old Judge proof cards. The inside has a corresponding article by Bob Lemke. I have seen these pop up at shows in the past both as individual cards and as part of a larger display. I was always under the assumption that they were made quite a bit after the original. In my estimate, quite a bit after. I am not an Old Judge expert, but I know quite a bit about photographs. I saw these cards displayed at the National. They do not seem to be albumen prints and the stock of the mount does not seem to be from the 19th century. Is Bob Lemke an expert on photographs? I would have thought that SCD would have done more research on them before featuring them on their front cover. When I asked American Memorabilia about them, they seem to know very little about what they were offering. Do any of the experts on this board wish to share their views about these cards? Does anyone know where these cards came from? Are they originally all from the same find or auction house/dealer? John F.

Archive

08-28-2004, 06:02 PM

Posted By: Jon CanfieldI'll defer to Jay to answer fully but I do own two of these and they are period. They were discovered by a man in Vermont who had a relative that worked for Goodwin (I believe I'm getting this right). Basically, many poses of the same player were taken at the studios - the "proofs" are the other photos. I know Doran pops up quite often (I own one). I also have a Flynn.

Archive

08-28-2004, 09:57 PM

Posted By: Jay MillerI am not a photographic expert so I have no idea if these "proofs" are period or not. I know David has stated that he believes that they are not period and I have no reason to doubt his view. As to the history of the items, Jon is right that they came from Vermont. The source of these is the same gentleman who was the source of the glass plate negatives that were found almost ten years ago. However, the "proofs" could have been made from glass plate negatives at some point after the late 1880s. These negatives still are very functional and I have taken a negative that I own of Wilson-Omaha, a player who is not known in either N172s or N173s, to a local photographer who made some really nice prints from it. As does Jon, I own a few of the "proofs" and I guess from a value standpoint I would like for them to be period, but from an informational standpoint of providing images of scarce Old Judge players it really doesn't matter. The images are genuine, the negatives were made in the Old Judge period, the only question is when were the "proofs" printed. I'll defer to the photographic experts to hash that one out.

Archive

08-29-2004, 02:03 PM

Posted By: ramramHow about the tintypes that have popped up? I have seen one in person and it certainly appeared to be of a later period. It had the brownish/green tint that often shows up in the phoney Western and Indian (Sitting Bull, Buffalo Bill, etc.) tintypes that pop up now and then. If I recall, the one I saw was an Omaha player also. It was of a half-plate size. Rob

Archive

08-30-2004, 02:08 AM

Posted By: hankronI have long maintined that these items are modern fakes. I am secure enough in my opinion and confident in the reasons that form the basis for the opinion that it makes no difference to me that cover stories or experts disagree or that they are offered in this or that big auction.... As my mom would say when someone suggested things be done differently than she had planned, "Shows how dumb you are." If someone asks me to write a formal article detailing the reasons for my conclusion I might. Other than that, how auction houses and collectors interpret and price these items is strictly their business. If collectors wish to dismiss my opinion, I can live with it.

Archive

08-30-2004, 02:38 PM

Posted By: Tom Boblittto read anything you'd like to write on it David. Hopefully it comes from actually looking at one of them. I have always had my doubts about their validity (the printing of the proofs, that is). I agree with Jay that I think the actual images or negatives are from the period but some of the proofs just don't have that period look to them. I'm sure I'm not the only one would would benefit from your experience with them.......whether it's here or in Oldcardboard magazine or on your own website................

Archive

08-31-2004, 07:15 AM

Posted By: warshawlawthere is very little critical thinking at SCD. Most of their auction-related articles consist of parroting press releases. Also, does anyone else find their practice of writing a glowing article about a dealer or supply maker right next to a full page ad for that same company to be just a bit disconcerting?

Archive

08-31-2004, 08:05 AM

Posted By: Jay MillerSCD's largest advertiser is Coaches Corner Auctions

Archive

08-31-2004, 12:14 PM

Posted By: hankronFirst, I'm not trying to criticize anyone personally. From what I have seen the parties who disagree with me are making good faith efforts and offering honest opinions. Also, I don't run a boarding house and have not seen each and every of these proofs in person. I haven't even seen images of these SCD proofs. So if auction houses and collectors wish to say my opinions don't apply to their collection because theirs are real, so be it. In a month or so, I will make an article or list or whatever giving my reasons for my opinion. I have things in the queue that come first (non-baseball). The argument reasons range from techincal to logical to general observations. There are a wide variety of these proofs: tintypes, cabinets, displaye pieces, plain paper photo, perhaps others for all I know. For two of the just mentioned, there are technical imposibilities. Meaning, it would have been impossible for a 19th century photo studio to create a physical quality that appears on two of these proofs types. A while ago (less than a year), I was asked to examine in person some of these proofs for a big auction house. I examined the three under my trusty microscope (and could tell right now you how the photographic prints were physically made), and recommended that the auctionhouse not include them. The well known person at the auction house was of the same opinion before he sent them, but had promised the consignor he would get a second opinion. The proofs were not included in the auction ... This is why I was suprised to see the issue come up now. Duly note that auction houses, or normal collectors for that matter, don't always follow with my authenticity-related advice, whether solicited or unsolicited. Some point blank disagree with it. I offer my authenticity views, what others do with it is their concern. Some vintage baseball collectors might be loathe to take the baseball advice of some guy who collects fashion photos.

Archive

08-31-2004, 01:56 PM

Posted By: Bob LemkeTo satisfy my curiosity I looked a little deeper into this and spoke with a principal at American Memorabilia, who filled me in on some of the efforts they expended to authenticate the photos/proofs. Michael Petersen, who provided the COA for the photos, is a professional photographer of 40 years' experience; he is not connected with the sports collectibles hobby. Unlike some who have expressed an opinion on authenticity without actually seeing these particular items, I did examine them at length at the National. Admittedly, I'm not a forensic photography expert, but I've had 25 years of daily professional experience in the card hobby and I saw nothing to indicate these photos did not originate in the 19th Century. As I said before, the market will ultimately decide their value when the hammer falls in a month.

Archive

08-31-2004, 02:07 PM

Posted By: Hal LewisCan we get a link to view these for ourselves? Thanks.

Archive

08-31-2004, 03:10 PM

Posted By: hankronBob, I wish to note that as I have not seen SCD proofs or pictures of them (as noted on more than one occasion), I am not making any claim about them. American Memorabilia can auction them and bidders can bid to their hearts' content for all I am concerned. In fact if you go back to my first post on this subject (in a different thread, about SCD) my first sentence was: "I am specifically not commenting on these (SCD) mentioned examples as I have neither seen the article or seem images of the photos." So bidders should bid millions and millions, let the market decide the authenticity! That's the way authenticity should be decided in a capitalistic society anyway. If the final bid is twice the minimum, they are definitely authentic. If the final bid is not so high, we can have a online poll or something, maybe a bathing suit contest.

Archive

08-31-2004, 03:31 PM

Posted By: MW"I am not an Old Judge expert, but I know quite a bit about photographs. I saw these cards displayed at the National. They do not seem to be albumen prints and the stock of the mount does not seem to be from the 19th century. Is Bob Lemke an expert on photographs? I would have thought that SCD would have done more research on them before featuring them on their front cover." "I have long maintained that these items are modern fakes." "Michael Petersen, who provided the COA for the photos, is a professional photographer of 40 years' experience" "I've had 25 years of daily professional experience in the card hobby and I saw nothing to indicate these photos did not originate in the 19th Century." So which is it?

Archive

08-31-2004, 04:30 PM

Posted By: hankronI'm voting for the write in candidate of Jean Shrimpton. Two terms.

Archive

08-31-2004, 05:14 PM

Posted By: Johs Evans I am assuming these are the same “Old Judge Proofs” that I viewed several years back (also out of Vermont). I knew in two seconds that they were frauds. Not even close. A “professional photographer” did the authentication. Sears or J.C. Penny? That is like your cards being authenticated by the guy selling wax packs in the 7-11 back in 1973. And the fact that he has been doing it for 40 years only raises issues of old age. Several times through the years I have been faced photographers telling us what is what on vintage photos. Every single time it was nothing but problems. A guy that takes photos means he is just that. Not an expert on vintage images. For what it’s worth, a semi-retired Bob Lemke could care less about the advertising recevenue brought in by American Memorabilia. He just saw something he liked and reported on it. Bob erred in my opinion but his heart was in the right place. He wanted to show something to the collecting public he thought was cool. They should be pulled immediately from that auction. That is what I would do. Lemke should also explore this further to set the SCD reader’s straight.

Archive

08-31-2004, 06:13 PM

Posted By: MWThese "proofs" were shopped around at the Atlanta National. To start with, there were approximately 40 of them -- all of which had been glued to a poster board and inserted in a frame so that they were more difficult to examine through the glass. What caught my attention was that there were two catalogued California League players. The seller, upon hearing that they were definitely NOT period N172s, simply went to the next dealer's booth and proceeded to "spin" an even more fanciful tale as to their origin. I have absolutely no doubt that one or more dealers/buyers were taken in by this ruse. It is also interesting to note that when they were presented to Alan Rosen, even he was suspicious and tendered an offer contingent upon them being authenticated by a grading company. They were flatly rejected by SGC.

Archive

08-31-2004, 06:48 PM

Posted By: Tom Boblittthe heavyweights weigh in! Nice to see some of the movers and shakers in the hobby giving us their opinion on the items......I found it interesting that American Memorabilia was the recipient of these items. Not really known for their 19th century card and photo prowess. Other items that they had in the auction were primarily memorabilia items. Something of this nature, if real, would more appropriately wind up in a Robert Edward, Mastronet or Lelands auction. Any time I've seen these, they just look 'overdone'. Kind of like the reprints that you see on ebay so often. Looks like they have been super-aged or extreme efforts taken to really make them look real. I didn't feel good about the mounts that they were on either. They just looked too crude for the time. Why mount them on cut mattboard type mounts (most I've seen) when the actual cabinets were on the standard 4x6 mounts. Along with that the 'proofs' widely believed to be authentic are usually on photographic studio standard mounts. Anyway, just found that wierd. I still maintain that the actual images must be vintage. Don't know though......

Archive

08-31-2004, 07:49 PM

Posted By: runscottThe market will surely determine the current value of these "things", but we all know that you cannot rely on memorabilia collectors' wishful thinking and an auction catalog description to determine authenticity...the Mastro grandfather clock full of baseballs should have taught us that. There is a good chance, regardless of what any of us want to believe, that someone who is very intelligent, creative and very interested in vintage photography and possibly baseball history, yet also unscrupulous and deviant, thought it was worth the time and effort to create elaborate fakes, for profit and/or fun. Yes, it would have been very difficult - that might have been part of the appeal of the project. The best way to prove whether or not these are real is by finding a single example that originated from the same Vermont source, that exhibits traits impossible to find in its 19th century counterpart - if such an example cannot be found (and I believe David says it can, in fact be found), then you still are left with items which may or may not be authentic. In any case, it will take a vintage photography expert to determine this, not a baseball card collector. Every time I buy a vintage baseball photograph from any auction house, I feel like I'm taking a crap-shoot ( <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> I mixed a metaphor with a bodily function!)

