Are these Conlon photos?

[prewarsports]

I have bought maybe 1000 photos from the Sporting News archives and there were probably 25-30 that had "Conlon" circled on the back. I dont think save a few that the "Conlon" was written by Charles Conlon but I do know for a fact that at least the ones I have came that way direct from the Sporting News. I have no comment about the ones being talked about in this thread or the seller being mentioned, but I do know that a lot were marked Conlon that were not marked by him and as a result there were errors I am sure. Just my thoughts.

[horzverti]

John and his staff are indeed the source of the photos which have the round, Sporting News/John Rogers sticker on their reverse. I have purchased my share of photos through their various eBay stores (HistoricImages##, Lexibell, etc.). I also have successfully dealt with John and his team face to face at the National Show. I like to perform my own due dilligence to establish provanance to the best of my ability and resources for the items which I am interested in purchasing. I sometimes ask a lot of questions and they always answer quickly. I feel confident buying items from Rogers' archives.

In my opinion, the 'Conlon' and 'Conlon Photo' writing on the back of these photos (at beginning of thread) is not legit. I would say that this graffiti was added to the back of the photos after these photos left Rogers' team's hands. As I wrote before, the 'Conlon' writing just doesn't look like it does on legit pieces. Rogers' team would not have let these items be sold as legit Conlons. Rogers' team is building a very solid reputation in our hobby and I can't believe that hey would risk tarnishing their good name to move a few items.

Regarding the recent item on eBay, posted earlier in this thread; something smells bad here too. The item description refers to the Conlon sig as 'faux'. I believe he/she notes as 'faux' only because a prosepective buyer(s) had pointed out to him/her in the past that he is selling sketchy Conlon items. I guess it is good that the seller at very least wrote that there is some question to the legitimacy of the writing on the back. Bid on the item considering its eye appeal, not because someone scratched some gibberish on the back.

If immitation is the most sincere form of flattery, then take a bow Mr. Charles Conlon...you have earned it.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by horzverti

John and his staff are indeed the source of the photos which have the round, Sporting News/John Rogers sticker on their reverse. I have purchased my share of photos through their various eBay stores (HistoricImages##, Lexibell, etc.). I also have successfully dealt with John and his team face to face at the National Show. I like to perform my own due dilligence to establish provanance to the best of my ability and resources for the items which I am interested in purchasing. I sometimes ask a lot of questions and they always answer quickly. I feel confident buying items from Rogers' archives.

In my opinion, the 'Conlon' and 'Conlon Photo' writing on the back of these photos (at beginning of thread) is not legit. I would say that this graffiti was added to the back of the photos after these photos left Rogers' team's hands. As I wrote before, the 'Conlon' writing just doesn't look like it does on legit pieces. Rogers' team would not have let these items be sold as legit Conlons. Rogers' team is building a very solid reputation in our hobby and I can't believe that hey would risk tarnishing their good name to move a few items.

Regarding the recent item on eBay, posted earlier in this thread; something smells bad here too. The item description refers to the Conlon sig as 'faux'. I believe he/she notes as 'faux' only because a prosepective buyer(s) had pointed out to him/her in the past that he is selling sketchy Conlon items. I guess it is good that the seller at very least wrote that there is some question to the legitimacy of the writing on the back. Bid on the item considering its eye appeal, not because someone scratched some gibberish on the back.

If immitation is the most sincere form of flattery, then take a bow Mr. Charles Conlon...you have earned it.

Note: if you read an opinion regarding vintage baseball photos from DRC (David Cycleback), PREWARSPORTS (Rhys Yeakley) or Henry Yee...feel confidient you are getting good info. These guys know their stuff.

Per the board rules you need to put your full name in your post or in your signature line. You may use a period, or any symbol, in between letters to not show up in a Google search. thanks....

