Honus Wagner Photo - Help please

[jrlebert]

Hi all. My uncle picked this up somewhere on the east coast in one of his many antiquing runs.

Any help would be greatly appreciated, as to value, year, anything.

Thanks!

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Original-pho...item35cd81a998

[daves_resale_shop]

The uniform is the bucs away version from 1912...

I feel like the photo looks somewhat familiar... Although I am not a photo or cabinet guy, I have seen several fantasy pieces created by pasting a photo to an old cabinet board... the other thing that concerns me about this one is the placement of the stamp (just an odd place), and quite frankly I am curious as to why its there at all... If one were to send a photo of Hans through the mail, wouldn't they want to at least write down the destined location???

I just wouldn't feel comfortable purchasing this one at 1/10th of its asking price...

I am however intrigued to read what the experts write...

[jrlebert]

My uncle has no real idea of its value, so it's very possible that the price could be way off. I'm just coming to the best source I know for as much info on it as possible.

And before any issues start, this really is my uncle, and it's not the proverbial "uncle" to get more info to sell something of mine. I am very envious that my uncle gets to antique in the Hudson Valley, while I am stuck in Los Angeles admiring from afar.

[jrlebert]

From what I can tell, the photo has to be dated somewhere between 1912-1917, as Honus was active then, and that was the time (actually through 1920, I believe) that he would have been in that uniform.

Am I at least right on that?

[daves_resale_shop]

the uniform is 1912 (away)...

the other thing that is funny about it is that Nyser's (John C. Nyser) studio was in Hartford CT... Far from PA... In doing some research the studio was in business between 1908-1914 (at the very least)...

My concern is so much with the asking price as it is the authenticity of the piece... My gut tells me its a fantasy piece..

[jrlebert]

Well, my uncle has it in hand. What kind of questions should I be asking?

I was able to find the studio as well. I, too, was interested in how such a Pittsburgh-centric figure as Wagner would find his way to the studio.

[thecatspajamas]

Hmmmm...

http://www.huntauctions.com/online/i...224&lot_qual=a

http://www.sportsbuy.com/sellerListi...derId=12536069

[Jaybird]

The deckled edge is odd. Also, the mount being white is odd as well. Normally they are of some color. You should ask him if the photo is printed on the card stock or is it a separate photo that is glued onto the mount. Ask him the dimensions. Also is the photographers name embossed (stamped) into the cardboard or just printed on top.

I agree that this looks suspect.

[jrlebert]

Understood...

Here is his response:

The photo appears to be pasted onto the card.

There is a 3/16" gold border around the photo.

All lettering on the card printed in gold ink. "J. NYSER 2 Ford Street, Hartford, Conn"

Should I ask anything else?

[jrlebert]

And Jason... hi!

It's J.R., from Palms!

[jrlebert]

Also, per the description on eBay:

Card 4 1/4" X 6 1/2"
Photograph 3 7/8" X 5 1/2"

[thecatspajamas]

I would suggest not focusing on the studio mount (i.e. card) itself except to compare it to the one on the second link I posted and ask yourself why 2 different studios' mounts would have the same photo affixed. That in itself would make me very very suspicious. Original studio mounts from the period are relatively easy to find, and both the one your uncle has and the one in the second link I posted are likely genuine MOUNTS. The photograph affixed to them is another story. Having only relatively low-quality scans to view in both cases, I would hazard a guess that one, or more likely both, of the photographs themselves are not genuine.

Easiest thing to do first is to look at the photo under magnification and see if the image is composed of lots of little dots (printed image) or is an actual photograph. Beyond that, someone like Scott or David or Rhys who has dealt with more cabinet mounts than I have should be able to tell you what to look for.

I could certainly be wrong, but I don't have a good feeling about this one.

[jrlebert]

OK, totally understand so far.

Calling Scott, David, or Rhys!

Even though I have been on this site for over a year, it is mainly to absorb info and learn from the best, which is exactly why I took this discussion here. Not sure what their usernames are here, but if anyone could alert them and ask their opinion, I would appreciate it.

And Lance F, thank you!