Archive

08-31-2004, 08:48 PM

Posted By: hankronHere is a short list of issues for consideration. Not complete 1) Some are on 'extra thick proof paper.' That in an of itself is bogus. The genuine Old Judges were made on albumen paper, which was a special kind of handmade and chemically treated paper needed by the photographers. Photography is a chemical process, and the photographer could not used typing or writing paper from the local store ... The crux is that all albumen paper was one and only one thickness: that of a gnat's hide. There was no such thing as 'extra plus alumen paper'-- never existed. I've always condidered the 'extra thick paper' proofs to automatically be a joke ... One thing I teach beginning 19th centurty photo collectors to do is to see if the photo print on the cabinet card is super thin-- as albumen paper was always super thin, while later paper was thicker. Thickness is quality even casual collectors can look for. 2) Many genuine Old Judge cards have the white in the image writing: 'Goodwinn & Co." or the player's name or whatever. As I'm sure many OJers have figured out, the Goodwin worker wrote on the glass negative and this writing appeared on the card as part of the actual photographic image ... This type of 'in the image wring' could not be done on a tintype. A tintype is a primitive and completely different process than with the Old Judge paper photos. There is no glass negative involved and you can't put writing into the image-- unless you're photographing a book or such. Technically impossible. 3) It makes no sense that Goodwin & Co. would make a proof tintype or any sort of tintype. The tintype process could only produce one photo. Making a tintype proof is on the order of the them hiring a painter to make a oil painting proof-- makes no sense. 4) The 'cabinets' I examined were not on albumen paper, which was the paper Goodwin would have used. Along with an number of microscopic qualities I won't divulge, the paper was too thick. Albumen paper was made by only a handful of factories in the entire world (I'm talking like 3 not 30), and were made to exacting specifications. Again, this photo paper was used for a delicate chemical process (named photography) and the factories had to be exact in the manufacture. 1800s albumen paper has a unique combination of qualities that can be identified. 5) The black mounts on the cabinets are not period. Those types of mounts may have been used in 1910 or 1920, but not in the 1880s. As with photographric paper, cabinet mounts were usually made by factories and there were commercial standards. Just like with an car, a photograph historian can judge the age of a photo by the color, shape, size and style. In 1930 could they have made an automobile that looked like a 1990s Mazda Miata? Perhaps, but they didn't. And I doubt that anyone here is going to buy into the argument that that Miata in the parking lot was made in 1930. Simularly, you're not going to convince an expert on early cabinets that those mounts are from the 1880s. 6) One of the proofs on the back had the stamp 'Proof.' To me, this is a joke. With these items, proof is a term we modern day collectors use retroactively. The photo might as well have a stamp that says 'hoochie mama' or 'Don't go there, girfriend' 7) Some guy was selling a framed behind glass "complete set of three" for a player. How could anyone on this earth say that this is a complete set at three? Unless he's making it up. 8) Some guy was selling a framed set of three "in the original glass and frame" This is stupid. Goodwin wouldn't frame sets of proofs behind glass. They didn't have a deal with Shop at Home to offer Chistmas display pieces. 9) One Goodwin proof had a sticker advertising Allen & Ginter cigarettes on back. Goodwin and Allen and Ginter were competeing companies! Please someone explain to me why Goodwin would make a cabinet card to promote their competitor's product? 10) That's the end of the shortlist. I'm now going to walk to the supermarket and buy some gum.

Archive

08-31-2004, 11:47 PM

Posted By: hankronOne on my list is an error. I got cottage cheese and lemonaide, not gum, at the supermarket.

Archive

08-31-2004, 11:54 PM

Posted By: Judge DredIs there an image or scan that can be viewed of these items? Were the cabinets present at the Cleveland National this year? I saw a table with 4 cabinets of the same player in different poses. I believe that the team was KC. Would these be the cabinets in question. I think they had a black mount on the backs. Any info would be appreciated. Thanks! I stopped subscribing to SCD a while back. Before the internet it was a neat publication where I'd rarely get the good stuff from the ads because I'd get my copy a few days later (west coast) than everyone else. I still have a bunch of back issues but they're depressing because you see the prices of the material way back when and.......

Archive

09-01-2004, 01:46 AM

Posted By: hankronThe mentioned proof cabinets I have seen have distinctly Old Judge players and poses, and are on black mounts that don't resemble the regular N173 mounts (note that some N173 mounts can be black). Especially as they have no text on the mount, they are easy to differentiate from the regualar N173. Genuine 1880s cabinet mounts were die-cut in a factory and have an almost cookie-cutter appearance. The proofs I saw in person were obviouisly not factory cut, One of the neat things is that the typical Old Judge era cabinet mount was gilded. This means it was embelished in gold. They were gilded on the edges and often on the text on the front (the words are in gold)-- though the gold dust has often flaked off the edges. Not only is it nice for the eyes, but this gilding is a great convenience for today's collector. Even if you are no photo expert, if you find an Old Judge or Joseph Hall cabinet at a garage sale and Old Judge or Hall's name is guilded on the mount, that's a huge sign it's genuine ... Some might argue that it would as hard to forge a real looking Dog's Head mount as it would the photographic print placed on it.

Archive

09-01-2004, 07:37 AM

Posted By: Jay MillerCorrect me if I am wrong, but all we are argueing about now is when these "proofs" were produced. Obviously, the images are genuine. They are Old Judge images and, in most cases, they are not available elsewhere. Let me expound a possible theory on the genesis of these items. I believe they all are sourced from some fellow in Vermont who was also the source of all the glass plate negatives. Lets say that the only original material he, or his family, had were these negatives. Maybe he had alot of these, alot more than the 44 or so in the discovery of about ten years ago. Lets also say that he liked the images but, as is the case with glass plate negatives, they don't by themselves display well. So somewhere along the line someone decided to print out some images for display. This could have been done in 1890 or 1910 or 1940, who knows, but they were printed from these glass plate negatives. The intent was not to deceive, the intent may have been to just create a means to easily view the images. It was only within the last ten years or so when these images took on serious value that someone in this family decided to market these "proofs". Since Terry Knouse was one of the first people I saw selling these (I purchased a framed piece from him about six or seven years ago) I would love to hear if he can add anything to the discussion.

Archive

09-01-2004, 08:17 AM

Posted By: runscottIf I owned any of these, I would certainly go with that.

Archive

09-01-2004, 09:08 AM

Posted By: Jay MillerScott---If you didn't own these what would you go with? Tough to explain how the images could not be genuine when they are unknown elsewhere.

Archive

09-01-2004, 11:31 AM

Posted By: hankronWhile I don't agree many points of Jay's theory, I won't argue with owners who say their have some value simply as display pieces. If they were printed later from the original negatives and depict unknown players or poses, I could see how that would be cool for an OJ collector. The images on these are crystal clear and real photo. I don't collect OJs, but if they came out with a modern limited edition 11x14" of King Kelly or Ed Delajant suitable for framing on my wall I would place a bid. I have no problem with people buying and selling these items if they they described accurately ... Though a practical value problem is that, if the negatives still are around, there are no limits on how many will be made in the future.

Archive

09-01-2004, 11:38 AM

Posted By: hankronAt the British Musem in London, experts determined that a series of ancient Greek statues on display were complete fakes. They were forged by the ancient Romans!

Archive

09-01-2004, 11:40 AM

Posted By: Tom Boblittwith Jay about the images.......they are clearly real images that have been around since the period. I would also subscribe to his theory that someone printed them--maybe the original owners--for display purposes. When someone told them they could get $5K apiece for them, they became 'proofs' from the period. Or....they could have been made to deceive. Jay.....I've seen some of the negatives before and I'm sure you have some.....have you seen the negatives from the pieces where no known N172/N173 pose is known to exist? I find that odd.....didn't you say that for some of the 'proofs' there is no known N172/N173? The negatives I've seen were in some type of wooden frame that looked as though it was made for them expressly (at a later time). They are cool as a display piece though--regardless of the value.

Archive

09-01-2004, 12:30 PM

Posted By: Jay MillerTom--For example, of the four Flynn "proofs" being auctioned off three are poses not known on any Old Judge card. You don't just fabricate these out of thin air. They had to be printed from original negatives. When? Who knows. As a side note, David take your medicine. Your typing is getting very erratic. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

09-01-2004, 01:37 PM

Posted By: runscottas you pointed out, the question is "when were they printed?". When I made the statement "if I owned some of them..." I simply meant that if I were "sitting on the fence", it would be more pleasant to assume the best. I had an opportunity to pick some up three years ago at reasonable prices and passed because I felt that they were printed in the last 20 years by someone who put a lot of effort into making them look vintage, by reproducing vintage photography techniques. Perhaps I blew an opportunity of a lifetime. Some of the points David made did not require that you actually hold the item and examine it. On the other hand, with such thoroughly researched work as this person has done, only someone who is a vintage photography expert could make a more certain determination as to age, certainly a card collector would not be able to do it alone - we have to rely on the experts and circumstantial evidence. I think that by combining David's vintage photography expertise and the Old Judge expertise that you have, that it would be simple to come up with an answer. I bet you two could sit down together with a pile of these things and give us all what we are looking for - if not, then I doubt anyone could.

Archive

09-01-2004, 01:42 PM

Posted By: hankronActually, Jay, I've been bi-polar ("manic deprresive") since I was a lad, but I take my lithium nightly, so any bad typing is pure incompetence.

Archive

09-02-2004, 12:53 PM

Posted By: hankronAs this espisode may have scared some folks, the following are a few useful notes for collectors and potential collectors of 19th century cabinets and similar mounted photos. 1) These 'proof' cabinets are the exception, as the makers, apparently, had access to the original negatives. Original 19th century baseball negatves are rare-- and notice that these fakes are all for Old Judge subjects. The reason these fooled many people is because the images are so clear. This clarity will rarely exist on other examples. 2) The most common forgery is a computer print fake. Either the whole thing can be a computer print or just the image can be a computer print. In cases (non-baseball), the forger made a computer print of the paper photo part (invariably a famous subject) and pasted it to a genuine mount ... These fakes are easy to identify, as the image is made up of a tiny patter on color dots under a magnifying glass. Genuine photos have no ink pattern, as there is no ink and printing press involved. 3) Many baseball photos are misrepresented-- ala it really isn't Babe Ruth or a baseball player or the photo is not as old as they say. Here, good observation or asking for anothers' opinion will solve. As the age itself of a photo is directly related to its value, it's not a bad idea to get a second opinion as to whether the photo is really from the 1860s or 70s ... Though not wishing to make a plug, my baseball photo guide has detailed listings on how to date a mount by it's color and design (qualities you can observe even when the image is online) and the how to date the uniform the player is wearing (again, something observable even if you don't have the photo in person) ... For example, Rob asked about the age of his tintype. I said 1880s-90s. Why? Because the player was hold a type of ring bat (rings on barrell) that was made in 1880s-90s. 4) Beyond authenticity, the value of baseball photos is greatly effected by the style, size and type. For example, certain styles of 19th century photos are rare and/or unusually visually pleasing and will gain a big premium in price. Certain photographers, i.e. Horner or Joseph Hall, will give a huge boost in price. Even something as simple as an usnual color mount can give boost. Also, some players are much harder to find in photo form than others. Babe Ruth is relatively common, but Addie Joss or Ed Delahanty are rare ... Personal experience and observation will help the collector see what is unusual, along with asking the opinion of the more experienced ... I don't actively buy baseball photos, other than a few here and there if the price is right, so potential bidders should not fear to ask me as I might be bidding competition.

Archive

09-02-2004, 01:26 PM

Posted By: hankronThe most common potential bidder questions are on the order of "Does this look okay and is this a reasonable price?" ... I'm happy to answer these types of questions, but have to be asked ... If bidders don't ask me or wait until until after the auction, there's nothing I can do about that.

Archive

09-05-2004, 11:11 PM

Posted By: nickinvegasI have personally examined the 6 OJ proofs(american memorabilia auction) for several hours and these my conclusions: 1) The photographs are albumen. I say that because they are the proper gauge for albumen of this period, They smell like Albumen, Under the microscope they look like albumen should. 2) The wear on the actual photo is what it should be. While they were obviously not left out in the sun or light for the last 100+ years; each one has a great patina that would be difficult to fake. 3)The player, team, uniform all match the time period the proofs would have been created. There are more reasons, I could go on. But, my limited attention span has reared it's ugly head again. So I will end in saying, I believe these to be nothing short of stunning. The value of these rare items can not be stated, the people will decide. After the sale if there is information that contradicts the listing, every penny will be refunded! And Credit Cards are accepted. Regards, Nick Martinez American Memorabilia Auctions

Archive

09-05-2004, 11:25 PM

Posted By: Judge DredNick, Were these 4 proofs/cabinets/photos at the National? Was there a team listed with the players name? If possible can you please provide a link to the scans of the items for viewing. Thanks!

Archive

09-05-2004, 11:30 PM

Posted By: nickinvegasYes, they were the same ones Bob Lemke mentioned in SCD(they were at the National.) <a href="http://www.americanmemorabilia.com/Auctions.asp?auccat=Baseball" target=_new>http://www.americanmemorabilia.com/Auctions.asp?auccat=Baseball</a>& Thanks, Nick

Archive

09-06-2004, 12:24 AM

Posted By: hankronNick, just remember that I'm the type of guy who says, "I told you so." Story has it that these may be the same proofs I examined for MastroNet (hint: patina and varnish aren't the same thing). People don't always follow my formal advice on the authenticity of photos, but down the road these people invariably realize my knowledge and insight on the subject (not to suggest I'm not ignorant about a million other subjects, including how to set the date on my new watch, use cling wrap and cut the dog's toenails). No matter how you or SCD or the auction house argue your position now, I promise you that a year or two down the road that you will shake your head that you didn't take my opinion and advice more seriously.

