Brooklyn CDV
 

It's been a while, so I think it's safe to "out" this ebay auction from a couple of months ago. Not sure how many saw this, but obviously enough that the owner was bombarded with BIN offers. The owner ended up pulling the item and reportedly has now consigned it to an unknown auction house. When it first went up on ebay, the owner had no idea what he had. This is the 1865 Atlantics of Brooklyn. It is shown in Mark Rucker's "Base Ball Cartes" book with a "Champions of America" attachment to the bottom of the image. Unless others have surfaced recently, the only other copy (the one shown in Rucker's book) is in the Library of Congress.

Rob M.

Attachment 73963

Wow! Nice yard sale find. :eek:

HoF has another one taken at the same session but with Norton and Pratt trading positions.

I heard about it but this is the first time I've seen an image. That is an extraordinary find; it is also known in a mammoth plate format, owned by one of our board members. I think the seller could have let it run its course on ebay and gotten a really great price for it, but he must have gotten a little nervous and decided to pull it.

Among the notables are Dickey Pearce (third from left); manager Peter O'Brien (in suit); and Joe Start standing between them.

He pulled it to get it authenticated after several questioned its provenance, which is understandable. After he got it back, he had decided to sell it through a big auction house.

Rob M.

Rob- do you know who will be auctioning it? Getting it authenticated was a smart thing to do.

Barry -

He didn't say and, for some odd reason, didn't seem interested in divulging that yet.

Rob M.

My guess would be REA.......

They are L to R:
Frank Norton, Sid Smith, Dickie Pearce, Joe Start, Pete O'Brien (in suit), Charlie Smith, Jack Chapman, John Galvin (seated), Fred Crane (standing), Tom Pratt

I spoke with the seller when the CdV was on ebay. He said he wasn't the owner, but was listing it for another party. I believe the CdV originated from an group found somewhere in Maine.

it seems it may be possible this cdv originated in the same trunk as those n173's that were auctioned a few weeks ago?

Mark- in the mammoth plate photo pictured in The National Pastime, catcher Norton is on the far right. In the CdV he is on the far left. So players changed position during this photo shoot.

Barry - Yes, that's what I was referring to in post #3 above. The image in National Pastime (I don't have it handy right now) is probably the same as the one at HoF. The ID's I gave above do match the image at the top of this thread.

It has not been consigned to REA, Heritage, Legendary or Goodwin. Perhaps it is at Mile High or SCP. Those are the only other major auction houses I can think of.

The image in the National Pastime is in fact the one at the NBL. It is not a period image, as the caligraphy on the mount refers to the Atlantics being champions as late as 1870. I am aware of only one copy in mammoth plate format where the image is period.

The image, besides depicting arguably the most significant team of the 1860's, is extraordinary in the sense that it is the only example I can think of where the studio appears to have created the CdV and mammoth plate from different shoots. Assuming this is the case, the CdV is a first generation photo (i.e., printed from the original negative, instead of being a photo of the mammoth plate). Should someday a period mammoth plate of the precise player configuation as appears in the CdV turn up, then this previous statement will have been incorrect.

What is also interesting is that the mammoth plate is a salt print. I'd be curious to know if this CdV is a salt print or an albumen print. Should it be the former, then it will be the first CdV of which I am aware that is not an albumen print.

Never heard of a CdV salt print. That would indeed be interesting.

Corey,
What is your opinion about the image depicted in Rucker's book on pg. 8 and credited to the Library of Congress? It appears that the image is CdV sized. It even uses the same photo as the CdV with the same photo credits. Interestingly the photo credits are on the left side of the image while the CdV has the credits on the right.

Gary,

Here is the image of the copy in the Library of Congress.

It appears to have been created by adhering the CdV to a larger mount. The fact that the studio credit is on the left as opposed to the right I do not believe to be significant, but merely a manifestation of the studio mount being in the reverse direction whent the photo was adhered to it.