[thecatspajamas]

Actually, now that I think about it, Rhys is probably still wrapped up with finalizing shipping from his recent auction. Also, not saying there aren't others on the board who could help, but those names sprang to mind first (don't want to unintentionally snub anyone ).

I took the liberty of laying each of the three photos out side-by-side, to scale with each other, for easier comparison. The larger one is from Hunt's auction, your uncle's is top right, and the other one I found from the second link (which oddly uses an eBay gallery image for its posted image) is bottom right.



You might also advise your uncle that it is best to scan all photos in color for eBay listing, even if they are black and white, as showing a grayscale scan like he has posted will make anything look like a photocopy, whether real or not.

[jrlebert]

Thanks. I sent him a link to this thread, and he is following along too, I assume.

[1880nonsports]

it is not a terrible marriage of what will turn out to be a copy photo and a random mount. Nothing about it looks right to me from a quick online and not in hand observation. In the late 1990's the market was flooded with many such reproduction images on old mounts. In the past year or two even better copies are making an appearance but on what often appears to not be vintage mounts. The stamp on the back is ridiculous on an image if real produced after the tax act expired and the mount with gold trim and scalloped edges as well doesn't fit. Lance, David, and others here know quite a bit more than I do however I've studied and handled quite a few mounted photographs from all eras. Such supposition that it's not original is bolstered by Lance's link to the Hunt photo which I saw after my immediate reaction. Taking a loupe to it as suggested earlier would be the place to start. It's hard to tell from the eBay scan enough visual information as it appears it was scanned in black/white/greyscale so hard to qualify any depth/contrast in the photo and it's relation to the mount. Just to point out in case my wife hasn't written you - I'm rarely right - if ever

[1880nonsports]

I have to type faster!

[D. Bergin]

Interesting that the Hartford cabinet actually has the largest expanse of image. Meaning the other two images shown, including the Hunt's photo are cropped closer to Honus's body.

Doesn't mean it's not a fantasy piece, but the image is most likely not copied directly from the Hunt's auction piece.

[thecatspajamas]

Dave, I didn't mean to imply that the images for the cabinets came from Hunt's auction, as the resolution on the image Hunt posted online would not be good enough to produce a print that would fool anyone. There was probably a high-res, wider-cropped scan of another posted online at some time or printed elsewhere that simply hasn't turned up in my search. Just throwing out any that I find to show that it is not a unique image of Wagner, though it certainly isn't one of the more-well-known shots of him.


One more, from a 1917 birthday program Mastro auctioned in 2008:

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...ntoryid=89905#

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Dave, I didn't mean to imply that the images for the cabinets came from Hunt's auction, as the resolution on the image Hunt posted online would not be good enough to produce a print that would fool anyone. There was probably a high-res, wider-cropped scan of another posted online at some time or printed elsewhere that simply hasn't turned up in my search. Just throwing out any that I find to show that it is not a unique image of Wagner, though it certainly isn't one of the more-well-known shots of him.


One more, from a 1917 birthday program Mastro auctioned in 2008:

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...ntoryid=89905#

Oh, I know Lance. I was just thinking out loud. It just seems like so many of these type pieces are just copied directly from the most recent auction of that particular item.

I'm not comfortable with it myself. Just wondering where exactly they might have copied the scan from given the cropping shown.

[1880nonsports]

1910's photo. Can happen but unlikely. Also, pirated images - especially after 1900 generally WOULDN'T have the photographers attribution to tie them to it...........

no guarantees whether written or implied

[1880nonsports]

the tax act was in place from 1864 to 1866. A 5 cent stamp would mean the item was sold/selling for between .50 and 1.00. I just put the stamp in my photo program and will try and get a large image to see if I can make out a cancellation however I'm sure what I'm seeing in sooo many ways is the rear end of a duck..........

I haven't fooled much with photographs in the past 10-15 years. I just looked at the stamp closely hoping to find a date until I realized a "cancel" in those days on a photograph wouldn't be "date stamp" cancelled like that on a pack of smokes. Somewhat a moot point since 1864-1866 might be a bit early for an item not produced until 1910's. So you have an attributed mounted image containing an 1860's stamp, scalloped edges and gold trim mount produced and used in the late 1880's/early 1890's, and a 1910's photo. Yesh - an hour of my life I'll never get back :-)

[drcy]

I'm late to the thread as I'm on vacation, but it appears to be a fake. The mount, which may very well be genuine, is like an 1880s-90s mount. I'm assuming from comments that the Wagner image is from later.