Archive

09-06-2004, 09:36 AM

Posted By: nickinvegasDavid, I can live with an I told you so and I am not above saying what a dope I am. In this case, I don't feel that I am wrong. Your hints have not helped me.There is no "Varnish" on the item. Having spent much of my youth working with my Dad on wood. Varnish is something I can usually recognize. In your other post you mentioned "tin types". These are not Tin Types. I am usually pretty good at hints, but not in this case. As far as your opinion goes, I fully respect it.You have proven yourself again and again. That is why I called you and asked your opinion. That is why I offered to Fed Ex the proofs to you, which you refused. I hope you can understand that I can't pull an auction based on one persons opinion that has not even examined them. I am looking forward to the start of your formal authentication service, I will give you some business. In the meantime I will always strive to get the best available authentication of items; and that is what I have done in this case. The only thing I don't understand is, why I have shown this to other experts and they seem to agree with my opinion. I have taken great care in examining them(and this ain't my first rodeo) and I don't smell a rat. I have also read litature(ie. Albumen.com) and I do not see the light. As far as Henry's nails go. I would suggest cutting just a tiny bit above the quick(red part), getting closer and closer everytime will cause the quick to go further up each time. This will make it so he won't need to get his nails cut as often. Regards, Nick

Archive

09-06-2004, 09:46 AM

Posted By: The other One (Julie)but if Nick and David are talking about the same proofs--David, did you see the scans on the A.H. auction page? ...and David has examined them in person (NOT on the internet), I cannot imagine him being wrong. A fairly high-powered microscope should settle the question once and for all (he advised me buy a 100X one--it has lenses of 100, 80, 40 and 10X). Obviously, if the negatives are period and the prints are not, there is some sort of peculiar scenerio involved... As for cutting canine or feline toenails, it is the most harrowing experience a vet tech has...and that includes assisting in surgery.

Archive

09-06-2004, 10:29 AM

Posted By: Jay MillerI'm not sure if it adds anything to this discussion but I have a framed piece with exactly these same four images of Flynn on one piece of black cardboard. My guess is that the four pieces in question were once in a similar state and were removed from the frame and cut into individual "proofs". I can say with certainty that these photos are different than the photos in N173s. Not being a photographic expert I don't know what the differences mean but there definitely are differences. Having said that, my question would be that if these are genuine proofs why make two sets of the same proofs? My guess is that there are more than two sets also. Flynn and Doran seem to be the most common subjects and I know there are more than two copies of certain Doran poses.

Archive

09-06-2004, 10:41 AM

Posted By: The other One (Julie)is to print the picture by the same porocess, on the same medium.

Archive

09-06-2004, 11:05 AM

Posted By: nickinvegasJust to clarify the items we are talking about are: -not being auctioned by "American Heritage" it's American Memorabilia. -Have been examined by me under a microscope and are as advertised. -David has not personally examined the items. Nick

Archive

09-06-2004, 06:18 PM

Posted By: Josh EvansNick in Vegas: First, I viewed these proofs up close and personal and they were not even close to being real. They are simply frauds. They are also a known commodity within our tiny industry having bounced around for over a decade, and as far as I know every major auctioneer has rejected them. Therefore, any responsible individual should regard them as questionable and should thereby only be sold with that caveat or not at all as a best case scenario. Therefore, it is not just David but many others in our hobby that are saying these are no good. If you think as a fellow auctioneer I am being subjective in this matter then realize I passed on these several years ago when I had the opportunity to obtain them and price was not an issue. If you also know me, I am more committed to the industry I have made my life in and doing what is right for the stuff is more important to me than getting one more piece or collection or one more dollar. I hope my actions through the years have proven this out. As for the fact that these will be refundable based on “proving” they are bad that is naïve. First of all, it should be guilty until proven innocent with regard to authenticity. Besides, will the moneys be put into escrow to protect those that come back ten years from now with hats (stamped "Proof"?) in hand? This may be off topic but I feel it is relevant when you make a statement regarding refunds. Victor Moreno and American Memorabilia do not have the greatest track record. Do you know that they paid an unscrupulous employee of mine (Katie O’Brien) to steal our mailing list? Do you know we caught them red handed and a New York judge literally stopped their first auction from happening and they had to provide a public apology? By the way, we spent $80,000 to make an example of these guys. This was about principal more than anything else. Do I have an axe to grind here? Absolutely. But am I correct. I’ll leave that up to you and this forum.

Archive

09-06-2004, 06:27 PM

Posted By: The Other One (Julie)cause I'm not bidding on them! They are WONDERFUL pictures, though. So clear!

Archive

09-06-2004, 06:54 PM

Posted By: ElliotI'm not sure why there is so much confusion about these items. Josh is correct in that these have been bouncing around the industry for a little while and I'm quite sure that David has examined these in person. David has no axe to grind and is quite knowledgeable with regards to photographs of this genre. He has been quite vocal in his opinion that these are not original "proofs" from the time period that is claimed. Josh Evans (who admittedly has an axe to grind with the auctioneers) has also weighed in on the matter and has quite clearly agreed with David. I know of at least two other people who have handled these items in the past and both have no doubt that they are not as claimed by American Memorabilia. They have this opinion, despite the obvious financial incentive they would have had when they were in their possession to proclaim them to be real "proofs". I think that it should be obvious to everybody that these are not "proofs" from the time period claimed. They are, however, an interesting collectible, and would certainly have some value. Given the fact that major auction houses have refused to market these items as "original", it should be clear that American Memorabilia would, in the least, be best served to have the pieces re-examined and reconsider their opinion regarding their authenticity, or auction them as a later generation photograph.

Archive

09-06-2004, 08:03 PM

Posted By: hankronEveryone makes mistakes-- whether it's MastroNet, Sotheby's, Joe Blow on eBay or me. There's no shame in realizing you made a boo boo, even a dumb one, and correcting the description or pulling the lot. In fact, it tends to be a good sign when a seller does this, if not too often.

Archive

09-06-2004, 09:41 PM

Posted By: ramramAs I mentioned earlier, I had a chance to view a half plate tintype a few years ago that I believe carry a connection with these pieces. As I recall, I believe it was also an Omaha player. Admittedly, I've got a great deal of experience with hard images (tintypes, ambrotypes, dags) from the 1850-1860's period but not as much with later periods. The tintype had just about disappeared by the early 1880's and the process may have changed somewhat but the one I viewed did not appear to be "right" in my opinion. I also recall bidding on a couple of similar tintype images, prior to this time, but luckily did was not the winning bidder. Furthermore, I have gone back in some of my old HCA (Historical Collectible Auctions) catalogs and pulled up some other interesting items for what it is worth. In their June 2002 auction there is a "Goodwin tintype of Omaha Baseball Player Sliding. Half plate tintype of baseball player...This tintype is marked in negative "Burns L.F. Omaha W.A." and "Copyright 1888 Goodwin & Co."". The next lot was "P H Mayo & Bro. Photo of Omaha Baseball Player. Photograph on heavy cardboard of baseball player in uniform leaning on bat. This cabinet card sized photograph has written in negative "P.H. Mayo & Brother Tobacco Co." at top and "Doran T.B. Omaha W.A." at bottom and "Copyright 1888 Goodwin & Co." at right corner". Also, in the May 1998 catalog there is a single framed set of photos described as "Baseball Photo Sequence. Very interesting framed display of five silver print photos [not sure if the auction company was accurate on calling them silver prints or not but this could be important], each 4-1/2" x 6", depicting a late 19th century baseball player in a sequence of batting, catching, and fielding a ball. The man is IDed in negative as Doran T.B. Omaha W.A. and photos are marked Copyright 1888 by Goodwin & Co. There is a little bit of staining around edges.... Overall 26" x 8-1/2" in period frame." Rob

Archive

09-08-2004, 10:43 AM

Posted By: Jay MillerWell, it's easy to see why American Memorabilia would have an extremely difficult time pulling these lots. When you look at the web site the auction is listed as the Old Judge Auction with a picture of one of the Flynn images on the front.

Archive

09-08-2004, 11:02 AM

Posted By: The Other One (Julie)in 1888...

Archive

09-08-2004, 12:13 PM

Posted By: davidi dont think anyone has mentioned this but the one thing that bothers me about these images is the writing of the goodwin copywrite and the lettering in the name and team. something doesnt seem right with them to me

Archive

09-08-2004, 12:33 PM

Posted By: Jay MillerDavid--There is nothing wrong with the writing

Archive

09-08-2004, 02:25 PM

Posted By: nickinvegasJosh, What you mentioned in regards to wrongs done in the past by American Memorabilia are indeed in the past. If all of that happen before their first auction, that was nearly ten years ago(I have heard different verisons of your acusations, some with you on the receiveing end.)I am always cautious in sliging mud, I tend to get some on me! I have done business with them in recent years and I have been very satisfied. I was cautious in my decision to join their team. I can tell you this, If I say something will be done it will be done. I am putting my name and experience in the hobby as a partner with American Memorabilia.I feel if you look into any ones hobby past you will find some questionable decisions, me icluded. The difference is I have always gone out of my way to make things right, and that is what I will do at American Memorabilia. Just as you do with your successfull business. They say that you can tell alot about a person by their enemies, If Victor has attracted you as an enemy it is a good sign. Your operation is one of the best in the business; And if you are at all concerned about American Memorabilia it is indeed a good sign. In regards to pulling the auction, I have yet to hear anything that gives me difinative proof of a problem with the items. All I hear is lore,"this person saw that, and this person did that... I will bring the proofs with me to the fort washington show, if any one wants to inspect them, and tell me the error of my ways I am open to that. I am not above saying I am wrong and loosing revenue. Like David said it is a good sign if an auction house protects it's customers. I just need a factual reason and I have yet to hear it. Warmest Regards, Nick Martinez American Memorabila

Archive

09-08-2004, 02:58 PM

Posted By: Rich KleinI'm glad to see that these are bringing so much scrutiny. My suggestion is that someone with NO axe to grind for EITHER side take a good hard look and examination of these items. Someone who has experience with 19th century materials and can date the materials totally. I suspect that many authenticators would love a "free" trip to Vegas and if I were American with this much discussion on the subject, I'd offer to foot the bill to get someone agreeable to all sides out to Vegas to do a forensic exam. Just an idea from someone who spends quite a bit of his time trying to figure out the fun world of 75 new products in baseball each Regards Rich

Archive

09-08-2004, 04:41 PM

Posted By: The Other One (Julie).........

Archive

09-08-2004, 05:01 PM

Posted By: hankronFirst, I wish to note that I only post as the registered hankron with Veruschka transiguration avitar. Not to suggest that there was anything wrong with the other david's posts, just clarifying that I don't post in under my name. Second, I was recently informed by off board source that the AM cabinets are the same ones I examined several monthes ago. I did scientific examination on the paper and mount and have stated that these the photos I examined were not proofs and were not original. Neither the photographic paper (which was NOT albumen!) nor the mount was vintage. I examined them in person at the request of MastroNet. The expert at MastroNet, who is someone who is well known and widely respected, came to an independant opinion that these were fakes. It blows my mind that there is controversy and debates about the authenticity of these items. It really does. I re-issued a guide on baseball photos that includes a lengthy and illustrated guide on the authentication of 19th century albumen prints. It includes how to measure the paper, examine paper fibers under the microscope, look for unique aging charectoristic and paper qualities that cannot be duplicated. It's no surprise to me that the people who are claiming these items are real have not purchased copy. I have no ax to grind. I have liked Nick for along time, and no one pays me any money for what I do. I don't have a job with any auction house or magazine or grader. I don't even collect baseball photos or cards anymore! ... I do, however, feel I know more than anybody about the authenticity of baseball photos. Along with personal observation, I use a variety of scientific equipment and tests. This is why I find it rather insulting when (with due respect to Rich) someone at Beckett says we should find someone who without ax to grind and with scientific knowledge should examine the photo. If Sotheby's and Chistie's heard that both MastroNet and Leland's considered photos to be fake, Sotheby's and Christie's would not accept them for auction. So why should a different auction house's level of acceptance be so different?

Archive

09-08-2004, 05:06 PM

Posted By: Rich KleinI did not mean to insult you in any way for I certainly respect what you do. I was just trying to get American to pony up and get someone in with acceptibility to all sides to make a final determination. Nothing more, nothing less. Sorry, did not mean to insult you in any way I repeat that getting someone in who is acceptable to EVERYONE is what I meant -- Regards Rich

Archive

09-08-2004, 05:14 PM

Posted By: hankronThe funny thing about this whole situation is that Nick and Bob L. are nice folks, and have also been kind to me. Some with you, Rich ... You wish these types of debates were with people you didn't like so much! So, beyond my steadfast and vocal refusal to say these items are authentic, I don't mean to hurt anyone's feelings, and understand that this is a difficult situation for those on the other side of the fence.

