Time Period Camera and Filmed Used. Joe D Photo Real?

[GoCubsGo32]

I recently acquired a Joe DiMaggio snapshot image that is 3.25x4.25 inches. When I received the photo, it has a cardboard type texture to the photo and I was wondering if it's real or not. I'm still fairly new to collecting older photo. It has all the signs of it being real, I just don't know if it's possible to use a heavy stock/cardboard type film.If you think it's real, what time of camera would have been used to take the photo. Looks to be maybe 1937 at Comiskey Park.

[drcy]

If the front texture is what you mean, it is possible for old snap shots to have a matte texture rather than glossy. Less common, but definitely possible. For evidence, George Burke's 1930s baseball photos come in both glossy and matte.

If you mean the thickness, period photos could have thickness. I'd generally call it heavy paper, but someone else might describe it has thinner card stock.

It's hard to know exactly what you mean with this photo, just reading your words.

As with baseball cards, one will occasionally find old photos that are original but unusual.

[GoCubsGo32]

Originally Posted by drcy

If the front texture is what you mean, it is possible for old snap shots to have a matte texture rather than glossy. Less common, but definitely possible. For evidence, George Burke's 1930s baseball photos come in both glossy and matte.

If you mean the thickness, period photos could have thickness. I'd generally call it heavy paper, but someone else might describe it has thinner card stock.

It's hard to know exactly what you mean with this photo, just reading your words.

As with baseball cards, one will occasionally find old photos that are original but unusual.

Thank you for your reply! Sorry, I'm doing the best I can to describe it,lol

The finish on the photo is matte, no gloss. The thickness seems about the same size as a normal glossy snapshot. The texture of it feels like cardboard or a heavy stock paper. I hope that clears it up little.

[drcy]

Without seeing the photo in person, I can say that a matte texture should not be of concern. There was both glossy and matte photo paper available to photographers back then. It's just that the glossy paper was more commonly used.

And after looking at a pile of the normal dime-a-dozen glossy photos, a vintage matte one does stand out as unusual if not a bit odd. So I can see why you posted your question.

[GoCubsGo32]

Thanks drcy for your feedback! I deeply appreciated it and you have erased my concerns about the photo. Yup, all I have in my collection is glossy snapshots, so it was unusual for me,lol. Learning curve.