Photo ID help - is this vintage?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>I picked up this photo on eBay... listed as a "Rare" Real Photo Postcard.... and "very rare" in the listing itself.<br /><br />I have no intention to return it (mainly because the return time in the listing has lapsed), but will just consider this a lesson learned if this item is not vintage at all.<br /><br /><br />Anyway... does anyone have an idea about this one? It is a photo (continuous tone), it is about 3x4, with a somewhat satin feel to it. After winning the auction, I looked around and noticed this exact image elsewhere as an 1890s photo of the Brooklyn team - which lead to my wondering if the photo I won was just a common reproduction of a famous photo.... so I am wondering - <br /><br /><br />Is this vintage? just a modern reproduction? something else?<br /><br /><br />Thanks in advance.<br /><br />Listing:<br /><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=010&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&viewitem=&item=200057630888&rd=1&rd=1" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=010&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&viewitem=&item=200057630888&rd=1&rd=1</a><br /><br /><img src="http://www.internetville.com/stuff/brooklyn.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jamie</b><p>i looked at the seller's past auctions. the most damning thing against these being real is that all of his items seem to be on the same type of paper. even the reverse staining shows continuity from one card to the next- as if someone got a hold of some old paper.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.nationalvintagearchives.net/brooklynteam2.jpg"><br /><img src="http://www.nationalvintagearchives.net/piratebaseballteam2.jpg"><br /><br /><br />if they are fakes, they seem to be very good ones though. many of the auctions have azo backs (or other standard rppc stamps). tough call without actually seeing it in person

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>This is mainly a gut feeling about the image you've posted, it looks like it is not from the late 1800s or the turn of the century, but is a card from more recent times, maybe the late 1950s or 1960s. The edges and corners don't look like what I'd expect from a pre 1900 piece. Have you illuminated it with black light? What is on the back? That information would help. <br /><br />Have you compared the cardboard it is on to cardboard of other postcards that are from the same time that relates to the image? <br /><br />Wish you well with it. Frank.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>steve f</b><p>Beautiful photo; Laser sharp (front) edges and no stain transfer through back to front, kinda scary. Also, the way the photo curves along portions of the black border, just seems abnormal... No way to make the sale via PP for safety?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>Edit to say: I guess I did pay via PayPal - my memory is shot!<br /><br />with the holidays - there was no way for me to view it/return it in time to meet the sellers return policy -- so the item is mine for better or worse. The seller's good feedback and similar looking vintage items gave me confidence... and it was one of those auctions that I noticed toward the end of the auction -- so I had to make a quick decision.<br /><br /><br /><br />I did purchase a black light and will look at the image tonight and post what I find.<br /><br />If it shines brightly under blacklight, that means it is not vintage? correct? What clues am I looking for when using the blacklight?<br /><br /><br />btw, here is the back.... the staining is actually lighter than it appears in the scan...<br /><br /><img src="http://www.internetville.com/stuff/brooklynBack.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>steve f</b><p>David's site offers ideas to determine fakes, and the blacklight thing. Also, if it's fake and you hadn't left feedback yet... Seller may not be willing to trash his unblemished record by denying you a return, regardless of the 14day restriction. I sure wouldn't. good luck www.cycleback.com

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>joe brennan</b><p>I also saw the auctions from this seller and e-mailed him if it was vintage. Looking at his past auctions he has sold the same cards, postcards and same photos over and over. I can't remember how he worded it, but from what I read in his e-mail they are not originals.<br /><br />This is the e-mail I sent him on Dec 11th. Sorry, I must have deleted his response. But his e-mail was good enough for me to pass on this. I guess I should have posted to stay away from it. Joe<br /><br />Dec 11th<br />I see that you are very knowledgeable about photography. I also see that have sold many of the same French nudes several times. Is this blank back (postcard?), just a copy printed on old stock. I am interested in the item, but am also very knowledgeable on pre 1900's baseball, prints and stock. I would hate to recieve it and find out it is a new item. Your prompt response is needed. Thank you, Joe<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /><br /><br /><br />In Rememberance of James W. Brennan Sr. 1924-1982. Dad, thanks for everything you did for me.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>ramram</b><p>Sorry, but its not an original vintage photo. If it were an original 1890's image, it would have typically been an albumen image placed on a thicker mount. The other possiblity would be an unmounted albumen, which you don't see often because of the fragility, but that would much thinner than your image.<br /><br />Rob M.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>I set a snipe on this guys PCL postcard he has up right now last night...now that I take a closer look at the cut on the postcard and it appears he has now added a back scan and does not guarantee the age I have cancelled my snipe.