Archive

09-08-2004, 06:20 PM

Posted By: Brian Weisner Hi all, I haven't weighed in on this debate, because Old Judge's are not my forte,but I would be hard pressed to disagree with David anaylasis. We don't need someone who is "acceptable" to both parties, we need someone who knows what there talking about. If David has viewed these"proofs" and determined that they are not of period, and Mastro and other auction houses feel the same, than What is the debate? I have nothing against Nick, No Axe to grind against American, but feel that David has proven his expertise over time and his consistency. Personally I wish the items were legit, because I think they would look great framed on the wall, but I doubt I could outbid Jay Miller to own any. Be well to all Brian PS This has been the most civil debate I have seen on this board in some time, which proves we are all friends seeking the truth instead of enemies seeking to destroy.

Archive

09-09-2004, 06:47 AM

Posted By: Jay MillerNick--I'll be down at the Ft Washington show next weekend and I'll bring along my framed Flynn "proofs" to compare them to these. Unfortunately, my guess is that they are the same animal (no need for two sets of proofs). I'm hoping that TIK will take back the framed piece he sold me since, based on David's inspection of the items, I believe they are not period.

Archive

09-09-2004, 08:08 AM

Posted By: petecldThis could be a good warning sign to us buyers: Nick Martinez of American Memorabilia said: "In regards to pulling the auction, I have yet to hear anything that gives me definitive proof of a problem with the items. All I hear is lore,"this person saw that, and this person did that... " and "... Like David said it is a good sign if an auction house protects it's customers. I just need a factual reason and I have yet to hear it." Is this approach just for these lots or is it a overall philosophy of American Memorabilia to call a lot whatever they want to and only AFTER someone else points out they are wrong will they change a description or pull an item? Wouldn't (shouldn't) a reputable auction house do the research BEFORE offering an item? To change his mind Mr. Martinez said he needs "a factual reason" against these prints and he specifically says that "...lore,"this person saw that, and this person did that..." isn't good enough. Well what "proof" does American Memorabilia have that they are legitimate, period "proofs" (or even prints) other then the "lore" of the consignor who has a financial interest? I have yet to hear it. This is what they call protecting their customers?

Archive

09-09-2004, 08:26 AM

Posted By: runscottWe are lucky to have a 19th century photography expert available to us, though I'm surprised he hangs around considering the response he gets any time he says something that someone doesn't want to hear. I crossed over to photographs a few years ago, but pestered the hell out of David as I did so and luckily for me he was willing to answer my questions and give advice. It's got to be tough for some of you, attempting to venture out into areas outside of baseball cards, and unwilling to accept advice along the way. It's also apparent that the almighty $ is responsible for this in most cases.

Archive

09-09-2004, 08:58 AM

Posted By: leonI think Nick will do the right thing in the end as he has always done in the past. With that being said I do believe that an auction house has the responsibility to gaurantee something "is what it is" with substantial proof to warrant what they claim. If they don't have substantial proof then that also should be in the description of the item. Then the buyer can make their own decision.....just my 1 cent.....later

Archive

09-09-2004, 01:31 PM

Posted By: Bob LemkeWith due respect to those auction houses which in the past refused to handle the Flynn photos in question (every Old Judge related photo, regardless of its original intent, has become a de facto "proof" in the hobby's estimation), I spoke at length with one of the hobby's most respected auction principals (I did not seek his permission, so won't name him here) who was instrumental in bringing the original Vermont trove of OJ-related materials from the attic to the hobby market. He told me that representative samples were sent to, and authenticated by, the firm of photography experts who were prosecution expert witnesses at the O.J. Simpson trial then on-going. The Flynn photos, like the grouping held by Jay Miller were mounted in a frame from which they have since wvidenly been extricated. It is evident the cardboard on which these were mounted is not contemporary with the 1880s, but I stand by my inexpert opinion that the photos themselves ARE 19th Century production. A question: If the Flynn pictures are latter-day reproductions, where are the glass-plate negatives? They don't appear to have been part of the Vermont find, or if they were, they have been squirreled away since the dispersal. It is great that American Memorabilia is going to have these available for inspection at Ft. Washington. I hope all the experts will avail themselves of the opportunity and report back here what they see.

Archive

09-09-2004, 01:41 PM

Posted By: ramramOK, I'll say what everybody is thinking - so these were the "experts" in the Simpson trial! Where did that road lead to? I'm not trying to make comment on the "OJ's" (excuse the pun)but I don't think anybody should hang their hat on anything associated with that "farce"...oops...I meant "trial".

Archive

09-09-2004, 02:18 PM

Posted By: hankronThe irony for me is that I sold almost all of my baseball photos and, for over a year, my research has almost been exclusively on modern fashion industry photos. Yet the questions I always get are about Ty Cobb, Addie Joss and Yogi Berra, and never whether that Kate Moss on eBay is legitimate. It is sincere my hope that, next time, the big auction house offers some bad Jean Shrimpton or Gia Carangi so I can argue about those instead. <img src="http://www.cycleback.com/henryblanke.jpg"> Henry 2 minutes ago, toenails clipped

Archive

09-09-2004, 02:34 PM

Posted By: Jay MillerBob--First,I don't understand the significance of your questioning where the glass plate negatives are if these are not period prints. No one is saying that these prints were made yesterday, or last year, or ten years ago. What people are saying is that these photos were made some time after the late 1880s. Could have been 1895, could have been 1910. Regardless, why would one assume that the negatives would still have to be around. They are quite fragile and could have been destroyed or simply thrown away long ago. Second, why would you assume that your self described "unexpert" opinion is somehow correct when David's expert opinion is directly opposite it? I own this piece of s**t and I would love for it to be 100% authentic but I am convinced that David is correct. BTW, did you ever get the name of the expert that Rob used or find out his experience with albumen photos? As I have stated previously, these photos look nothing like the photos on N173s. If they were albumen photos made in the late 1880s why wouldn't they look the same?

Archive

09-09-2004, 04:43 PM

Posted By: The other One (Julie Vognar)were not period........yurg...

Archive

09-09-2004, 05:28 PM

Posted By: Jay MillerJulie--I realize that and I'm sure Bob does too. That's not what we are talking about.

Archive

09-10-2004, 02:53 PM

Posted By: Bob Lemkethe person who authenticated the material from the Vermont find is a former chief of the FBI forensic photography (or it photography forensics) lab. Again, since I have not sought permission to use his name, I won't.

Archive

09-10-2004, 03:26 PM

Posted By: petecldOk, so we have an "expert" source of information that can't or won't be named. Isn't that how the National Enquirer operates? Doesn't say a lot for the hobby does it?

Archive

09-10-2004, 03:37 PM

Posted By: hankronI made an earlier list of problems, but one that is straightforeward is that it would have been practically impossible for an 1880s photographer to make a tintype that includes Old Judge style writing in the image. The primitive tintype process made this impossible. I will bet you that most avid non-sport tintype collectors on a 50 dollar a week collecting budget know this. I don't care whether they they work for the FBI or the Louvre, anyone who argues that that type of writing on a tintype is authentic is no expert.

Archive

09-10-2004, 03:46 PM

Posted By: petecldIs the writing "on" the prints? There is no "white" ink so the writing had to be somehow tied into the negatives. Since the writing can be found on Old Judge images of various sizes - N172s and N173s - I thought the writing was on the negatives and when prints were made it appears reversed out when prints were made? David, is that possible?

Archive

09-10-2004, 04:47 PM

Posted By: hankronPete, the white writing on the N172 & N173s is legitimate and original. The Goodwin photographer wrote on the glass negatives and used the negatives to make the paper photos for the cards. The writing on the negative would in the image. The problem is that you can't do that with a tintype. A tintype is a totally different photographic process (for starters, there is no glass negative involved) and the photographer couldn't include writing on the final tintype. The tintype is a primitive process-- the same kind used to make the first photo in 1839--, and it had limits what it could do in the image. It's kind of like comparing a 1996 computer animation program and a 2004 animation program. You can animate with both, but the 2004 software can produce certain special effects that didn't exist with the 1996 software. *** A second theory about the Old Judge tintypes that I suspect has been thought of is that the tintypes are photographs of actual cabinet cards. In, say 1890, some guy took a photo of a N173 he had and made a tintype. At first this might explain why there could be writing in these Old Judge tintypes-- because it's a photograph of the writing. This, however, is also not possible. Most collectors of tintypes know that there are two big qualites about a tintype: that the photo is made of of a sheet of metal, and that the images are backwards. Left is right and right is left. Just like looking in a mirror. Again, the tintype process was old and, except in rarest sistuations, couldn't produce a foreward image. This means that if someone in 1890 made a tintype of his N173 cabinet, everthing would be backwards in the tintype's image, including the writing.

Archive

09-10-2004, 04:56 PM

Posted By: ramramSecond generation tintypes also have a loss of focus and, in just about every case, the tintype image is taken from just far enough away to see the entire subject (in this case a cabinet card). That means you distinctly see the edges of the cabinet card within the tintype image. As David mentioned, the image is also reversed and it is also a unique one-of-a-kind image. Rob M.

Archive

09-10-2004, 04:59 PM

Posted By: Jay MIllerPete and David--I think we are getting away from the issue at hand. First, David we are not talking about tin types. We are talking about the images that are in American Memorabilias auction, the ones Kevin Struss showed you. There may be a problem with the writing on some tin types but there is no problem with the writing in the images that American Memorabilia has. Pete, you are correct. The player's name, team and position, and the Goodwin copyright were written on to the glass plate negative and when the photo was made from the negative they showed up on the picture. There is nothing wrong with the writing on the American Memorabilia pieces. These pieces were made from authentic period glass plate negatives. Again, the only question is when they were made. David says after the 1880s and I agree with him. Bob--I talked to Rob again last night and he said that the FBI photo expert that he used DID NOT examine these multiple player images. He examined some images that came from the same source that were of a different size and not mounted on cardboard. In other words, he did not authenticate what David saw or what American Memorabilia is auctioning off. Thus, it is possible that what Rob had was period and what David saw was not period and there is no conflict amongst authenticators. Pete, there is no mystery authenticator. Bob just didn't want to say who he had spoken to but I do know who it is which is where I am getting the above info. I hope this clears things up a little.

Archive

09-10-2004, 05:36 PM

Posted By: hankronIt would be a whole lot quieter if everyone at least pretended to agreed with me. Just pretending's fine. Then I'd shut up. But each time I promise to myself to drop the issue, someone has to post that Johnny Cochrane or Jack Lalanne thinks my theories are goofy. As my wife says, "If I say I agree with you, will be you be quiet?"

Archive

09-10-2004, 08:38 PM

Posted By: Julie............ It's not AGREEING with you, David, it's respecting your judgement, since none of us can look at the things with a microscope.

Archive

09-10-2004, 08:55 PM

Posted By: What if?What if the FBI expert and our board expert disagreed on the proofs? Whose expertise should take precedence? Maybe I like our board expert and would then question the qualification of the FBI expert. Just because the person is an FBI expert doesn't make them infallible. To be honest with you I like the darn things. Who ever gets them will more than likely be happy with them. I've been following the thread and I'm still a bit confused of the overall issue because tin types and other stuff gets mentioned. Can someone please just list the main discrepancy with these possible proofs?

Archive

09-10-2004, 09:44 PM

Posted By: David Smiththe hub bub is about whether these "proofs" are authentic or not. Some say they are and some say they are not. Those who argue they are not say they have been around for about 10 years and that most major auction houses have looked at them and not accepted them. The argument goes that these "proofs" were made from original 1880's glass negatives of players but at a later time and NOT by Goodwin and Co. So, the photographic images are authentic to the time period but the photos and the cabinet card backings were not made then. So, if this is correct, then these are fantasy cards and not proofs. If this is true, then the auction company should either A) pull the cards from the auction or B) make 100% sure these are the real deal and if not, then at least give a disclaimer to the fact. As far as the tin type goes, that is a totally different subject but related in that it, too, might have been reproduced at a later time using the old, original glass negatives. I think that is what this is all about...

Archive

09-10-2004, 10:00 PM

Posted By: hankron...

Archive

09-10-2004, 10:21 PM

Posted By: AnthonyFWIW they were at the Hollywood Park show tonite. If you're in the area take a look and draw your own conclusions.