[Runscott]

Yucchhh

[chipperhank44]

Well, I'm a little late to the party, but it would appear I may have bought myself a fantasy piece as well. It isn't in hand yet, but needless to say I'm very interested in getting it out of this frame and under magnification.

The one interesting this about the one I purchased is that it does not have the same circle pattern above Wagner's right shoe like the other two examples shown in this thread. It does, however, look like it has a gold border, which seems to be a bad sign from what I am reading in previous posts.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by jrlebert

Hi all. My uncle picked this up somewhere on the east coast in one of his many antiquing runs.

Any help would be greatly appreciated, as to value, year, anything.

Thanks!

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Original-pho...item35cd81a998

I don't like the stamp on the back of this photo either. To me, it looks like it was put there to help corroborate the age, and it does the opposite for me.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Dave, I didn't mean to imply that the images for the cabinets came from Hunt's auction, as the resolution on the image Hunt posted online would not be good enough to produce a print that would fool anyone. There was probably a high-res, wider-cropped scan of another posted online at some time or printed elsewhere that simply hasn't turned up in my search.

The image this was created from did not need to be wider-cropped - I suspect that the reason this particular image has been so popular with the forger(s) is that, due to the nature of the margins, they can easily be 'widened' using copy/paste.

But the subject of this thread is a real laugher - black and white with an image of a stamp that was attached to black paper, then cut/pasted to a white mount?

[Jaybird]

Originally Posted by Runscott

The image this was created from did not need to be wider-cropped - I suspect that the reason this particular image has been so popular with the forger(s) is that, due to the nature of the margins, they can easily be 'widened' using copy/paste.

But the subject of this thread is a real laugher - black and white with an image of a stamp that was attached to black paper, then cut/pasted to a white mount?

Based on some of JR's earlier responses, I think the scan was done in B&W but that the mount at least is not White. He mentions gold lettering, etc. So I think the scan was done in B&W instead of color which is also not helping. But all this to say that it doesn't look real to anyone and this appears to be a widely faked image.

[steve B]

The stamp was issued in either 1894 if it's brown, or 1897 if it's blue.

It's also a postage stamp, rather than a tax stamp. It's not unheard of for one to be used improperly in place of a tax stamp, but not decades after the tax that required it was ended.

From the look of it it's got either some black album page or remnants of a mount behind it.

As a stamp it's worth between 1 and 5 dollars if it's used. and probably about the same if it's not used but stuck to something.

Overall I'm not liking the combination, although there being more photo than the readily available online scans is interesting.

There was a bat company in Hartford in the early 1900's. Bon-Topper bat company. I believe they made pro bats. I have a Fred Parent bat they made. That is probably a game bat.

Steve B

[1880nonsports]

Originally Posted by chipperhank44

Well, I'm a little late to the party, but it would appear I may have bought myself a fantasy piece as well. It isn't in hand yet, but needless to say I'm very interested in getting it out of this frame and under magnification.

The one interesting this about the one I purchased is that it does not have the same circle pattern above Wagner's right shoe like the other two examples shown in this thread. It does, however, look like it has a gold border, which seems to be a bad sign from what I am reading in previous posts.

The mounting shown within the wood frame - isn't a mount but rather a page from an album used to showcase such images holding what might additionally be a mounted image. The slat on the bottom was to allow a mounted image to be inserted into it without damage.............

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Jaybird

Based on some of JR's earlier responses, I think the scan was done in B&W but that the mount at least is not White. He mentions gold lettering, etc. So I think the scan was done in B&W instead of color which is also not helping. But all this to say that it doesn't look real to anyone and this appears to be a widely faked image.

Yes, the fact that 'the uncle' provided a b&w scan is what I was talking about.

[jrlebert]

Guys, thanks so much for all the info. Aside from the one snarky comment by runscott (surprise), I learned more about this photo and fantasy pieces like this in a few days than my uncle or I was able to research together. That's exactly why I took it to this board. I really appreciate it.