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by horzverti

John and his staff are indeed the source of the photos which have the round, Sporting News/John Rogers sticker on their reverse. I have purchased my share of photos through their various eBay stores (HistoricImages##, Lexibell, etc.). I also have successfully dealt with John and his team face to face at the National Show. I like to perform my own due dilligence to establish provanance to the best of my ability and resources for the items which I am interested in purchasing. I sometimes ask a lot of questions and they always answer quickly. I feel confident buying items from Rogers' archives.

In my opinion, the 'Conlon' and 'Conlon Photo' writing on the back of these photos (at beginning of thread) is not legit. I would say that this graffiti was added to the back of the photos after these photos left Rogers' team's hands. As I wrote before, the 'Conlon' writing just doesn't look like it does on legit pieces. Rogers' team would not have let these items be sold as legit Conlons. Rogers' team is building a very solid reputation in our hobby and I can't believe that hey would risk tarnishing their good name to move a few items.

Regarding the recent item on eBay, posted earlier in this thread; something smells bad here too. The item description refers to the Conlon sig as 'faux'. I believe he/she notes as 'faux' only because a prosepective buyer(s) had pointed out to him/her in the past that he is selling sketchy Conlon items. I guess it is good that the seller at very least wrote that there is some question to the legitimacy of the writing on the back. Bid on the item considering its eye appeal, not because someone scratched some gibberish on the back.

If immitation is the most sincere form of flattery, then take a bow Mr. Charles Conlon...you have earned it.

Note: if you read an opinion regarding vintage baseball photos from DRC (David Cycleback), PREWARSPORTS (Rhys Yeakley) or Henry Yee...feel confidient you are getting good info. These guys know their stuff.

Do you have facts to support your opinion that they were added after they left the hands of John's team? The seller on eBay says it came directly from them. There are also many in major auctions that I have noticed both fake signatures AND fake stamps which, I believe, get photos directly from the same team. Are you suggesting that the team uses a distributor to sell to distributors?

Please note: The seller on ebay explains EXACTLY what the item is. Eye appeal is one thing... The fact of the matter is, there is a difference in what a real vs a fake item is worth.

Scott-It might be reasonable for someone to write "Conlon photo" on the back. However it is NOT reasonable for them to replicate Conlon's signature within a circle over and over again. Why would they take the time to do that? It is not like they are little kids writing Mickey Mantle on a baseball card(trying to match his sig.).

These stamps and circled signatures appear to be placed deliberately.


This is a VERY large issue in the photo market and it should not be thrown under the rug. I will go so far as to say it is the current Couches corner of photos. A TYPE 1 BABE RUTH CONLON WITH REAL SIG AND STAMP=4 TO 5 FIGURES..... A RECENT PRINT WITH A FAKE SIG AND STAMP=LOW 1 FIGURE.

I don't care who it is, I would just like it to stop as it is hurting the hobby. Unfortunately, I do not think it will stop until the source be held accountable and exposed).

As a photo collector, I find it all very disturbing.

Ben Wein!garten

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Do you have facts to support your opinion that they were added after they left the hands of John's team? The seller on eBay says it came directly from them. There are also many in major auctions that I have noticed both fake signatures AND fake stamps which, I believe, get photos directly from the same team. Are you suggesting that the team uses a distributor to sell to distributors?

Please note: The seller on ebay explains EXACTLY what the item is. Eye appeal is one thing... The fact of the matter is, there is a difference in what a real vs a fake item is worth.

Scott-It might be reasonable for someone to write "Conlon photo" on the back. However it is NOT reasonable for them to replicate Conlon's signature within a circle over and over again. Why would they take the time to do that? It is not like they are little kids writing Mickey Mantle on a baseball card(trying to match his sig.).

These stamps and circled signatures are being placed deliberately.


This is a VERY large issue in the photo market and it should not be thrown under the rug. I will go so far as to say it is the current Couches corner of photos. A TYPE 1 BABE RUTH CONLON WITH REAL SIG AND STAMP=4 TO 5 FIGURES..... A RECENT PRINT WITH A FAKE SIG AND STAMP=LOW 1 FIGURE.