I might add that the Library of Congress describes the image as being an albumen photo.

I've never seen the complete piece before. Rucker says that the entire piece is 5 x 7. That would make the center image with mount CdV size.

1865 Brooklyn Atlantics CDV
 

Hello all, its been awhile. As you may know we recently sold all those Old Judge Cabinets in August 2012 including King Kelly in street clothes.

Well we have some amazing news that should rock the industry. We have been commissioned to sell The Brooklyn Atlantics 1865 CDV that generated these posts and was found in Maine. This card is the rarest of the rare.

We have sent the card to SGC and they determined that the card is 100% Authentic. This card is the only example to ever come to market and the only other example is locked away in the Library of Congress.

I will be doing a formal post on Friday December 20th 2012 and I will include photos of the card encapsulated. The auction is planned for February 6, 2013.

That CdV is a great pickup. It's going to garner a lot of attention and a huge bid. Congratulations to you!

Thank you very much Barry we are excited!!!

I am hearing that the CdV was rejected by Leland's as being a laser copy on a period mount. After that it was deemed authentic by SGC. If all that is true, then it seems like a photographic expert needs to cast the deciding vote.

Jay- What was it a laser copy of? Where is the original? A copy of the LOC example?

If that is the question, it should not be too hard to tell if you have the actual piece in hand and can look at the photo under magnification. I would think that SGC would have done that so it most likely is good but can't tell from where I'm sitting........

Agreed Phil. But then would an established auction house reject it? They are not in the business of refusing good (and potentially valuable) consignments.

I wonder if the fact that it was rejected by Leland's was brought to SGC's attention upon submission? My guess is that it was not.

That being said, I feel confident that SGC would be able to identify a fraudulant card as they are experts in the field, especially when reviewing one as rare and potentially valuable as this one.

"Established Auction Houses" have taken consignments which I have deemed to be fake and still continued to run the auctions even after this info was disclosed to them.

Reply to All the speculation
 

The staff at Saco River Auction have been hearing speculation and discussion in this forum and others regarding the authenticity of this card. I felt it was important to share all the information known on this card and its origin so that all of you can make an informed decision on the validity of this rare and unique card.

This card was found in Washington County Maine by a guy that buys used stuff. He was picking through a wood shed that held old furniture and coke bottles and a cardboard box on the floor caught his attention. In the box was some books and papers and a photo album. He bought a few chairs, the coke bottles and the box full of papers and the photo album. The guy brought the photo album home and cleaned all the mold off it and began to inspect the photos. He found a tin type from the civil war that showed Alcatraz Prison which he sold on ebay, and numerous other photos from the 1860's that were also sold on ebay. In the album was a curious cdv of a baseball team. He did minimal research and listed it on ebay. He was bombarded with emails and offers and decided to pull it down.

He then decided to sell the card to a gentlemen who he picks with, that guy then sent the card to Lelands for possible consignment. Lelands kept the card for two months and then mailed it back(no other communication like a courtesy call) was made and the card was mailed back stating that it was fake, made by an inkjet printer. The "expert" at Leland's claimed that the period mount it is attached and claimed the dot pattern of the mount is indicative of a inkjet printer and no mention of the actual image was made.

We were aware of this info and determined that the card needed to be examined by the best grading/authentication company around for 19th century sports items and images. We submitted the card for examination by SGC and they spent the better part of 4 days researching and examining this card. They are the experts and in speaking to the head examiner he is 100% sure that this is a authentic 19th century Albumen Process CDV depicting the 1865 Brooklyn Atlantics Team. SGC stands by their expertise and take pride in their work. They told me that they always approach a rare item with a large amount of skeptism until the evidence removes any doubt in their mind.

