Charles Conlon Fakes, Baseball Magazine Stickers & A Brief Tutorial

[prewarsports]

With so much discussion about fake Charles Conlon stamps lately and the recent frauds in the photo industry, we felt it important to get the facts straight and help educate the general public about what is going on and how to protect yourselves and help preserve the integrity of this great hobby. I spoke to some advanced collectors and had several lengthy conversations with Ben Weingarten to make sure we all had the facts straight and were on the same page and here are the conclusions that have been reached after compiling all the information available so on behalf of myself and Ben, I am publishing here on the forum a brief synopsis of what has happened in the past, what you can do now to protect yourself, and what needs to happen in the future.

Fraud and History: The photo industry (with particular regard to press photography) is an incredibly safe way to collect items of historic significance when an educated buyer is purchasing from a trustworthy and educated seller. No other area of collecting provides so much authentication inherent in the items. Date stamps, handwriting, file marks, publishers stamps, photographic paper, style of photography etc. all lend a helping hand in determining what a photo is, who made it, who is pictured in it, and when it was made. With so many options for authentication, there are also multiple ways in which a person could potentially deceive. An industry still in its relative infancy allowed for individuals to take advantage of the small amounts of information available to the public to be used against them. With the increased money that fine pieces of vintage sports photography were generating, came the increased opportunity for fraud. If a photograph of a player was worth $50 but a Charles Conlon photograph of the same player brings $500, a small bit of handwriting, a stamp, or a sticker was all that stood in the way for huge profits. Such was the birth of the modern fraud in the photographic hobby.

Fake Conlon Stamps/Handwriting: Within the last 5-6 years it was discovered that fake Charles Conlon stamps and handwriting were beginning to appear on vintage (and non-vintage) photographs. We now know that this fraud was being perpetrated predominantly by one individual or group of individuals (we will just call whoever was doing it "the perpetrators" from here on out) who had a fake Conlon stamp made (the Blue stamp seen below). There is an almost identical reddish brown stamp that exists which is completely authentic and should never be confused with the blue one, and this was the pattern for the fake stamp (also seen below). Why would this brazen perpetrator make the stamp blue instead of red like the original? It is speculated that in trying to copy the original that it would be easier to discover that there were subtle differences. By creating a slightly different stamp and having it in a different color, it could be presented as a new style and any differences stylistically could be discounted because it was a different version. Aside from the stamp, the perpetrators also tried (pretty poorly) to fake Charles Conlon's handwriting on the back of photographs as well. Again, they did a poor job and often times left out key details (like the team notation) and usually paid little attention to the style of Conlon's signature which although sloppy, was very consistent throughout his life.

Baseball Magazine 1996 Stickers: The question that has been asked often regarding the source of the fake Conlon handwriting and stamps is how many ended up on photos from the 1996 Christies Baseball Magazine Sale with the hologram on the back as that sale happened nearly 20 years ago. The answer? It is believed that he perpetrators also had fake baseball Magazine Stickers made to accompany their fake stamps and handwriting! So, we are looking at a situation where the perpetrator went to great lengths to fool the public. Again though, they were either extremely brazen or sloppy (or both) as the stickers they had made have issues that can be easily spotted with a ruler and a trained eye.

Other potential Issues: The same perpetrators reportedly also had other fake stamps made similar to the Conlon. While it is unknown at this time if these were ever used, we have heard that other stamps from Paul Thompson, and some of the News Services were also made at the same time (or approximately the same time) as the Conlon stamp. If issues regarding these other stamps comes to light, we will try and keep the public educated as to their appearance and availability. It is our belief that these were made but were either too poor to pass off or the opportunity never presented itself to actually put these into circulation (thank God) as at this time only the Conlon is known to have been in circulation extensively. Lets hope that remains the case!