I don't care who it is, I would just like it to stop as it is hurting the hobby. Unfortunately, I do not think it will stop until the source be held accountable and exposed).

As a photo collector, I find it all very disturbing.

A well-respected collector and dealer, Rhys, just stated that he had bought a number of photos directly from The Sporting News (not via John Rogers) that had the same pencilled notation on the back. My guess would be that most of these mis-applied Conlon notations were added by editors or archivists prior to the collection passing through the hands of John Rogers' team. That they appear to be in the same hand, which only slightly resembles Conlon's signature, looks to me to be more of a coincidence than anything, and stems more from them all coming from The Sporting News archives than all having passed through the hands of Rogers' team (which, in at least some cases, they didn't).

Don't get me wrong, I'm NOT trying to poo poo the issue or say that you should either disregard the notations completely OR take them as iron-clad provenance, but neither do I think that they are proof of a conspiracy by John Rogers and his team to jack up prices on a handful of the millions of photos they have liberated from so many papers' archives, especially since they were not sold as Conlon originals in the first place. Besides that, John Rogers HAS CONLON'S ORIGINAL GLASS PLATE NEGATIVES and sells high-quality (but modern) prints from them, any one of which sells for more than the mis-identified photos in this thread.

Are false photographer ID's something to watch out for? Sure. Should you look at pencilled notations on the back of photos in context? Always. Is John Rogers out to get you? I don't think so.

I do think more solid proof should be presented than has been though before levelling accusations of forgery against John Rogers (or anyone else) though. Be wary, but at the same time, please be responsible.

Lance F!ttro

[Runscott]

Scott-It might be reasonable for someone to write "Conlon photo" on the back. However it is NOT reasonable for them to replicate Conlon's signature within a circle over and over again. Why would they take the time to do that? It is not like they are little kids writing Mickey Mantle on a baseball card(trying to match his sig.).

To me, if they are forgery attempts, they are poor attempts. Conlon was a man of few pen-strokes, sometimes even looking like he skipped a letter. Whoever wrote his name on these questionable photos actually added extra strokes in most cases. As I said, I think it was probably done shortly after the Sporting News acquired the photos, and someone just wanted to i.d. them as Conlons, giving a reasonable effort at duplicating Conlon's style, but not taking the time to actually forge them. Maybe whoever did it was a Conlon fan and thought it more fun to use his style in id'ing the photos, than to simply print 'Conlon photo' on the backs.

I agree completely with you in that I wish it didn't happen, but not much can be done about it now, and while it could be a modern forgery attempt, I don't think that's the case.

[PhilNap]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

A well-respected collector and dealer, Rhys, just stated that he had bought a number of photos directly from The Sporting News (not via John Rogers) that had the same pencilled notation on the back.

I'm not sure thats exactly what Rhys said. Rhys were you able to buy direct from the Sporting News?

[Forever Young]

Rhys, did you buy these 25-30 direct from the sporting news OR directly from the collection after it was purchased?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Rhys, did you buy these 25-30 direct from the sporting news OR directly from the collection after it was purchased?

I thought we were all just chirping crickets?

Here's is one of Rhys' 'Sporting News' photos that I am almost certain Conlon did NOT write on - I don't think it's even a Conlon. The 'n' at the end of Conlon is wrong, as is the handwriting on the rest of the piece. Conlon was a master at depth-of-field and the background was almost always a bit out-of-focus. I also doubt he would have released a print of an inverses image, especially someone pitching.

Nothing against Rhys or his expertise - I just think this one is incorrect.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1913-ED-REUL...-/320843983202

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

I have bought maybe 1000 photos from the Sporting News archives and there were probably 25-30 that had "Conlon" circled on the back. I dont think save a few that the "Conlon" was written by Charles Conlon but I do know for a fact that at least the ones I have came that way direct from the Sporting News. I have no comment about the ones being talked about in this thread or the seller being mentioned, but I do know that a lot were marked Conlon that were not marked by him and as a result there were errors I am sure. Just my thoughts.

