I was wondering the same thing. It seemed by the tone of this thread, no one believed the card to be correct, but it sure just sold for a good chunk of change, and was advertised as circa 1920. What new discovery made this card the real deal? Can Jim say how he now knows this is for sure circa 1920, as advertised?

+1

This card is now for auction in the current REA auction: Link. Has it been determined conclusively if this card is real or fake?

(Edit: To be open about it, I put an initial placeholder bid on this card before thinking it looked familiar from before.)

Fabulous discussion among guys that know a lot. That's why I love Net54. Can't wait to see what happens in the auction.

Here’s my thoughts: Man Ray and Marcel Duchamp were part of the Dada/ Surrealist art movement. Duchamp was the dude that exhibited a urinal in an art show. Man Ray was the guy who photographed a lady with perfectly circular tear drops. Google Man Ray and Marcel Duchamps and you’ll get a better idea of what they did.

But to put it simply, their type of art was more akin to the type of stuff that you’d see in the strip cards.That photo of Ruth is realistic and doesn’t fit into anything either one of them will do. I don’t think the PC came from their studio.

I am not familiar at all with the stampbox on that PC so I can’t put a date on it.

I’ll go out on the line and say SGC got it wrong. But that’s just my $0.02.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I do remember the post card being discussed on here before and couldn't find the original post. Glad you found it. Will be interesting to hear the conclusion to this if we get one.

From Wiki regarding Man Ray:
“ Man Ray abandoned conventional painting to involve himself with Dada, a radical anti-art movement. He published two Dadaist periodicals, that each only had one issue, The Ridgefield Gazook (1915) and TNT (1919), the latter co-edited by Adolf Wolff and Mitchell Dawson.[13][14] He started making objects and developed unique mechanical and photographic methods of making images. For the 1918 version of Rope Dancer, he combined a spray-gun technique with a pen drawing. Like Duchamp, he worked with readymades—ordinary objects that are selected and modified. His Gift readymade (1921) is a flatiron with metal tacks attached to the bottom, and Enigma of Isidore Ducasse[15] is an unseen object (a sewing machine) wrapped in cloth and tied with cord. Aerograph (1919), another work from this period, was done with airbrush on glass.[16]”


From Wiki regarding Marcel Duchamp:
“ Duchamp created the Société Anonyme in 1920, along with Katherine Dreier and Man Ray. This was the beginning of his lifelong involvement in art dealing and collecting. The group collected modern art works, and arranged modern art exhibitions and lectures throughout the 1930s.

By this time Walter Pach, one of the coordinators of the 1913 Armory Show, sought Duchamp's advice on modern art. Beginning with Société Anonyme, Dreier also depended on Duchamp's counsel in gathering her collection, as did Arensberg. Later Peggy Guggenheim, Museum of Modern Art directors Alfred Barr and James Johnson Sweeney consulted with Duchamp on their modern art collections and shows.‘

Looking at a previous post by pencil1974 the PRC poststamp was used by the Phot Roto Company in 1910-1917.

Again this postcard of Ruth is a very conventional photo. There are no embellishments added to this postcards to make it absurd ( e.g. drawing a mustache on Ruth, drawing a bseball in the picture etc). I am very skeptical that is was produced by the Societe Anonyme in NYC. Based on the poststamp box Ruth should be wearing a RedSox uniform. I believed “ Societe Anonyme” was added to the postcard in order to establish the date to 1920.

I’m on the fence on this one. It uses an older post card back which is printed on and a current picture for 1920. Has there been more of these cards found?

+1
.

The card ended up hammering at $9,300 at REA.

A stunning price for an inconclusive, from all I can tell, postcard. Leap of faith or did I miss something?
.

Agreed I am still not sold on the authenticity of this issue

I just saw this post, Net54 members should know that I submitted this postcard twice to SCG and once to PSA. PSA commented that they were not familiar with the postcard and therefore could not authenticate.

SCG had previously graded another example this card (different back) but refused to authenticate my example because the stamp box was older than the photo. I called SCG and discussed the card, they asked for more information. I sent a copy of the card they had already authenticated along with a written opinion from Don Preziosi. Don is long time postcard collector/dealer who goes by the ebay nickname of Dinerdon. He has written many articles about postcards including one on the Societe Anonyme postcards. (If interested, https://postcardhistory.net/2022/08/...ciete-anonyme/)

Even with this additional information SCG refused to authenticate, again citing the "date" difference. Here's Don's note to me, I had asked his opinion as to authenticity and the likelihood that it was produced by photographer Man Ray:

From: dinerdon <dinerdon@aol.com>
To: jsrna <jsrna@aol.com>
Sent: Tue, Feb 17, 2015 5:11 am
Subject: Re: Societe Anonyme Postcard Question

Hi Jim,
This is a real curiosity! It is definitely an original 1920's postcard (assuming the front hasn't been glued to the back, which I assume you can ascertain by the weight/thickness of the card). The Societe Anonyme postcards were all done in 1920. I have never seen nor heard of a PRC with the SA imprint on the back that didn't relate to the art show. All of these were done by the famous artist Man Ray. He also did fashion and portrait photography, but this does not in any way resemble any photos of his that I know about, and although he photographed celebrities, he didn't do athletes and Ruth was not quite a celebrity in 1920. Have you seen this exact photo anywhere else and is it attributed to any particular photographer? If for some strange reason it was made by Man Ray it would be worth a tidy sum, but I don't know how you could prove that unless you can find a reference. The card does not look like a photo of a photo, but that would be more in line with what Man Ray didn't with the paintings. A line art version of that exact Ruth pose was used in a 1920 Lifebuoy soap newspaper ad.

If you are relying on the info on Playle about the 1917 production dates it is somewhat irrelevant and based on very small sampling because PRC postcards are not common.

Let me know what you think.

Best,
Don

Wow, someone may be out $9000+. Will REA reimburse?