I will be calling my uncle after work tonight, and recommending he take the listing down, in (the most likely) case that it is a fantasy piece.

I'm going to see if he can send it to me so I can get a higher res scan up, and take a loupe to it to check out the photo.

Again, thanks all!

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by jrlebert

Guys, thanks so much for all the info. Aside from the one snarky comment by runscott (surprise), I learned more about this photo and fantasy pieces like this in a few days than my uncle or I was able to research together. That's exactly why I took it to this board. I really appreciate it.

I will be calling my uncle after work tonight, and recommending he take the listing down, in (the most likely) case that it is a fantasy piece.

I'm going to see if he can send it to me so I can get a higher res scan up, and take a loupe to it to check out the photo.

Again, thanks all!

Maybe you didn't learn much from my comment, but some of the other forum members probably did. And while you are trying to gain information, I suspect it's of a different type than what you claim.

And as I pointed out (and you apparently missed), it's not about scan resolution, it's about all the other stuff surrounding this forgery, including the story.

Regarding your "snarky (surprise)" comment, provide us with a clear color scan of a genuine photo of Honus Wagner, and if it's a cool item, I will be one of the first to say so. But if it's forged crap, I will also be one of the first to say so. Forged photos are bad for this hobby, period. Your item description and scan told me right away that you had not done your research and were trying to sell a forgery, knowingly or not. If you know nothing about the item you are trying to sell, why claim that it's an unknown previously unpublished photo? In case you forgot, from your auction: "You will not find another copy anywhere" and the title: "Original photograph Honus Wagner *** NEVER SEEN BEFORE *** unpublished"

This item has ZERO bids, which means you can go update it to add some of the information you've learned here. I'll hold my breath.

[jrlebert]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Maybe you didn't learn much from my comment, but some of the other forum members probably did. And while you are trying to gain information, I suspect it's of a different type than what you claim.

And as I pointed out (and you apparently missed), it's not about scan resolution, it's about all the other stuff surrounding this forgery, including the story.

Regarding your "snarky (surprise)" comment, provide us with a clear color scan of a genuine photo of Honus Wagner, and if it's a cool item, I will be one of the first to say so. But if it's forged crap, I will also be one of the first to say so. Forged photos are bad for this hobby, period. Your item description and scan told me right away that you had not done your research and were trying to sell a forgery, knowingly or not. If you know nothing about the item you are trying to sell, why claim that it's an unknown previously unpublished photo? In case you forgot, from your auction: "You will not find another copy anywhere" and the title: "Original photograph Honus Wagner *** NEVER SEEN BEFORE *** unpublished"

This item has ZERO bids, which means you can go update it to add some of the information you've learned here. I'll hold my breath.

OK, Scott. First of all, come off your high horse. As I have stated many times, this is not MY auction, it is my uncle's. And you are absolutely right, we did not do nearly as expansive of research as would be available HERE, which is, again, as I stated several times, EXACTLY why I brought this discussion here.

Here is the whole story, for the skeptic Scott and others. My uncle antiques regularly throughout the Hudson Valley in NY. He was at a flea market, saw a bag of old photos, and paid $5 for a bag of photos, in which this Wagner was. He did a bit of research online, but couldn't find much on the photo.

This was when he contacted me, in L.A. He sent me a link to his auction, and my research began. This was 5 days ago. I was able to find a little info about the studio, J. Nyser, but, like many of you, was immediately skeptical that such a Pittsburgh-centric figure, who was born near Pittsburgh, played in Pittsburgh, died near Pittsburgh, and was, if I remember correctly, sheriff of Allegheny County at one point, would have been doing in a Connecticut studio.

His scanner is only a B/W scanner, so unfortunately, that's the best scan we've got, as of right now. I am going to ask him to send it to me, so that I can get a higher res scan up, as I stated before.

I don't understand this sentence from you, Scott: "And while you are trying to gain information, I suspect it's of a different type than what you claim." I am an extremely reputable member of this hobby, as many on THIS board can attest to, and have no desire to represent this in any other way than as what it is, WHICH IS WHY I CAME TO NET54 FOR MORE INFO.