<br /><br />Last year I caught a guy on ebay making old photos. It wasn't too difficult, all I had to do was look at what the guy was bidding on - it was all vintage unexposed photo paper.<br /><br />edited to add the ebay link to the PCL card<br /><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/REAL-PHOTO-Postcard-Portland-Oregon-Baseball-Team_W0QQitemZ200064748106QQihZ010QQcategoryZ29484 QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item200 064748106" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/REAL-PHOTO-Postcard-Portland-Oregon-Baseball-Team_W0QQitemZ200064748106QQihZ010QQcategoryZ29484 QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item200 064748106</a>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>T E</b><p>First confront the seller, tell him you want a refund. Then...<br /><br />Did you pay w/ funds from your bank or a cc? If the funds came from a cc, do a chargeback. If from bank...Tell paypal you want to open a dispute on the item, that the item is NOT vintage, as it was represented, but rather, a repro, and that you want your money back. I don't give a hoot what the seller's "return policy" is- I am a power seller since '01 (hoofaway) and I know for a fact the only policies that matter are those of ebay and paypal. If the seller didn't use delivery confirmation you'll get your refund right away, if he did, you'll need to provide documentation for your claim, and it will be difficult, but it will make the seller uncomfortable as well. But don't wait, I think the window with paypal is 45 days...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>the seller never mentions the age of the item or the word 'vintage'.... so the listing may have been carefully constructed?<br /><br />He does mention 'rare' and 'very rare' for the item... I am not sure where "rare" and "very rare" would fit in to a modern reproduction of a photo (if it is a modern repro).<br /><br />I have not contacted the seller since receiving the item, so he may be very willing to take the return (I am giving him the benefit of the doubt right now).<br /><br /><br />I will check it again tonight, and shine the blacklight on it.... and post what I see. <br /><br />If it is evident that it is a modern reproduction, I will contact the seller to see what his stance on a return would be.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>fkw</b><p>Portland AZO Postcard. The "AZO 4 up" back was used from 1904-18

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Joe- careless sellers throw the words "rare" and "very rare" around with reckless abandon. I don't think that would be an accurate gauge as to its true difficulty. If it is a modern repro, the term "rarity" is meaningless.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Frank, do you think that Portland card is vintage?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rhys</b><p>I have seen lots of this guys stuff and I think he (or a supplier)is making modern photos look older. I also think that the markings on the back of that Portland postcard are added after the fact and are not original postcard stamps. The lines and words are too grainy. Also, the left edge appears frayed as if it were a modern piece that has not been handled enough over the years to make the tiny paper shavings leftover from the the cutting process to be rubbed off. It also just does not look right. I have seen and owned thousands of real photo postcards from this era and I have never seen a RPPC with back stamps that look quite like that. <br /><br />Rhys

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>fkw</b><p>Looking at his past auctions he has sold a 1890s Pittsburgh team with the same stain on back and black border. he also had an indian AZO postcard with the same black border. It seems all his postcards have one of 2 backs, and all are in the exact same condition and unused. Either he ran across a hoard of unused postcards or somehow he made them and did a good job. I saw one where he identified a not well known mountain in California that was not identified on photo, yet he lives in New Orleans. The only question is why would hew make cheep postcards? Over 1/2 the postcards he has sold are around $5. When I look through antique stores I see alot of AZO real photo postcards, so I know they are out there.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>I should mention that the Brooklyn photo in Joe's original post is also the same photo that the scammer I exposed last year was using. That guy was alot dumber though as he was printing 19th century photos on Velox paper.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>fkw</b><p>Dan, I was just pointing out that the type of AZO back is right for the photo age. Like Rhys pointed out above, I was also thinking the back was too blury and didnt match the quality of stamp usually seen by AZO. These are more spotty and the color is different.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>fkw</b><p><img src="http://www.sandiegohistory.org/pancal/back/x830.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>this photo does flouresce very brightly under the black light.<br /><br />I guess my next step is to contact the seller to see what he has to say.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>I notice the seller doesn't say it is vintage. The seller says the stock is<br />double-weight (which means the paper is thick), which wasn't avaiblable Pre-WWI.