Archive

09-10-2004, 10:38 PM

Posted By: AmboGreetings, I enjoy reading this forum. I do not collect Baseball items but like to look at them. I have practiced the Wet Plate Process of Photography for about six years and you may see some samples of my work by looking under the seller AMBRO on e-bay and looking at my "Me" page. I can add the following facts on some of the comments about this Process in this thread. "This type of 'in the image writting' could not be done on a tintype. A tintype is a primitive and completely different process than with the Old Judge paper photos. There is no glass negative involved and you can't put writing into the image-- unless you're photographing a book or such". A Paper Photograph Printed with the negative reversed(thus the letters would appear reversed in the print) could be used to produce a Tintype copy with the writting in the proper Direction,a Tintypist of the day(or today!) would know this was required of a copy print. "It makes no sense that Goodwin & Co. would make a proof tintype or any sort of tintype. The tintype process could only produce one photo." With a multi lens camera it was possiable to produce many similar images at once, of course the more images the smaller the size of each image. "The tintype is a primitive process-- the same kind used to make the first photo in 1839." The Daguerrotype,that was introduced to America in 1839 is an image on a Copper plate with a thin coating of Silver that is fumed by various chemicals and developed by Mercury Vapors. The Wet Plate Process from which Ambrotypes(Glass Plates) and Tintypes(Iron Plates) were made is completly different. It uses Silver Nitrate in solution in conjuction with Salted Collodion to produce a light sensitive surface. "Second generation tintypes also have a loss of focus" A poorly executed copy will be out of focus,however with a very sharp lens(and they had some fine ones!) it was easy to make a copy image that is every bit as sharp as the original,so much so that it can be hard to tell each of them apart.It was also possiable to leave out all traces of the edges of the Image being copied. I would add that there has been a resurgence of the Wet Plate Process in the last 10 years,from less than twenty persons worldwide doing the old process to many hundreds today. So it goes without saying that the number of Fake Ambrotypes and Tintypes is going to increase in the future. Hope that info helps. Tim Parson Ambrotypist

Archive

09-11-2004, 07:13 AM

Posted By: runscottThey describe the differences between Dags, tintypes, ambrotypes, etc., various plate sizes, and also the processes used to create the Old Judge and other baseball cards that we are discussing here. Very good reading and I think a necessity for anyone who has your interests, especially since you are interested in baseball and some of his books relate the photographic processes to that subject. It might also give you a better idea, not just of the technical possibility of these images having been created in the 1800's, but also the actual "likelihood".

Archive

09-11-2004, 09:58 AM

Posted By: hankronAfter a 80 something post thread, I think I need a vacation. I stand by my opinion on the autheniciy, but am going to drop the issue. If collectors wish to beleive that Goodwin & Co was making Old Judge tintypes as proofs or to insert into packs of smokes, that's fine. If a collector who has considered the arguments wishes to purchase one of these proof cabinets, it's their money to spend. I have seen the proofs in person and won't argue that they will make pretty display pieces. I know most of the people on the other side of the argument-- Nick, Bob Lemke and I think I know who is the 'FBI-Guy'-- and they are honorable people who I respect. And that's as good a note as any to end my posting on the subject.

Archive

09-12-2004, 08:57 AM

Posted By: Bob LemkePlease allow it to sink in that the items being discussed are NOT tintypes. They are photographic prints. For those new to the thread, the discussion is whether the prints were made within hours, days or months of the original glass-plate negative, or years or decades later. Those who have access to a Robert Edward/Mastro auction catalog for the March, 2001, sale, might wish to refer to Lot 138 where a virtually identical item of a different player from the same "find" as the Flynn was offered. That lot included a stamped, dated envelope used to send the photo from "Wendel Photographic Art Studios" of NYC to the pictured player, Thomas Doran of Omaha. While it is not specified in the auction description nor pictured, I am told by the catalger the envelope was dated proximate to the original issue period for the Old Judge cards, i.e., circa 1888. (The lot sold for $3,537.)

Archive

09-12-2004, 12:09 PM

Posted By: John FreemanI looked at the card that was offered by Robert Edward auctions in March of 2001. I have never physically held the item in the auction, but it is not "virtually identical" to the cabinets that American Memorabilia has. First the one in the Robert Edward auciton has advertising in the photo reading "PH Mayo & Brother Tobacco Co." Also the mount that it is on is much different than cards in the American Memorablia auction. Just because the photo contains "Goodwin & Co." advertising does not make them "virtually identical." There are hundreds of generic cabinets out there that made use of Goodwin and Company photos. Lastly, even if the American Memorabilia cards are genuine, I highly doubt that these are proofs. First, they seem to be cut from an uncut sheet of four pieces. Why would proofs need to be mounted on generic cardboard? It would make them difficult to handle. Second, another poster said that he has the exact same four cards in uncut form. Proofs are usually not made in duplicate form. Obviously, these cards are not unique, as reported. I would suggest that the cards be taken to a photography expert at a museum and see if they are albumen prints or not.

Archive

09-12-2004, 12:28 PM

Posted By: Juliewhich will set you back $80. And you can look at all your early cards and photos and see if they're period or not. And be delighted that almost all, if not all, of them are! You're looking for fibres, probably a crackled surface, and NO DOTS in an albumen photo. The PRINT, not the negative...

Archive

09-12-2004, 12:52 PM

Posted By: Jay MillerBob--To echo what John has said the item from the Robert Edwards auction is not the same as the American Memorabilia lots. Second, a photographic expert already examined the American Memorabilia lots and said they are not period. That should be the end of the story. The RE Auction card could not have been from the Vermont find. It was supposedly mailed to Nebraska. The other material came out of a basement in Vermont. BTW, I'm not aware of any photographic expert examining the lot in the RE Auction. Would be interested to see what the result was there. I always thought that it was interesting that this lot was associated with a Wendel Photographic Art Studio envelope. N173s were mailed out in Goodwin & Co. envelopes. I have a few that came from a find of N173s about 7 years ago. Also would have liked to see an expert verify that the postmark on the envelope was in fact put on in 1888.

Archive

09-12-2004, 02:12 PM

Posted By: hankronI've talked to Julie a good number of times and I've long known that Julie is no dummy and does her homework. I also know she owns her own super power microscope that she was used to examine her MastroNet winnings. The albumen process was used to make almost all 19th century paper baseball photograhs, from the 1869 Cincinnati Reds trade card to Old Judges to Four Base Hits to that 1870 CDV of a kid holding a baseball. One of the keys (I said one) to authenticating 19th century albumen photographs is by examining the photographic image under a strong microscope (prefer 100x power or more, but 50x may do. I think Julie has a 600x power microscope!). Under a microscope, you can see the paper fibers in the albumen image. Looks like hay or little worms ... If you put your N173 or N172 under the microscope, you will be able to see the paper fibers. This may seem dumb and obvious at first, but with 99.9 percent of 20th century photographs-- from that original 1910 Ty Cobb to the Kodak snapshot of you at 5-- you cannot see paper fibers, even under highest magnification. This is because most 20th century paper photographs put a thin clear substance (for example, the gelatin in gelatin-silver photos) on the photograhic paper. This substance was used both to hold the photograhpic chemicals to the paper and for its chemical properties (gelatin allowed for better development that earlier substances). Though transparent and not effecting the image from normal view, these substances make it impossible to viewe the paper fibers. They prevent your microscope from focusing on the fibers below. These microscopic details have been well documented and known for years in academic circles. They were discussed in the standard academic book, "Care and Identification of 19th Century Photographic Pritns," Published by Eastman Kodak Company and written by James Reilley, Professor and Director of the Image Permanence Institute at Rochester Institute of Technology. Using other techniques including general obvservation, the key is that one can look look through the microscope at a questioned photograph and and say, This is a legitmate 1880s photograph. Or, there's no way this photograph was made in the 1860s. This technique takes some practice, but it is something that the average collector can do. A handheld microscope of power is 100x power is surprisingly inexensive (We're talking $15) and it often takes 20 seconds to look for paper fibers. When someone has me look at their 15x15" 1880s baseball photo, I take out my trusty little microscope and give the quick look over. "I see the paper fibers. Looks good. Nice photo." Duly note that this is one technique, and there are a vareity of other microscopic things to look for on albumen prints. Personally, I would love it if collectors bought my book on early baseball photographs, the above mentioned Reilly book if second opinion is needed, bought a handheld microscope that costs the price of a bottle of hair conditioner and learned how to make knowledgeable and intelligent opinions on the authenticity of these very OJ Proofs. I seriously would love it ... To me, the ultimate in any hobby is when a normal collector, like a retired 60 something baseball card collector and the only female board member named Julie V., takes the time and effort so she can make her own judgements about the stuff she collects. Tell me that isn't cool ... But the vast majority of collectors (and people viewing this thread) won't buy my book and a miscroscope. There's nothing I can do about this, other than to roll my eyes whenever some of these very people offer their exotic theories. One thing this thread has shown me is that many feel people they don't have to be know about a subject in order to argue about it, and that most people don't know about this subject. Considering that perhaps 5 people on this board have ever used a microscope to look for paper fibers on an 1800s cabinet card, and perhaps 8 even own a good microscope, I rest my case.

Archive

09-12-2004, 05:39 PM

Posted By: JulieBoy, was I shocked when I looked at Scott Forrest's beautiful Old Judge reprints under 60X and saw symmetrical pink and green dots! When you're dealing with a framework of time from 1885-1905, not too long a period, that's when the microscope really comes in handy. Because as sure a albumen quit about 1899, silver gelatin began about 1900. ABOUT..

Archive

09-12-2004, 06:36 PM

Posted By: hankronAs I said earlier, it is fine with me if collectors bid as much as they want on American Memorablia's or any other proofs (Hip Hip Hooray! and all that stuff). But, unless suffering from abnormally low i.q., the collector's level of knowledge is his choice and his responsibility. If the bidder chooses to not learn how to make sound judgements about authenticity before bidding thousands of dollars, that is entirely his choice.

Archive

09-13-2004, 07:27 AM

Posted By: Jay Miller"A fool and his money are soon seperated..."

Archive

09-13-2004, 07:47 AM

Posted By: Gary B.who does not yet own one 19th century baseball item, I would certainly stay far away from an auction like this, if for no other reason than all the controversy. My money hasn't stretched far enough to include many vintage cards as of late, so esepecially for that reason, I would always want to make sure I was getting some kind of good deal and be buying something legitimate. It's so hard to say what's really going on here, as I'm so far from being an expert, and others who are have spoken in volumes here, but it would leave enough doubt in my mind that I wouldn't touch these "proofs" with a 10-foot pole. I certainly hope that whomever does buy these doesn't pay too much, and doesn't later live to regret it. Even as someone who can offer nothing close to a valid opinoin on the matter, and couldn't afford these even if he was interested, still I find the subject and the debate quite fascinating. Peace, Gary

Archive

09-13-2004, 12:21 PM

Posted By: hankron...

Archive

09-13-2004, 12:26 PM

Posted By: Jay MillerCan I please see a scan of her bat in left hand pose?

Archive

09-13-2004, 12:29 PM

Posted By: Rich JacobsNo you can't, Jay. That's already taken, since it was Farrah Fawcett's pose in the T206 "The Monster."

Archive

09-13-2004, 12:38 PM

Posted By: Jay MillerRich--Welcome back! How about the Bat at ready, by head pose or the famous Silver(Larry) Flint pose Stooping, hands waist high, mask.

Archive

09-13-2004, 01:48 PM

Posted By: Julie Vognareven those of us you consider idiots...

Archive

09-13-2004, 10:38 PM

Posted By: Seth NagdemanSOME HISTORY OF THESE PROOFS: I compared my scans of these pictures with the ones offered at American Memorabilia and they are identical - these are the same pieces I had in my collection from 1999-2004. I purchased them in December of 1999 for $1,500 from a seller on ebay from Florida: ebay id "vtholstein0esl". They were in a frame. The photos were mounted on a black background. I took them to a framer and he cut them down to cabinet card size - I thought they looked more desireable that way. I decided not to put them in the 19thCenturyOnly.com auction because I did not know enough to represent them in my auction. I traded them in April, 2003 with one of my customers who ended up consigning them to a major vintage card auction (other than 19thCenturyOnly.com since I did not know enough about them to sell in my auction). They were returned to him because the auctioneer after reviewing them did not feel they were original. They were returned to me in September, 2003 and I refunded my customer for more than our trade because of what happened. I then showed the photos to two major auction houses, and one major 19th century dealer - in all cases nobody would handle them because they did not believe they were period and didn't know exactly why the photos were made. I then sold all 4 photos in Ft. Washington to a dealer early this year for $1000 with an explanation that three major auction houses did not feel they were period pieces. I don't know of American Memorabilia - have never done business with them before. Their photography expert represents that he found evidence that the photos are vintage. I'm sure they were thoroughly examined by American Memorabilia and it's possible the other auctions may have overlooked something.