We intend to proceed without doubt or reservation in the sale of this rare and unique item as the evidence of its authenticity is not in question in our minds. We have also had what we consider an expert in 19th century photography, examine the card prior to sending it out and he is convinced that the item is right as rain.
Please keep in mind that Leland's is an excellent auction company with world class knowledge and experience, however no one in any auction house is an absolute expert in every catagory of items that they sell. That is why we defer to experts like SGC and PSA and JSA to assist us in verifying the items that we sell. It is obvious to us that this one slipped by the staff at Lelands and it is unfortunate for them as they lost a large potential commission, but this does not detract from the validity of The Saco River Auction Company or our upcoming sale. We are an established auction house in all phases of items and although we are not in a big city and have not been around for 50 years, we known how to manage and handle valuable items, and we get great prices for our consignors.

Thank You For Your Time and Interest
Troy Thibodeau
Manager/Auctioneer
Saco River Auction

I spoke to someone in your shop today and suggested that you get an opinion from Paul Messier, a Boston conservator who is an expert on albumen photographs. Will you be doing that? One other question-- the right side of the CdV looks like there is an area to the right of the photograph that once had something attached to it( looks like a glue line parallel to the edge of the current photograph). Do you know if Leland's thought that there was originally a larger photograph attached to the mount and then that photograph was removed and replaced by the current one? Looking at a scan is certainly a tough way to evaluate a piece, which is why I am asking how this area to the right of the photograph looks in person. Thanks for your help!

Gary--sorry I missed your post before. I don't know. I guess that you could print a copy from the LOC image. In my mind the real question is if someone could download a copy of the LOC image and print something like an albumen print from it. I find it hard to believe that SGC would think a laser copy is an albumen print. I would feel a lot better if there was some feature in this photo that, due to cropping differences, is not in the LOC photo. However, I can't find anything. Can you?

Troy, the above comment is in poor taste, and doesn't ring true based on my dealings with Lelands. I hear the 'inkjet printer' comment often when people are describing fakes, but it's generally from ebayers or people who know very little about 1800's photography. In actuality, it wouldn't take someone who is even a half-blind albumen collector two minutes to identify a photograph as having been created by an inkjet printer.

I sincerely hope your comment was an error, and that if someone at Leland's actually used the term 'inkjet' to refer to this photo, that it was either in jest, or your comment about SGC saying it's legit, was a mistake on your part.

There's something very fishy about your story.

Corey or Barry-- you kow this type of material really well. Do ou have a view?

(Never mind my original comment which confused the HoF and LoC images.)

It would be nice to see the item in higher res to see if it shares flaws with the LoC image.

A couple of thoughts

First, if someone was going to go to the trouble and fake this, it seems like they would extend the photo past the marks Jay is talking about to hide them if this was a recycled mount, and trim it tighter on the sides. However back in the 1860's most people hand cut these so authentic CDV's do have weird cuts like this one ALL THE TIME. So that is a good thing.

Second, it would be hard if not impossible to fake the tone of the photo with the fading on the item in question from the crystal clear image on the LOC example. SO thats a good thign too.

Third, the line Jay is talking about is troubling because it absolutely looks like something else was once glued there. Anyone that collects CDV photos will know that the photo itself is VERY thin, see through in fact when held to the light, so it would be almost impossible to reback something like this. Only thought I have on that front is perhaps a label was glued there at one point?

From a scan, it looks good and if it is encapsulated by SGC I would find it hard to believe they could make a mistake this big. However, the line Jay mentioned and the rejection from Lelands are both Red Flags.

Rhys

Mark--the CdV image and he LOC image shown in this post are the same. The guys at the ends are the same.

You're right - I confused the HoF and LoC images - fixed above.

Rhys--like I said, the easy way to end all questions is to have an albumen photo expert look at it. There is one of the best in the world within a short drive from the auction house. Seems like a no brainer.