If it is forged crap, then by all means, tell me its forged crap, and just give me the reasons why, which this thread has certainly provided. I am not arguing with a single finding, and, in fact, am continually amazed at what this board is able to come up with in just a few days. Again, it's why I came here.

I would not recommend to my uncle that we update the auction at all. My only recommendation would be to take it town altogether, so as to not sell what could, and most likely is, a forgery or, as some call, a "fantasy piece".

I hope that clears things up for you, Scott. Thanks.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by jrlebert

OK, Scott. First of all, come off your high horse. As I have stated many times, this is not MY auction, it is my uncle's. And you are absolutely right, we did not do nearly as expansive of research as would be available HERE, which is, again, as I stated several times, EXACTLY why I brought this discussion here.

Here is the whole story, for the skeptic Scott and others. My uncle antiques regularly throughout the Hudson Valley in NY. He was at a flea market, saw a bag of old photos, and paid $5 for a bag of photos, in which this Wagner was. He did a bit of research online, but couldn't find much on the photo.

This was when he contacted me, in L.A. He sent me a link to his auction, and my research began. This was 5 days ago. I was able to find a little info about the studio, J. Nyser, but, like many of you, was immediately skeptical that such a Pittsburgh-centric figure, who was born near Pittsburgh, played in Pittsburgh, died near Pittsburgh, and was, if I remember correctly, sheriff of Allegheny County at one point, would have been doing in a Connecticut studio.

His scanner is only a B/W scanner, so unfortunately, that's the best scan we've got, as of right now. I am going to ask him to send it to me, so that I can get a higher res scan up, as I stated before.

I don't understand this sentence from you, Scott: "And while you are trying to gain information, I suspect it's of a different type than what you claim." I am an extremely reputable member of this hobby, as many on THIS board can attest to, and have no desire to represent this in any other way than as what it is, WHICH IS WHY I CAME TO NET54 FOR MORE INFO.

If it is forged crap, then by all means, tell me its forged crap, and just give me the reasons why, which this thread has certainly provided. I am not arguing with a single finding, and, in fact, am continually amazed at what this board is able to come up with in just a few days. Again, it's why I came here.

I would not recommend to my uncle that we update the auction at all. My only recommendation would be to take it town altogether, so as to not sell what could, and most likely is, a forgery or, as some call, a "fantasy piece".

I hope that clears things up for you, Scott. Thanks.

Me thinks the lady doth protest too much.

(I stopped reading at "high horse")

[jrlebert]

As long as we are quoting Hamlet...

“This above all: to thine own self be true.”

I am not trying to represent anything as genuine, or look for anything more than info and discourse about the photo. Scott, I appreciate the banter, the info, and your time, but making accusations or insinuations about someone's honesty, integrity, or intentions crosses the line a bit.

[Runscott]

Try being true to others.

[jrlebert]

Really? To whom am I being disingenuous?

[slidekellyslide]

Scott, I think your'e off on this one...the auction is in New York, JR's IP address is in Los Angeles, and if you look at JR's profile you see his ebay ID which also shows items listed from Los Angeles. Not everyone is up to date with the junk flowing through our hobby. You looked at this right away and saw it was fake, but you specialize in photographs.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

Scott, I think your'e off on this one...the auction is in New York, JR's IP address is in Los Angeles, and if you look at JR's profile you see his ebay ID which also shows items listed from Los Angeles. Not everyone is up to date with the junk flowing through our hobby. You looked at this right away and saw it was fake, but you specialize in photographs.

Dan, I don't know what you mean by your last sentence. I do specialize in photographs, but I also have one of the largest cabinet card collections on this board. Yes, I did look at it right away and saw that it was a fake.

Regarding IP address locations, the OP stated at one point that possibly 'his' price was to high, indicating that he had set up this auction for 'his uncle'. He has since removed that information, but based on his statements I thought that he had put up this auction for 'his uncle'. If that's not the case, then my apologies. Clearer communication would help.