Rhys, here are a couple from that group that are authentic Conlons. In addition to what I mentioned in my previous post, other things to look for are the way the player's name was pencilled on the back - Conlon inscribed these. Regarding their coming that way from the Sporting News, that makes perfect sense - many Conlons either had a stamp and no inscription, or no identifying marks whatsoever. It's completely reasonable that very early on someone wrote 'Conlon Photo' on the ones that they 'thought' were Conlons.

[thecatspajamas]

I was waiting to see if Rhys would clarify, but quoting from his earlier post:

Originally Posted by prewarsports

I dont think save a few that the "Conlon" was written by Charles Conlon but I do know for a fact that at least the ones I have came that way direct from the Sporting News.

seems to me that when he says "direct from the Sporting News" he's not talking about "by way of John Rogers."

Either way though, if you're going to be calling out a major outfit like Rogers and his team for fraud, you need to have more to back up your argument than "well, he could have done it" and

Originally Posted by Forever Young

I have noticed both fake signatures AND fake stamps which, I believe, get photos directly from the same team

Again, I will remind you that John Rogers has several THOUSAND original Conlon glass plate negatives at his disposal, and several MILLION vintage photos to boot, with many many many better quality shots than those shown here. Not only does it not make sense for him to have faked a Conlon signature on the back of less-than-Conlon-quality photos and not call attention to the signature on the back in the hopes that someone will see it and bid a little more in an auction, but if he were going to try to fake Conlon photos, he has far better material at his disposal to do so. These are not the 4 to 5-figure Ruth photos we're talking about here. I really don't see any "damning evidence" having been presented yet, and while it is possible that someone is adding fake Conlon sigs, I really don't think Rogers is the one doing it.

[Forever Young]

Call out?
Major outfit?? Really???
What is this?? I am trying to get to the bottom of forged items in the hobby here.
I am merely trying to trace back the origin of these items.
You act like I am defaming the president of the United States.
That group is part of the supply chain so naturally they will be mentioned in the process.
I am not accusing any one particular person/group of fraud.. I just know someone is doing it at this point.

You do not have to remind me of anything Lance.

Scott-The crickets were driving me crazy

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

I was waiting to see if Rhys would clarify, but quoting from his earlier post:



seems to me that when he says "direct from the Sporting News" he's not talking about "by way of John Rogers."

Either way though, if you're going to be calling out a major outfit like Rogers and his team for fraud, you need to have more to back up your argument than "well, he could have done it" and

Again, I will remind you that John Rogers has several THOUSAND original Conlon glass plate negatives at his disposal, and several MILLION vintage photos to boot, with many many many better quality shots than those shown here. Not only does it not make sense for him to have faked a Conlon signature on the back of less-than-Conlon-quality photos and not call attention to the signature on the back in the hopes that someone will see it and bid a little more in an auction, but if he were going to try to fake Conlon photos, he has far better material at his disposal to do so. These are not the 4 to 5-figure Ruth photos we're talking about here. I really don't see any "damning evidence" having been presented yet, and while it is possible that someone is adding fake Conlon sigs, I really don't think Rogers is the one doing it.

EDITED 9/23/14: PLEASE SEE NEWEST THREAD BELOW ABOUT QUESTIONABLE CONLON STAMPS, WRITING AND SIGS.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=194436

[PhilNap]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

seems to me that when he says "direct from the Sporting News" he's not talking about "by way of John Rogers."

Lance, do you know of the Sporting News making photos from their archives available other than their bulk sale to Rogers?

If yes, was it the left overs or was it prior to the Rogers purchase?

If no, then lets let Rhys answer the question. If he so pleases.

