[Michael B]

Mr. Evans,
You make a broad brush slam against those commenting that you completely ignored the fact that the three, that I know of, true ‘photo guys’ (I prefer photo swamis or photo dudes) all clearly pointed out that it was not original to the period. It is easy to hear or read what you want to rather than what was said or written. It does not matter if it is a John Rogers or Howie Smuckmeister (sorry Howie) forgery. That is not germain to the main point being addressed which was whether it was from 1915 or not. After reaching that point, then and only then does the fact that Arkansas Jack reprinted these photos and affixed stamps on the back become a point of conversation. You are quite knowledgeable and I respect that. However, understand that there are many here that have deep fonts of knowledge, but do not own auction houses and are mainly collectors and dealers on a smaller scale. And yes – apology accepted.

AS QUOTED:

David:
“Not original.

Duly note that I've seen Detroit News photos that were legitimate and came from the newspaper, but made years after the image was shot. That a photo isn't original, doesn't automatically mean it's a forgery. Though the later made Detroit News photos I've seen had a different image tone and a drystamp (embossment)”

Rhys:
“Agreed

Second generation photograph with staff photographer stamp on the back from much later, probably the 1950's. Hard to tell from the scan but it does not appear to be from the original negative either. It is a nice restrike and definitely has some value, just not $1000. BTW, if this photo WAS original, I think there are about 80 of us that would have pulled that trigger on the first day it was listed!”

Me:
“It is also a matter of size. Many of the early press photos were 4½x6½ (Bain, Thompson), 5x7 or 6x8 (Acme, Pacific & Atlantic, Underwood & Underwood, International Film Service, International Newsreel). 8x10 was not regularly used until the 1930’s and 6x8 was still a common size even into the 1940’s. It raises a red flag when I see a photo that is 8x10 that claims to be very early. I have hundreds of pre-WWII press photos in my archives/collection and there may be a few late 1930's that are that big, but not many. It became such a common size to print for 35mm film (though incorrect in ratio) that it is accepted as the standard size.”

Rhys again:
“You are correct. Aside from some high end double-weight studio photographs, the material used to create early press photography was very brittle with a thin piece of paper and heavy gelatin. Because these photos were flimsy and fragile, smaller sizes were more conducive (also more cost effective). This is why Underwood & Underwood (the only company at the time to make really large images) used such thick paper to develop their photographs. Although not a hard rule, earlier press photos are generally much smaller.”