In any event, as you know, these types of items pop up on ebay all the time, and the sellers pop in here all the time to gather validation for their item;e.g-Commiskey, young Honus Wagner, etc.,etc. They generally fail at such attempts. It doesn't bother me at all when such items show up on ebay - it's just part of the game. But when they show up here, on a legitimate board, it is irritating. The fact that some forum members think this piece is legitimate is even more disturbing, but I'll bow out at this point and let you all continue to discuss it, unimpeded.

Also, Dan - I'm not making any assumptions about your own thoughts about this item, so please don't take offense. Thanks.

[thecatspajamas]

JR, it would have raised less suspicion had the photo not been up for bids as you're asking questions about it. At the very least, it should have been taken down as soon as the resounding "it's fake" reply was heard from several here who know what they're talking about. We can all still see the scan after the item is ended, so there is no reason to keep it "active" where there is still the risk of someone being duped by the faulty description and bidding.

If your uncle was sincere about finding the truth of the matter and not perpetuating a forgery, the auction should have been ended about 3 days ago. At the very least, it needs to be ended now, not allowed to run its course under the assumption that nobody will bid. I think you'll find a warmer reception if the potential for fraud on an item like this is not active and staring everyone in the face.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

JR, it would have raised less suspicion had the photo not been up for bids as you're asking questions about it. At the very least, it should have been taken down as soon as the resounding "it's fake" reply was heard from several here who know what they're talking about. We can all still see the scan after the item is ended, so there is no reason to keep it "active" where there is still the risk of someone being duped by the faulty description and bidding.

If your uncle was sincere about finding the truth of the matter and not perpetuating a forgery, the auction should have been ended about 3 days ago. At the very least, it needs to be ended now, not allowed to run its course under the assumption that nobody will bid. I think you'll find a warmer reception if the potential for fraud on an item like this is not active and staring everyone in the face.

Agreed...it should have been taken down a few days ago, but it didn't seem like anyone just flat came out and said it was fake until Scott gave his "Yuck" to it.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Dan, I don't know what you mean by your last sentence. I do specialize in photographs, but I also have one of the largest cabinet card collections on this board. Yes, I did look at it right away and saw that it was a fake.

Regarding IP address locations, the OP stated at one point that possibly 'his' price was to high, indicating that he had set up this auction for 'his uncle'. He has since removed that information, but based on his statements I thought that he had put up this auction for 'his uncle'. If that's not the case, then my apologies. Clearer communication would help.

In any event, as you know, these types of items pop up on ebay all the time, and the sellers pop in here all the time to gather validation for their item;e.g-Commiskey, young Honus Wagner, etc.,etc. They generally fail at such attempts. It doesn't bother me at all when such items show up on ebay - it's just part of the game. But when they show up here, on a legitimate board, it is irritating. The fact that some forum members think this piece is legitimate is even more disturbing, but I'll bow out at this point and let you all continue to discuss it, unimpeded.

Also, Dan - I'm not making any assumptions about your own thoughts about this item, so please don't take offense. Thanks.

My last sentence meant that it's easy for a guy like you to spot a fake cabinet photo because of your experience and not everyone has that. As far as JR editing out "his price is too high", he did not edit it out, and it's clear to me that he's referring to his uncle in that post.

As far as my thoughts on the piece I knew as soon as I clicked on the ebay auction that it was a fake...that Wagner photo might be the most prolifically faked photo out there. I just didn't happen to click on this thread until today though otherwise I would have declared it a fake right away.

[jrlebert]

Guys, I contacted my uncle after I said I would, and have advised he take it down. As we both work, I imagine that once he gets home, the auction will be down. If it were MY auction, I would have already taken it down.

[Runscott]

Thanks Dan, your feedback is much appreciated.

OP - sorry, I didn't realize that the ebay auction was entirely on your uncle. Obviously, it's not your fault that he has ignored your feedback.

[jrlebert]

Scott (and others), he hasn't ignored my feedback; he's just been working.

The auction is down, and I am hoping he can send me the item in question, so I can give as many details as possible, including the color of the stamp and any details I can provide about the photo.

Again, thanks to all involved.

[Jaybird]

I know J.R. locally here in Los Angeles. I know we are all jaded in this hobby but J.R. is one of the good guys. One of the most generous guys I know with his time and is just fantastic running many of the youth programs in the area.

[jrlebert]

Much appreciated, Jason.