Archive

09-14-2004, 06:35 AM

Posted By: Hal LewisThank you for a VERY informative bit of data! If they could only track the hurricanes as accurately as you have tracked these items!! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

09-14-2004, 06:36 AM

Posted By: Hal LewisI have nothing to add. I just wanted to be Post #100 !!!

Archive

09-14-2004, 07:27 AM

Posted By: Jay MillerSeth--Interesting post. Now we see that three major auction houses, one major vintage card dealer, and our own photographic expert have said that these items are not vintage. I think it is time for American Memorabilia to say why they think it is vintage.

Archive

09-14-2004, 11:00 AM

Posted By: Tom Boblittwho the 'major' dealer was that Seth sold them to. NOT TO PUT HIM ON THE SPOT. I think he's being totally forthright in his coming to the board to give the details. They're at $4400 or so now (or were), so someone made a good deal if they got them for $1K. It would be difficult for AM to admit they're not period (if they're not) since it was the basis for the cover of their auction.

Archive

09-14-2004, 01:49 PM

Posted By: Jay MillerLET ME MAKE A GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENT---I will sell my group of four Flynn images (the same ones that Seth cut up and are being auctioned now) for the current bid, without the buyer's premium, of $4400. Please email me at curl777@aol.com if interested.

Archive

09-15-2004, 06:39 AM

Posted By: Jay MillerWill any board members be at Ft Washington this weekend to examine the Flynns?

Archive

09-15-2004, 05:14 PM

Posted By: Jay MIllerDid anyone catch what is on the cover of this week's SCD? You guessed it--the American Memorabilia auction catalog with the Flynn piece on the cover. I guess both AM and SCD have alot invested in these pieces being vintage.

Archive

09-15-2004, 06:07 PM

Posted By: Brian Weisner Hi Jay, You beat me to it............... Be well Brian

Archive

09-16-2004, 12:08 PM

Posted By: Bob LemkeThe "cover" to which you refer is a mailing wrapper and is a paid advertisement by American Memorabilia.

Archive

09-16-2004, 12:46 PM

Posted By: Julie Vognar<img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

09-16-2004, 01:03 PM

Posted By: MWI believe the record is 167 <a href="http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=153652&messageid=1054127903&lp=1055948439" target=_new>http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=153652&messageid=1054127903&lp=1055948439</a>

Archive

09-16-2004, 01:34 PM

Posted By: Jay MillerBob--It is absolutely amazing to me but you are wrong on this. The cover, not the mailer, pictures the American Memorabilia catalog. In fact, I called SCD just to make sure I was correct and asked if this was on the cover and not the mailer and they said cover. As far as I can tell, you're 0 for 2 on this material.

Archive

09-16-2004, 01:41 PM

Posted By: Julieand the "Memorabilia" cover (or in this case, mailer). I THINK you're both right...Bob says that the MAILER of the auction is pictured on the SCD cover (there's NOTHING on the SCD MAILER--never has been). Anyway, how else would A.R. got on ---higher than I can count--SCD covers except for $$$? It's still a paid ad, no matter which it is.... I hope...you see, I don't have one...

Archive

09-16-2004, 01:52 PM

Posted By: Judge DredJulie, This issue of the SCD (or mailing cover) could become a VBC collectible. Anyone got one that they would like to put on ebay. You could post a message in the B/S/T thread. I'd pay a buck for it.

Archive

09-16-2004, 05:15 PM

Posted By: jay behrensIt's amazing how this thread and tbob's thread about his "proof" cards are so similar. The parties owning the cards want to live a fantasy about what they have even though the evidence says clearly says otherwise. Seems to me like it's time for some people to put up, or shut up in regards the their fantasies. And from where I sit, SCD is taking a hit in regards to their image and reputation with debacle. If I were SCD, I'd be trying to distance myself from this mess. Jay I saw weird stuff in that place last night. Wierd, strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, evil stuff. And I want in.

Archive

09-19-2004, 10:52 AM

Posted By: Jay MillerI went to the Ft Washington show yesterday and had the opportunity to meet Nick and the rest of the folks from American Memorabilia and see the Flynn images. First, let me say that Nick was very nice and helpful, a real gentleman. However, nothing I saw after examining the images changed my view that they are not period and were not produced by Goodwin & Co. Actually, the most interesting thing about the Flynn images was reading the catalog descriptions. The introductory sentence + to the section of the catalog describing these images states: "Vintage card expert Bob Lemke recently delivered an in-depth report in the pages of Sports Collectors Digest regarding a group of newly discovered Old Judge proof cards which served as models for Goodwin's standard N172 issue. This catalog offers four of these rarities......." After reading that it makes it sound like Bob is the resident expert who proclaimed these to be good. This doesn't give me a really warm feeling. Secondly, later in the introductory paragraph it states that the image's mountings are "absolutely unviolated". Am I having a senior moment or didn't Seth say that he had the group of four images cut up into four individual images. Sounds violated to me and it also sounds like this was a display piece. Finally, unfortunately for me and these images these are exactly the same images that I have on a four image Flynn display piece. Hardly unique proof images.

Archive

09-19-2004, 05:06 PM

Posted By: davidjay can you post an image of your set of flynn photos

Archive

09-19-2004, 06:17 PM

Posted By: Jay MillerDavid--Since this is a framed piece I would have to take a picture with a digital camera and then download it. Since I don't have a digital camera this involves borrowing one and, in all honesty, it's more of a pain in the ass than it's worth. Imagine the four American Memorabilia pieces put back together as if Seth had never done his hatcket job and you'll be there.

Archive

09-21-2004, 02:24 PM

Posted By: rhysCouldn't you tell by placing these under a black light that they are the ones Seth had since the sides have been trimmed? At the very least these could then be trimmed items which should have been detectable to a photographic "expert" and that should be mentioned IMHO in the auction discription. Rhys

Archive

09-29-2004, 10:39 AM

Posted By: George LayneTintypes and daguereotypes and other " positive in the camera " images can be made unreversed with the use of a reversing prism or mirror. Such devices were readily available, written about etc. as early as the 1840s-50s. Any knowledgeable expert on nineteenth century images would be aware of this. Not all photographers used them, but a tintype could certainly be made unreversed. George Layne, Philadelphia

Archive

09-29-2004, 10:47 AM

Posted By: runscottthat in the case of these items, an "expert" is anyone who supports your opinion of what you are trying to sell

Archive

09-29-2004, 03:05 PM

Posted By: tim mayerwish I had paid alittle more interest in this,,,I am a bit disapointed that something so suspect made it into the auction. I have bid on a few items, and I hope I win a couple , but I really think if an item has any doubt about its authenticity it should be pulled,,,,it's hard to trust an auction house if you know that they know that they have items that might not be real..even one person saying its bad should be enough for me

Archive

09-30-2004, 02:17 PM

Posted By: Jay MillerHas anyone checked out the four Flynn lots ending this evening? The total for the four lots, so far, is $23,285. Yes, you are reading correctly. Underbidders, I have the same items except not cut up into four individual pieces. You can buy these at a discount to these high bids.

Archive

09-30-2004, 02:22 PM

Posted By: dennisare reading any of this stuff, except tim

Archive

09-30-2004, 08:25 PM

Posted By: Gary B.the unfortunate aftermath of something like this thread for me is that i would be very hard pressed to trust an american memorobilia auctoin after this. i was chatting with another net54 member and they felt the same way. they might make $25,000 plus on those "proofs," but is it worth the cost in negative publicity and potetntial buyers not trusting them anymore? i don't want to put them down, as every other auction they have might be completely legitimate (and for all i know the proofs are legitimate), but this thread on the proofs casts a sad shadow of doubt, at least for me, that erodes my trust in them...

Archive

10-01-2004, 01:42 AM

Posted By: tim MayerI am thankful for all the comments, it was great reading, and very useful. I would like to say you all saved me some money, but I would have lost hours ago anyway, even if I had decided to stay in...I didn't stay in though,,,I am not dumb,,,the evidence is overwhelming.I amazed at the prices that are being realized as we speak. Someones going to be real unhappy in a year or two when they can't resell them.

Archive

10-01-2004, 07:41 AM

Posted By: prewarsportsCheck out the prices and think about what you could have been able to pick up somehwere else for over $45,000! Rhys

Archive

10-01-2004, 08:05 AM

Posted By: runscott...but when I received their catalog, I checked to see if the "proof" auction was indeed described as this thread indicates. When I saw that was the case, I threw my catalog in the trash without reading further.

Archive

10-01-2004, 11:44 AM

Posted By: NickinvegasGentlemen & Julie, I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank those who supported our September Auction. In regards to the Old Judge Proofs, there were several bright and experienced hobby pro's that felt they were extraordinary and authentic. Last night as I viewed the list of bidders I saw several of the hobby heavyweights bidding on the proofs. At the Fort Washington show I shared in discussions and inspected the items with several of the hobby's best dealers and collectors and with one exception they agreed with our assertion of authenticity. And I think the final price on the Proofs spoke volumes. This, like any debate had two sides. Keep in mind the side of truth is not always the loudest side... As I have mentioned before, I will be handling and approving all future vintage baseball auction listings. I started just after this auction began. Having been an active member of this board for several years I can assure you that board members will get premium service! Please take a moment to register, just write "Nick-NET54" as your reference. I will personally take care of your transactions beginning to end. Registration is Free. Our current auction has some great items. We are looking for consignments for the Big Holiday Auction. We will have over 300 vintage baseball cards listed including several Old Judges(no proofs, just cards.) And of course the usual great selection of game used uniforms. Thanks again for your support. Sincerely, Nick Martinez American Memorabilia Auctions: 1-800-430-0667

Archive

10-01-2004, 11:49 AM

Posted By: scgaynorCan we have some of the names of these hobby veterans who looked at them and proclaimed them real? I have not seem them myself, but was just wondering who does think they are real. Scott

Archive

10-01-2004, 11:57 AM

Posted By: jay behrensI was just wondering the same thing. Without getting these hobby veterans to step and put their name on the line, it's no better than the eBay scam artist claiming that he's had paper experts and other "experts" look at his item to declare it real. Ol' Blue Eyes comes to mind right off the top of my head. There are a lot of hobby vets that have been willing to step and say there ARE NOT legit, yet it doesn't seem that many hobby vets of similar stature are willing to put their reputations on the line to say they are what you claim they are. Jay I saw weird stuff in that place last night. Weird, strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, evil stuff. And I want in.

Archive

10-01-2004, 12:00 PM

Posted By: runscottIt went as you hoped - that's good for you. I don't think anyone on this board had any reason to want these items to be something other than what you described - in fact, most of us get really excited when something that is new and real surfaces...but this wasn't it. As far as "hobby heavyweights", anyone with a large amount of money and a wilingness to spend freely must be one of these. Personally, I know several huge spenders who have some of the largest and most valuable collections in the hobby, and who know about as much as the novices who buy t206 reprints...and that's fine - I don't go them when I need expert advice. What bothers me is that the auction houses are indeed more concerned with the money of the "hobby heavyweights" than with the opinions of the experts.

Archive

10-01-2004, 01:36 PM

Posted By: hankronThe problem with this 'debate' (I supose we could debate if the color blue is blue too), is that my assesment of these proofs is accurate, and those who disagree are ingorant. It's as simple as that. You can argue with me about this, but you'd be wrong. Only for the sake of argument in this paragraph, let's say the proofs are authentic. Why hasn't the AM auction description been ammended to say that these were owned by Seth N. and he stated publicly that he had these chopped down from a larger piece? I haven't collected cards in a while, but I've been under the assumtion that things like trimming and altering (cutting a thing into four smaller pieces being an example of alteration) were of significance in the trading card hobby. Has AM decided that these things are mere technicalities that should be withheld from potential bidders? What other things and kinds of things has AM decided are mere technicalites that should be witheld? In which lots?

Archive

10-01-2004, 01:51 PM

Posted By: Bob LemkeUnbelieveable, David. How can your assessment of the Old Judge pictures be accurate when you admittedly never personally examined them? I did. And to quote the Teri Hatcher character on an old Seinfeld episode, "They're real and they're fabulous!"