[prewarsports]

Hi

Yes I got a some with the Conlon in a circle direct from the Sporting News. However, you need to understand I have bought over 1000 photos from them, probably closer to 1500 photos. If there were 20-25 photos with Conlon written in pencil (total guess, I have not counted, could be 10 for al I know) and say 15 are not in Conlons hand, the conclusion would HAVE TO BE that someone at the Sporting News YEARS ago was trying to identify Conlon images and probably got some wrong. You would have to think that if someone in the 1950's was trying to identify images that were Conlon images for filing purposes they probably got some wrong. Maybe they were getting into trouble using Conlon images without crediting him (which Conlon DID do all the time) and perhaps they went back and tried to re-identify them with mixed success? That is my take. I know the Rogers guys very well and I am 100% sure they did not put the name on there, and I know they were there when I got them, so the only conclusion for the ones I have is filing mistakes at the Sporting News with no malicious intent.

Please note, the above statement is ONLY in regard to the Conlon identified images I purchased and if indeed other people are trying to forge the Conlon name to make a buck, that is on them and a totally different issue. I stand behind the fact that there is NO WAY the Rogers guys are doing this, they actually enjoy it when someone finds a diamond in the rough because it makes for happy customers and repeat business and would never do something like this to risk a multi-million dollar business model for a few thousand bucks!

On a complete side not, I also bought at LEAST 20 die cut photos mounted to board which when removed displayed completely original Conlon Stamps on the back.

I will fix the one I have on ebay which appearantly is not a real Conlon which was alluded to earlier in this thread.

Thanks for listening to my thoughts and let me know if I need to further clarify anything.

Rhys Yeakley

[prewarsports]

I also want to add in full disclosure, I have bought A LOT of Sporting News photos from third parites as well, as many of you know I am active as a buyer on ebay and in the major auctions as well such as MEARS which sells a lot of the SN photos as well.

I also want to add that I changed the auction that was mentioned, I dont want to have ANYONE think even for a second that I would intentionally try and pass off a photo that was not Conlon as his work.

I guess now the question is, do you leave the "Conlon" on the back of photos like that, or should I just erase it to make sure nobody tries to pass it off down the line?

I wanted to also add that of the 1500 or so photos I bought, MANY were real Conlons with authentic stamps and handwritten notations, I mean like 50-100 real ones and maybe 10-15 ones with wrong identifications so please keep that in mind to. It is obvious that when you are dealing with a publication that has THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of real Conlons and I am talking about 10-15 with misidentifications, my example is VERY small. However, if someone else out there is faking the notations then that IS a problem!

Hope these responses help.

Rhys

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

...the conclusion would HAVE TO BE that someone at the Sporting News YEARS ago was trying to identify Conlon images and probably got some wrong. You would have to think that if someone in the 1950's was trying to identify images that were Conlon images for filing purposes they probably got some wrong.

Well-said, Rhys. As far as you or John's honesty, I personally would never question that, but it's something that almost all of us get accused of at some point or another.

I will fix the one I have on ebay which appearantly is not a real Conlon which was alluded to earlier in this thread.

Rhys, that's just my opinion - if I pointed out something that you agreed with, great, but your opinion is certainly as valid as mine. I've had type 1 Reulbach photos by almost every worthwhile photographer - if I go back and compare yours to the others I've owned, I can probably give you a good idea of who the photographer was. My initial thought was Frances Burke but I need to find that image.

[PhilNap]

Rhys,

Thanks for clarifying. I wasn't aware that others had access to the Sporting News archive. Were you able to get in there before they did the archive sale to Rogers?

[prewarsports]

When I said "direct" I meant through Rogers archives but that is as direct as it gets, they all go through his company as far as I know. I meant that they came direct from the SN via the Rogers group. However, I was able view some of these as they were being removed from file folders for the first time and so that is what I meant as well as being direct. Some of these went straight from files to me but I had to buy them from the Rogers group etc. Hopefully that clarifies what I meant.