<br />The image itself, with the black border, is highly unusual for a period <br />postcard-- stands out as unusual. It has a stain on back, but a stain doesn't<br />mean anything age wise. My yesterday's receipt from lunch can have a stain on it. <br />Foxing (reddish/brownish age spots), on the other hand, is a strong sign of<br />age. Also, if the rppc is supposed to be from around 1901, the paper should be <br />bright white not toned. It was later paper (c. 1910s and later) that is toned. <br />Though, it's hard to judge tone from an eBay scan, due to variations is scans and<br />digital cameras.<br /><br />If the paper is double weight (and the seller says it is, so there should be <br />little debate there) and fluoresces brightly under black light, there's little<br />question it's modern.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>David,<br /><br />you are right the seller never mentions vintage - but he did use the terms 'Rare' and 'Very Rare'. I don't think those terms fit with a modern reproduction of an old photo - and that is what I expressed to the seller.<br /><br /><br />another point to mention...<br />The item was signed for yesterday at the post office... so if 'within 7 days' means from receipt of the item, I am still in the return time frame.<br /><br /><br />I will let all know how it goes.<br /><br />Could be an expensive lesson for me (won't be my first or last though).<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>It's the responsibility of the seller to give an indication of a photo's age,<br />so that the seller didn't say anything about age is not an excuse for him. <br /><br />My experience as a photo buyer is that if the seller doesn't specifically mention<br />that it's 'vintage,' 'original' or similar, it usually isn't. If a photo is<br />original, the seller will be sure to say so ... But, as mentioned, the seller is obligated<br />to say if a '1901' photo was made in modern times, just as a seller of a T206<br />is obligated to say the card is a modern reprint if it is. If a seller puts up<br />'T206 Ty Cobb,' the general working assumption is that he is offering the original<br />card. If it is a 1999 version, he has to clarify that it is the 1999<br />version, or at least that it is not the original. You can apply this to the photo. <br />If the photo is from 2001, he has to indicate it's modern age, at least<br />making it clear that it is a reprint from years after the image was shot.<br /><br />If the seller grumbles about you wishing to return the photo, tell him to start<br />correctly indicating the ages of his photos and it won't be a problem for him<br />in the future.<br /><br />I've looked at the seller's photos. Almost anyone honest offering these types of photos<br />would give some indication of age at auction-- because anyone buying or selling<br />photos knows the significance of a photo's age. Even if the honest seller was a newbie<br />he'd have some comments about age ("I'm no expert, and it's hard for me to kow the age..."). <br />I do not beleive that it is accident or oversight that this seller never<br />gives any indication of age for the photo he sells.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Hey Joe D.,<br /><br />Sorry about your card. Good use of the black light, though. And now you're better educated in what you're doing, there. I guess when the seller said 'rare' he was meaning that he'd only created a few of these, so these recreations are rare!!<br /><br />Maybe you should let him know that it is a modern print of an old photo and that you'd like your money back. If he balks at that, add that if you send the photo back and get your money back, then you'll both avoid the fraud issues that are about to arise. That might be enough to get him to accept the card back.<br /><br />The black light is one fine tool. Ranks up there with this board!<br /><br />Frank W.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>D Brown</b><p>Hi, I'm a lurker, first post here, forgive any lapses in etiquette.<br /><br />I have the remnants of a baseball collection put together in the 1980s, but now what I collect are real photo postcards (non-baseball for the most part). This seller is not selling "real" real photo cards -- the AZO back seems to be printed or, more likely, wet-stamped onto the back of artificially aged photo paper. (The center line in the PCL postcard looks smudged, not to mention purple.) AZO's backs were printed in black ink, usually faint; the sellers' vary in color and placement and in general look like a reproduction, not the real thing. They are kind of astoundingly bad, if all you do is look at postcard backs, but at first glance they sure look like genuine old stuff.<br /><br />It's clever and easy to do but I haven't seen faked RPPC backs before. Surprised the guy hasn't been neg'd for it. (Also, several of the things he sells are anachronistic: an 1890s baseball photo on an 1910s back, the same for the Deadwood stagecoach postcard, photo pre-1900.) He is obviously careful to not call them vintage, and "real photo" tells you... not so much. Yep, it's a photo.<br /><br /><br />David<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>ramram</b><p>There...now you have it.<br /><br />I still say that everybody should bombard this guy with emails asking him why he is not disclosing the facts. Maybe with enough emails he'll figure the gig is up. It's worth the few minutes that it takes. I've already sent one and so has Leon. Who's in??<br /><br />Rob M.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Welcome, D Brown.<br /><br />Let's go one step further. Instead of emailing this rascal seller, let us start emailing his bidders, warning them of what they're bidding on. And do it until he discloses the truth about his rare cards.<br /><br />I never thought about there being a market for old photography paper...<br /><br /><br />Frank.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>I have already emailed him to ask why he is not disclosing that these are reproductions. So far no word back....and doubt if I will hear anything.