Archive

10-01-2004, 02:07 PM

Posted By: hankronLast winter, I was asked to formally examine a series of proofs by a highly respected person at MastroNet. Some people know who this person is, but he asked me that his name not be included in any Net54 brewhaha (can't fault him there). Independantly (we live over 1,000 miles apart from each other), both he and I agreed that the proofs were not legitimate, and MastroNet rejected them for their auction. This person originally thought them fake, but promised the consignor he would get a second opinion (me). When the AM auction started, I didn't have a catalog or SCD or pictures and wasn't sure what was being offered. I was later told by this person at MastroNet that the AM proofs were the same ones I examined in person.

Archive

10-01-2004, 02:20 PM

Posted By: hankronIt is now known that these were cut down recently at a frame or whatever shop. They were originally a multi photo framed display, and Seth had them cut into cabinet-style photos. When I examined them (I got them in the mail), I didn't know this history. However, I could clearly see that the edges were cut recently. The cuts were not neat die-cuts like an real cabinet card, but were kind of funky cut. Almost as if they were cut with a big paper cutter. The edges were obviously first exposed to the world just recently, as the exposed cardstock was as clean and fresh as a dewy morn. I even remarked specifically about this when I talked on the phone to the person at MastroNet. At least when I saw them, most any person on the street or a 75 year old neighbor or casual friend or my mailman would have have judged that they were cut recently and not in the 1880s. I'm not exagerating! The edges were so new and un-die cut that some may have even wondered if I had just cut them myself. This is why, irrelevant to any issue of authenticity, I found it bizarre when an auction house would judge the proofs as to have never been tampered with.

Archive

10-01-2004, 02:25 PM

Posted By: Jay MillerBob--I hope you provide the same reference of authenticity for my proofs when they come up for auction as they are exactly the same as these. And, before you ask, I saw the AM ones at Philadelphia so I am positive that they are the same.

Archive

10-02-2004, 10:50 AM

Posted By: Bob LemkeDaid, you seem to be confusing the photos themselves with their current mounting. I do not disagree that the cardboard on which the photos are mounted is a latter-day accommodation. I am saying, and have said all along, that it is my considered opinion that the photos are genuine late 19th Century vintage. They were likely mounted and framed at a later date, (then unframed at an even later date). That should not affect the value of the photos themselves any more than slabbing a 19th Century card in a 21st Century plastic case affects the value or authenticity of the card itself. And Jay, unlike some persons, I would not express an opinion on the authenticty of your grouping (or anything else) without personally examining it.

Archive

10-02-2004, 12:09 PM

Posted By: jay behrensBob, you are well respected in this hobby, but to compare mounting a photo to a cardboard back to slabbing a card is absurd. This means that cards mounted in scrapbooks ahould be just as valuable as slabbed cards. Jay I saw weird stuff in that place last night. Weird, strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, evil stuff. And I want in.

Archive

10-02-2004, 01:58 PM

Posted By: hankronBob, all 19th century albumen prints were originally mounted-- the photo paper was so thin that they had to be or they would curl up into little cigarettes. The original mount, with name of studio or photographer or other information, is as inseperable a part of the cabinet card as the Sweet Caporal back to a Honus Wagner or the sleaves to a Joe DiMaggio game worn Yankees jersy. The original mount is quite simply a part of the cabinet card, and removing the print from the mount is destroying the overall photo. Any sport or non sport 19th century photo collector knows that if you peel the photographic print from a cabinet you have significanctly reduced the financial value. Any Old Judge N173 collector on this board knows that if you peel the print form a N173, you've probably reduced the value by 80 or 90 percent. Assuming for the sake of argument these prints are authentic as you say, this means that the prints would have had to have been pealed from the original mount, pasted to a new mount, then cut down at a framing shop. Are you saying that if someone peels the photographic print from a 1869 Peck & Snynder or 1887 Four Base Hits King Kelly and had them remounted at the local frame shop into 11x14 display pieces, this will have no effect on the value? Irrelevant to value, are you saying it's okay for an auction house to knowing withold the information that the Peck & Snyder and Four Base Hits were restored substantially in recent times? You have no problem attacking my position, but you sure seem loathe to say one thing bad about AM withholding that the 'unaltered proofs' have been, as you yourself said, far from their original state. Bob, do you honestly beleive that the bidders would bid the same amount of money if they were told by American Memorabilia that the proofs were remounted and put under a papercuter at a frame shop a year or two ago? Do you honestly beleive that the winner(s) of the proofs will have no care one way or the other if he finds out that the proofs are not on the original and unaltered mounts as AM 'authenticated' but have been altered/remounted at least twice in modern times? Do you honestly beleive the winner will be content and smiley the moment he finds out that AM knew about the restoration early in the auction but chose not to tell bidders? Bob, if you weren't an employee of SCD but the winning bidder, what would be your feelings if you found out six months or a year later that the auction house knew about but chose to to disclose such modern alterations and restorations? After an experience like that would you bid in another of their auctions? The financial significance of rebacking or restoring a photo or print or baseball card can be debated, but the rebacking or restoring that is known to the seller aways (e.g. without exception) has to disclosed to the potential buyers. It is up to the potential bidders, not the auction house witholding the information, to decide the financial or aesthetic significance of the substantial alteration to a baseball card, cabinet card, premium or vase. ... The proofs are fakes AND altered. Any way American Memorabilia's apologists try and slice it, it's not a pretty sight.

Archive

10-03-2004, 10:15 AM

Posted By: Bob LemkeWhat the Flynn proofs are mounted on today cannot in any way be compared to a Wagner card's front and back or a Peck & Snyder, or even an Old Judge cabinet. Those items were intended to be issued to the public in the manner in which you see them today. There was never any such intent with the proof photos. They would have been mounted on something sturdy -- surely NOT a printed Goodwin or other identified cabinet backing -- so that they were protected and viewable by the cigarette people, the printer or whomever participated in deciding whether or not the image made it into production as an N172 or N173. Is a Rembrandt worth any less if it's mounted in a 19th Century frame than a 17th Century frame? As for the buyers . . . anybody who plunks down $10,000 or $20,000 on any item in this hobby should have the sense to thoroughly investigate their proposed purchase regardless of what the seller or numerous uninvolved third parties have to say. I am going to conclude my participation in this particular "debate". We still seem to be missing each other's points and are unlikely to change anybody's mind.

Archive

10-03-2004, 10:28 AM

Posted By: davidcertainly if the backing was replaced and the piece was cut up into four individual 'proofs' this should have been disclosed by the auction house. for AM not to do so is irresponsible. also, i would like to know who was able to remove the albumen photo from the original backing and the put it on another backing causing ZERO damage to the photographic images all the while displaying no evidence of the change in mounting. i will put this offer out to the winners of the auction if they are there. there is a lab in my dept that tests fake currency, stamps etc. i would be willing to have the lab perform a forensic examination on the proofs to determine if the mount, photo and glue used to adhear the photo to the mount are period or not. perhaphs then this issue will be over with and we will all know for certain if the proofs are real or not

Archive

10-03-2004, 11:59 AM

Posted By: warshawlawSo I am a perfect candidate for the "jury" on this. Tabula rasa (blank slate) so to speak. Here are my reactions: If AM knew the checkered history of these photos, AM absolutely had to disclose it. I would be very pissed off if I bought a vintage photo on a modern board and the seller knew that the item had been cut down, peeled, remounted, etc. I simply cannot believe that altering the item by removing it from its existing old mount and remounting it on new board would not alter the value of the item. Apples ain't oranges (to steal a phrase): I cannot believe that a vintage period piece is worth the same as a piece that is partly vintage and party contemporary. Watch Antiques Roadshow; when you restore an antique, you affect its value (and no, I am not talking about cleaning it, de-acidifying it, etc., although that too can affect value). I do not believe that peeling the photos and remounting them is an appropriate means of conservation framing for these photos and that leads me to believe that the current condition should be disclosed in full. I spent a great deal of my misguided youth working as a framer. No museum would EVER chop down a mounted piece, peel it, and remount the image. At most, they would place the pieces of paper between plexi or mylar or glass and store it that way in a "sandwich". What happened to these images is simply unprofessional.

Archive

10-03-2004, 12:56 PM

Posted By: scgaynorA couple of questions: There are ways of removing the photo from the backing wihtout damaging the photo itself, but did David Rudd base his opinion that they were not authentic only on the mount? It does not sound like it based on his responses above. Since the word "proof" is stamped on the back of the mount, and the mount is not vintage, what other reason could somebody have to stamp "Proof" on the back of the mount unless they were intending to deceive? Is there anybody else out there, except AM and Bob Lemke, that is willing to say that they are authentic? Somebody who deals in 19th century material and would know. It really should not be that hard to tell if the prints are modern or vintage. For those of us that deal in 19th century photos on a regular basis, all that you have to do is look at the item, and hold it in your hand, all of the forensic tests are not needed. It would be about as easy as telling a real Goudey Lajoie from the one pulled from the Bert Sugar book. Scott

Archive

10-03-2004, 01:14 PM

Posted By: hankron<img src="http://www.cycleback.com/fashionphotos/lichfield-2.jpg">

Archive

10-03-2004, 02:32 PM

Posted By: barrysloateAM has an ethical responsibility to inform prospective bidders that at the very least there is a controversy regarding whether or not the proofs are period, and that bidders should take this into consideration before making their decisions. From my experience in this area, auctions houses can be told the same thing from any number of experts and will still do nothing. Several years ago Sotheby's photo department sold a full plate tintype purported to be Jim Creighton. It was categorically and undeniably not Jim Creighton, and as an early baseball expert I can say this with 100% certainty. I went down to Sotheby's along with several other experts to tell the head of the photo department that it was positively not Creighton and that if they did not want to pull the lot they should at least make an announcement before the lot went up. They of course wanted nothing to do with this, and refused several expert opinions even though at the time they had nobody on the staff who really even knew who Jim Creighton was. They identified him solely on the word of a less than scrupulous consignor. And as far as Bob Lemke's statement that anyone who spends $10,000 or $20,000 on an object should do their homework, I must tell you that in this overheated market buyers are quick to throw money around without doing much homework at all. If it looks impressive in the catalog, they will accept the opinion of the auction house. I have not personally viewed the Flynn proofs so I do not wish to render an opinion, but for AM not to disclose that there have been many experts who have doubted their authenticity is plainly fraudulent. There is no controversy there.

Archive

10-03-2004, 05:51 PM

Posted By: Jeff ODavid Rudd wrote: "So, from what I gather from this thread, Bob Lemke, editor of the Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards, beleives that auction houses should not be compelled to disclose to bidders that antique or vintage items have been substantially retsored or altered in recent times, as it's the bidder's responsibility to figure it out him or herself. Is this Sports Collectors Digest's official policy, or it just your personal one?" OK. I went back and re-read every post by Lemke on this longwinded thread, and I can't find a post in which he states anything like what you are implying, David. While his "buyer beware" point is certainly overly casual, he never states that "auction houses should not be compelled to disclose..." as you write. Frankly I find what you wrote to be potentially libellous and your implication troubling. For the record, I don't know Bob Lemke - never met him or spoken to him, just exchanged a few emails with him. I'm also not an expert by any stretch of the imagination in the area of 19th century material - I have no opinion either way on the piece under discussion. I just hate to see a man's reputation dragged through the mud, especially after he has already said he won't post about this issue any longer. If I missed something in this thread that Bob wrote that matches what David implies, which is possible, I will be the first one to post an apology to David. I'm sure that I'm going to regret ever getting involved in this one... Jeff

Archive

10-03-2004, 06:01 PM

Posted By: hankronJeff, all I am hoping for is that Bob will say that he beleives AM should have disclosed to bidders that they knew the proofs were altered and/or restored in modern times. That is all I am asking for. Am I asking for too much?