Jay,

I have the greatest respect for the people at SGC and the work they do, but I am concerned that the task of determining whether an image is a period albumen photo attached to a period mount does not fall squarely within their area of expertise. Certainly there are other people out there who would be better qualified to address this question. In addition, the fact that Lelands, an experienced and well-respected auction house that over the years has handled many CdVs, would not accept the consignment of a CdV that if authentic would be as significant a 19th century image as they have ever offered is very troubling. I'm not saying the item is not authentic, but based on the disclosures made I would feel much more comfortable if the item was examined by a recognized expert in both albumen photographs and CdV mounts. I also believe that the auction house should disclose the identity of the person they said examined the item.

Thanks Corey! Like I said above, I would like to see one detail in the CdV that is not in the LOC version. I can find none. The photo in the CdV has more image area on its' right than does the LOC copy. However, the additional area shows nothing, not even a wall board edge.

For what it's worth, in spite of the fairly large file size, the LoC tiff file for this image is not very sharp. This is the case not just for the photo, but for the lettering around the photo. LoC scans do vary in quality (so they have told me), so the item in hand may be sharper.

I have a hi-res scan of the similar HoF image discussed earlier, and it is sharper than the LoC scan.

Williamson of Brooklyn was a popular photographer - finding a cdv mount with their logo wouldn't have been out of the question. In addition, the only images I've seen of the new 'find' are faded images - not near as crisp as the loc image. Maybe that was intentional? I have owned plenty of legitimate albumens that were even less well-defined, so if you were going to make a fake based on the loc image, I don't see the problem. Just create a 'faded' albumen.

Hi Jay- one rule of thumb is never try to authenticate a piece via a scan. I can offer a few thoughts: when I look at the scan of the LOC piece and see that rich photo quality, and then look at the muddiness of the CdV, it does concern me. Maybe one scan is crystal clear and the other isn't, or maybe there is a real issue. So I would have to have the piece in hand to make any real determination.

I would say based on what has transpired, if I were an interested bidder I would want at least one more photo expert to look at it. There is enough here to warrant it. I respect SGC but this isn't a T206, where they grade a hundred a day. The number of 1860's photographs that cross their desk is small.

Jay-I have compared the CdV to the LOC image in Mark Rucker's CdV book. To the right of John Chapman's head there is a visible mark. In the example Corey posted on this thread, the mark cannot be seen. This mark is also not visible on the CdV in question. This difference would mean the CdV is not a copy. The only other option is that a forger would have eliminated this mark by creating the vignette style of the CdV.

Leland's posts on the board, so why not ask them about it.

Barry is correct in that one should be very cautious when comparing scanned images. Examination of and comparison to original images should, if possible, be the preferred approach. I also agree with Scott's point that one could find a genuine Williamson mount and replace its photo with a fake.

I'd be very interested to compare the resolution (as opposed to the contrast) of this image to the one at the LOC. Even the slightest difference would suggest to me that it is a fake. Same too for the lettering on the mount. Differences in resolution can be very subtle and such a comparison should be made by comparing originals.

As has been discussed in this thread, there is a lot that can be done to assuage concerns that the CdV is not authentic, and I would respectfully urge the auction house to do it.

Lelands, not Josh as he didn't see it, but other executives, think it is a color xerox. If I were bidding I would want further authentication....and I trust SGC a ton but no one, even me :), is perfect. I am not making any claims personally as I have not handled it, nor am I a photo expert though I have handled quite a few.

Leon--a color photocopy of what image? These don't pop up every day. It doesn't look like a color photocopy of the LOC image as it is not clear enough.

I just got a message that said the Lelands execs that looked at it thought it was a color Xerox. That is all and I have no other info. You might contact Josh or Mike Heff.ner for more info.

Rhys +1

If Leland's said it's a fake, then it's a fake.

I also can't believe SGC slabbed it, and I won't believe it until I see an image of this card in an SGC slab.

This isn't something that either Leland's or SGC would have missed. Also not something that any of the photograph collectors I respect would have missed - it's just not possible to slip a copy by anyone with a decent eye, unless you actually use a real photograph, and even that's not going to be easy unless it's a damned good one that reasonably approximates an actual albumen.