View Full Version : Are Old Judge Proofs a Dead Horse ???
Archive
08-09-2005, 01:01 PM
Posted By: <b>Josh Evans</b><p>Very interesting note from this year’s National. For this first time I had a chance to see one of these Old Judge Proofs that everyone has been talking about for the last year or so. It is remarkable to me that these so-called experts can say these have any age at all. Those babies (yes I say babies – because they are newborn) are just that: brand new. The images themselves are poor, the paper they are printed on is modern, the emulsions are modern, and most importantly it should be obvious to anyone with any knowledge of old photography that a fresh paper image has been glued to an old photographic mount. <br /><br />It was obvious to myself that the photo was put on the mount recently. The exposed edges of the paper are almost white for god’s sake. When two pieces have been glued together for 100 years (or even 50, or 25) a relationship develops between the two. This is the same look that develops when ink has been on paper for a long period of time; it is called “knitting.”) It is a common device to detect autograph forgeries. <br /><br />Those that have said these are fake, are correct and I applaud them. Those that have said that they have “some age” are the most dangerous of all. Has a Dennis Goldstein or a Mark Rucker chimed in on this? They have opinions in this area that I respect. <br /><br />Several years back I was offered several glass photographic plates of common Old Judge cabinet cards (life sized). I would not be surprised if these “proofs” were made from those plates. This is only a guess and not a necessity as they could be made from the cards although the imagery would suffer. <br />
Archive
08-09-2005, 01:14 PM
Posted By: <b>MW</b><p>Josh,<br /><br />I've seen them too and I agree with you.
Archive
08-09-2005, 01:17 PM
Posted By: <b>Jay Miller</b><p>Josh--I agree that they are not period. Beyond that I defer to your more informed viewpoint.
Archive
08-09-2005, 01:20 PM
Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>I don't think anyone seriously considers them original and vintage anymore. Whether or not people still auction them as original and vintage is a different issue. A sales description isn't necessarilly a reflection of what the writer beleives.
Archive
08-09-2005, 02:05 PM
Posted By: <b>Judge Dred (Fred)</b><p>Is everyone referring to those "proofs" that sold for a few grand a piece?
Archive
08-15-2005, 06:36 PM
Posted By: <b>HW</b><p>Boy, a lot of different opinions on these things.<br /><br />American Memorabilia and Tik think that they are real.<br />Robert Edwards sells them with the caveat that they are made after 1900.<br />Lelands, Mastros, MW, Cycleback, among others think that they are forgeries.<br /><br />I never though that identifying the age of a photo was so difficult.
Archive
08-15-2005, 07:30 PM
Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>If you know what you are doing, it's not.
Archive
08-15-2005, 09:47 PM
Posted By: <b>Jay Miller</b><p>More being sold on ebay right now. Some of the board members don't believe you David--their loss. Seemns to me that the only people who defend these pieces are those who own them.
Archive
08-16-2005, 03:08 AM
Posted By: <b>Rhys</b><p>I had two of these Omaha ones (Both Doran) about 2 years ago or so, back when they were widely sold as real by major dealers and before they came under such scrutiny. When I was putting one in a holder I accidently nicked the corner a bit and a piece of the top photo layer of paper came off. I was really surprised that the paper was very bright in color, not sepia, and had that hairy look of frayed modern paper and did not look consistant with paper that should have been 100 or even 50 years old. I am not a photo expert but have handled thousands and thousands of antique paper items and photos and this scared me enough that I wont go anywhere near these things anymore. <br /><br />The one on ebay now is interesting in that it is mounted to a cream colored mount. Usually these are found unmounted on thicker paper stock photo paper.
Archive
08-16-2005, 08:48 AM
Posted By: <b>Scott Forrest</b><p>Glad to see an auction house representative agreeing with the experts on this.
Archive
08-16-2005, 09:04 PM
Posted By: <b>Jim Clarke</b><p>Jay, <br /><br />I take it, this is the link to the ones in question? <br /><br /><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5230786812&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEBI%3AIT&rd=1" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5230786812&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEBI%3AIT&rd=1</a><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5230782829&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEBI%3AIT&rd=1" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5230782829&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEBI%3AIT&rd=1</a><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5230780969&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEBI%3AIT&rd=1" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5230780969&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEBI%3AIT&rd=1</a>