Archive

10-03-2004, 06:15 PM

Posted By: Jeff ONo, that's not asking too much. But if that's what you want to ask, just ask it and don't put words in Bob's mouth... words that he didn't say (or write) and that could be very damaging to a reputation that has been built over 25 years in the hobby. Again, I'm not saying who's opinion is right or wrong in this matter. I can only form an opinion based on what I've read... and as I wrote before, I certainly don't have enough experience in this area to be comfortable in voicing that opinion. I just hate seeing someone accused of saying or writing something that they did not. I have seen this kind of stuff happen too many times in my line of work dealing with bodily injury lawyers (disclaimer - I'm only referring to a very small number of specific BI lawyers... most of them are honest and ethical) who will turn around something that was said and then make unfounded accustations. If you want his opinion, or need him to clarify a statement, simply ask. It's better than implying something unfounded. Jeff

Archive

10-03-2004, 06:39 PM

Posted By: hankronObviously I disagree in the extreme with American Memorabilia and how they handled the auction, and, to a lesser degree, I have issues with the way Sports Collector's Digest handled it. SCD doesn't run American Memorabilia and may be under financial obligations that prevent them from being forthright, so I don't have near the grief towards them. I have long admired Bob Lemke's work, and recommend his price guide and 'Sportscard Counterfeit Detector.' I will continue to recommend the books, as they are good ones. I promise I won't post anymore on the subject, assuming Nick doesn't come on once again and post how wonderfully beautifully sexily authentic the photos are, and Bob doesn't claim that I'm wrong when I'm not (Helpful hint: The later is not a good technique to to keep quiet). As one sign of truce, I will remove the above admitedly goading post and replace with a Shrimpton. There are people who disagree on this subject, and I am willing to call a truce <img src="http://www.cycleback.com/fashionphotos/lichfield-2.jpg"> (soothing flowery 1970 Jean Shrimpton photo indicating peace and truce).

Archive

10-04-2004, 01:04 AM

Posted By: jay behrensBob, you of all people should know that there are far too many people that pass thru the hobby that have alot more money than common sense. If the flavor of the day is baseball memorabilia, then they are going to drop some serius cash on the stuff to impress their friends, regardless if they know anything about the steff or not. Jay I saw weird stuff in that place last night. Weird, strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, evil stuff. And I want in.

Archive

10-05-2004, 10:35 AM

Posted By: nickinvegasGentlemen & Julie, This will be the last time I comment on this issue. (Unless there is an update of major importance). I will try to be brief, please give me a moment. When I first came to Victor Moreno (Owner of AM), I met him to tell him about all of the controversy regarding the auction. He doesn't read the board. He explained that he handled the auction of the proofs in the best way he knew. He found the best authenticator that was available to him. He asked opinions of other collectors at the nationals. He did the best he could, the catalogs printed and that was that. So, he thought. I told him I knew David and I was sure he would personally inspect the proofs. I know David has a strong degree of influence with this board. Some choose to take whatever he says as virtue, without doing any research on their own. As many on the board would do I contacted David and asked him to look at them. I offered to pay him, and ship them overnight. DAVID REFUSED TO EXAMINE THE PROOFS. He also refused to speak to our photographic examiner. Had David looked at the proofs and rejected them with good reason,I would have lobbied to have them pulled. I trusted him at the time. Why would he refuse? If he had taken them, this would have been a short discussion. He could not spread disparaging remarks about American Memorabilia or me. There were several comments made to appeal to those who are looking for an opinion (Slipping in how to tell fake tin types and other items that aren't relevant is an example.) I do not think David is a bad guy, I just feel strongly that there is a hidden agenda. I respected all of the contrary opinions. Unfortunately,many came from competing auction houses. I close in saying that, had I started before the auction launched perhaps I would have made some changes. But, as of this moment I still believe the proofs are period and gorgeous. There is a double layer of mount. The original mount that the picture is on is un-violated. I am sorry if my opinion on this matter offends anyone. I will always do my best to help those that support me in my new job. Regards, Nick Martinez American Memorabilia PS: Barry Flynn (great grandson) of Paul Flynn called and gave me some great biographical information.

Archive

10-05-2004, 10:55 AM

Posted By: Julie Vognarat Seth Nagdemasn's request, when he owned them. He found them not to be albumen prints, and to have been cut apart and remounted. Oh, and 50 posts back, Seth said they were the same photos he had once owned.

Archive

10-05-2004, 11:05 AM

Posted By: runscottIn an earlier posting in this tome of a thread, you attempted to use yourself as your own source of expert opinion - many of us felt that David's opinion was a bit more credible regarding old photographs, which shouldn't really offend you given the amount of time David spends with photographs. If you and David got into a debate over baseball cards from the '60s, I would certainly tend to give your opinion more attention. Previous post by Nick: The reasons they are the real deal: September 6 2004, 1:11 AM I have personally examined the 6 OJ proofs(american memorabilia auction) for several hours and these my conclusions: 1) The photographs are albumen. I say that because they are the proper gauge for albumen of this period, They smell like Albumen, Under the microscope they look like albumen should. 2) The wear on the actual photo is what it should be. While they were obviously not left out in the sun or light for the last 100+ years; each one has a great patina that would be difficult to fake. 3)The player, team, uniform all match the time period the proofs would have been created.

Archive

10-05-2004, 11:52 AM

Posted By: Jay MillerTwo points 1-If Nick asked David (and offered to pay David) to examine these proofs and David refused and David has never seen these exact cards(which I think he said in an earlier post) then I think this has to somewhat diminish the impact of his objections. 2-David said that albumen photos cannot exist off a mount without curling up. I have had numerous skinned Old Judge cards (just the photo with no backing) which were perfectly flat. My guess is that even without a backing these albumen prints could have been stored to remain flat.

Archive

10-05-2004, 12:08 PM

Posted By: MW<> Nick, I too have long suspected this. I fervently believe that David's dog, Henry, is none other than a mutated New York subway sewer rat. Shocking? Absolutely. Unexpected? Perhaps not. I know I can't scientifically prove my hypothesis, but I believe a fair number of forum members share my viewpoint.

Archive

10-05-2004, 12:25 PM

Posted By: Jay MillerMike--I strongly disagree--there was no mutation involved. That "dog" is a pure bred sewer rat.

Archive

10-05-2004, 12:50 PM

Posted By: MWJay, Either way, I think David has some explaining to do.

Archive

10-05-2004, 01:29 PM

Posted By: runscottI thought David claimed to have seen the EXACT same cards. I don't have the energy to re-read all of David's posts in this thread, so I'm giving up and turning on the baseball play-offs.

Archive

10-05-2004, 01:31 PM

Posted By: hankronFirst, I will admit that Henry looks a tad like a rat. No argument or offense there. Before the auction, Nick contacted me to ask for me about the proofs. I said quite specifically that it was my opinion that American Memorabilia should not have them in auction. I said that I had long been familiar with these types of Old Judge proofs and had examined some before for MastroNet ... As I found out later, the American Memorabilia proofs were the exact ones that I examined for MastroNet and that both MastroNet and I agreed were fake. I don't have a hidden agenda. All I have been doing all along is refuting the accuracy of AM's description (I dare to find anyone here who closely reads the auction descriptions and sincerely states that the description should not have been rewritten in some shape or form so as to better inform the bidders. Beyond Bob and Nick's opinions, is there really anything controversal or radical about that statement?). I don't own any 19th century baseball photos or Old Judge cards, I am not an employee of any auction house or grader or rich collector, I don't get paid by anyone to give my opinions on or examine photos. In fact I don't work for anyone, even part time, not even mowing the neighbor's yard. I do volunteer part time for a local art museum, but I haven't noticed any Old Judge baseball cards on he walls or in the back rooms. Check out my ebay auctions (i.d. = drcycleback) to see the type of stuff I sell and you will see that I don't have a sellers conflict of interest. I don't think Shalom Harlow puts me in coflict. Anyone who reads this board, knows that I have criticized about every auction house and grader under the sun (Remember the brewhaha with Rob Lifson over the DiMaggio photo?). Ask Doug Allen or Bill Mastro, and they said that I am not shy to voice my opinion when I feel a MastroNet photo is misdiscribed. Beleive me, Nick, that I have complained about photos in an American Memorabilia auction doesn't make AM special. I have sold items before to Nick, on and off eBay. Before this auction, Nick would have readily said that I was an honerable and honest seller. To his credit, I also found Nick to be honerable and friendly. I didn't know Nick worked for AM until he contacted me to ask for my opinion. He said he contacted me because he trusted my insight of photos, and said he recommended me to AM's President as an expert on baseball photographs. In short, I have examined the proofs that were auctioned, I was contacted before the auction by Nick for an opinion and I offered my opinion. MastroNet rejected these same photos, and Leland's has also stated they beleive them fake. Beyond Bob and Nick, there is not a person on this board who doesn't beleive that, at least, the auction description should have been rewritten. I have no hidden agenda or financial motive, and, again, it was Nick who contacted me before the auction even started as he felt my opinion was worthwile and trustworthy. ... P.s. Jay, the curling of the albumen prints is caused if the were never mounted in the first place (meaning albumen prints almost always have to have been affixed to a mount originally, and if a albumen is on a modern mount this means the albumen had to have been removed form the original mount at some time.). If they were mounted flat like on a N172, and pealed off many years later (inevitably with mount residue stuck to the back) that is a different scenario. (

Archive

10-05-2004, 01:46 PM

Posted By: hankron.

Archive

10-05-2004, 02:07 PM

Posted By: Jay MillerDavid--Could I get a little education on something. When an albumen print is made you have said that it needs to be affixed to a mount or it will curl. Does the photo have to dry before it is affixed to the mount? If the photo does have to dry what would happen if, after it was dry, it was placed between the pages of a book or in a heavy folder and left for days/weeks or some period of time. I assume that the photo would remain flat. The reason that I am asking this relates to how Old Judge cabinets were produced. I always thought that Goodwin & Co had a file of photos and when someone sent in for a cabinet of a specific player they slapped the photo on the mount and sent it out. There was no reason to make up cabinets of all the players because there was no assurance that someone would want a cabinet of Rowe-Denver or some other no name player. Why waste the mount if no one ordered the cabinet? Isn't it better to do a Dell like process and build the cabinets to order rather than holding a large inventory? I guess the question also relates to the Flynns but that is not my major concern. I'm more interested in the N173 issue. Much Thanks--Jay

Archive

10-05-2004, 02:52 PM

Posted By: hankronActing preemtively, I state that an albumen print is identified by examining the print itself. If mounted or unmounted, mounted to a TV Guide or your neighbor's cat, the print itself is identified by looking at the print with a microscope. *** Even the original 1800s photograph studios knew that the albumen prints were so thin and fragile that they had to be, sooner rather than later, mounted. Most albumen prints were mounted on cardboard (ala cabinet cards), sometimes in books (picture books) and, as baseball fans know, sometimes on scorecards. I don't know how Goodwin did it, what time frame existed from making of the print and attaching to mount (10 minutes, 1 hour, 14 days, more?). It is possible they mounted the photos right away. It is possible they had plain albumen prints stored in books and when the time came, they stuck them to the mounts. In other words, it was possible to store albumen prints in books for lenthy periods of time. So your scenario is plausible. And if a genuine unmounted Cap Anson N173 albumen slips the pages of the musty book you pull from the libarary shelf, it could be authenticated as genuine and stuck in auction.

Archive

10-05-2004, 03:23 PM

Posted By: hankronI should point out that the chances of an unmounted Cap Anson N173 albumen print, or even a Four Base Hits King Kelly, falling from the pages of your dusty library book is about as good as being bit by a shark in Oklahoma ("So David admits in writing there's a chance! We've got him!"). Perhaps worse, not knowing what kind of aquariums Tulsa and Oklahoma City have. And, besides, it would remain public library property (the albumen print not the shark bite).

Archive

10-05-2004, 05:20 PM

Posted By: davidi always was under the impression that these types of albumen prints were made by first adhearing the albumen to the backing and then developing the photo. this seems to like a much better idea then developing the albumen and then adhearing the image to the cardboard. the first scenario would allow for the mass production of individual sheets, or cabinets, that could then be used as needed as opposed to whole sheets of albumen which would have to be used all at once

Archive

10-05-2004, 05:26 PM

Posted By: Jay MillerDavid--Did you see the lot on ebay of the cabinet size Kelly photo that some guy found in his late grandfathers bible.....just kidding. Thanks for answering my question.

Archive

10-05-2004, 05:55 PM

Posted By: hankronThe norm was that the albumen print was made first, then mounted. To make the image, the photo paper was submerged in liquid chemicals, and they had to dry out the photo before putting it on the mount. As you can imaging, havine the photo paper and cardboard mount (or book pages or scorecard!) dunked in a chemical bath wouldn't work so hot. As some know, the N172s started as one big uncut sheet of many card images-- actually one big composite photo. Goodwin then cut this big photo down into individual cards, not unlike Topps' printers cutting down a 1980 Topps sheet .... Cartes de visitie (mini cabinet cards) also started as one big photo made of smaller individual photos. The big photo was cut down and the individual images pasted to the mounts ... On occasion, you will see CDVs in uncut form.