How to Protect Yourself: It is important that individuals are aware of the fact that the Blue Conlon stamp is bad. Often this was placed on legitimate vintage photographs, maybe even original Conlon Photographs to add provenance, but that does not always mean the photo is bad. It means be very careful. On Conlon photos with nothing but handwriting on the back, compare it to known authentic Conlons (there are thousands with both the handwriting and authentic stamps for comparison). Be VERY careful of anything being touted as a "restrike from Conlons Studios" with nothing to go off of but handwriting, especially where his negatives still exist! With regard to the Baseball Magazine Hologram, break out your ruler! The original stamp is EXACTLY 1 inch across and the fake is a bit larger (and not as clear). This is the easiest of all of the frauds to detect. If any issues arise submit them to PSA (Henry and Marshall are very educated on this issue) or David Cycleback for a paid analysis, or e mail me through RMY Auctions and I will take a quick look. You can also drop a line to Ben or other educated Collectors and Dealers, or post them on the forum for analysis (like on the autograph section of the forum) to get a larger audience. We are ALL trying to build this hobby up the right way and are all on the same page regarding cleaning this issue up and making sure things like this do not happen again!

Conclusion: The photo industry is a wonderful emerging market that provides the excitement of baseball cards and autographs with the opportunity to see something new every single day. With the maturation of the industry will come bumps, but it is important to remember that fraud exists in any industry where money flows. In the vintage photo industry, there are more safeguards than any other area of Sports Collectibles. Do your homework, take advantage of those who have extensive knowledge, and buy from reputable sources. Over time it is VERY easy to become an expert yourself and hopefully with the efforts of this community we can clean up this hobby of the recent fraud that has taken place and prevent anything like it from happening again. The sharing of knowledge for the betterment of all is what it is all about. I was happy to be able to come together with Ben and help make this issue a bit more clear about what is going on and how we can all protect ourselves.

Rhys Yeakley
&
Ben Weingarten

[Econteachert205]

This was exactly what I was looking for. Thank you both so much for this.

[horzverti]

Thanks Rhys. Well done.

[horzverti]

Originally Posted by horzverti

Thanks Rhys. Well done.

You too, Ben.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

It is important that individuals are aware of the fact that the Blue Conlon stamp is bad. Often this was placed on legitimate vintage photographs, maybe even original Conlon Photographs to add provenance, but that does not always mean the photo is bad.

Rhy, great article, but let's quit using the word 'maybe', as you and I have both sold original Conlon prints recently that had the blue stamp on the back (the mounted Wheat and Alexander photographs). Yours even had the forged Conlon signature that you have said sometimes accompanies the bad blue stamp. So we both know that the 'perpetrator' most definitely placed the bogus stamp AND the forged Conlon signature on the backs of original Type I Conlon prints.

If any forum member has a mounted print with the stamp (such as the example shown below), and you feel certain the print is an original Conlon, you can remove the print from the mount and you will most likely find evidence that it is a Conlon. If you have such an item and feel uncomfortable messing with it, mail it to me.

[Runscott]

Respecting Ben's wishes to continue the stamp discussion over here...

Originally Posted by drcy

Dennis, a photo expert or seasoned collector doesn't look just at the stamp to determine the originality and age of a photo. Photos with no stamps or marks can be identified as Type Is due to their physical qualities. Many original photos have no stamps.

It is very refreshing to see someone else express this publicly. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Forever Young

DING DING DING... However... stamps are/can be one of the smoking guns.

PLEASE SEE THE THREAD BELOW REGARDING FAKE CONLON STAMPS GOING FORWARD. I want to post on here so everyone will be directed to it.
Thanks again for all the comments and questions.

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

And you as well

Here are the pics of my Wheat removed from its mount (verso rotated as Conlon flipped the print). I'm not out to entrap anyone:

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Respecting Ben's wishes to continue the stamp discussion over here...



It is very refreshing to see someone else express this publicly. Thank you.



And you as well

Here are the pics of my Wheat removed from its mount (verso rotated as Conlon flipped the print). I'm not out to entrap anyone:

HEE HAW! NICE SCOTT! No wonder why you were happy getting that one back. Let me guess..... no longer for sale?? Awesome photo with ORIGINAL CHARLES CONLON handwriting.

This was published ONLY in effort to better the hobby. Both Rhys and I felt it was necessary to come together on this. I hope this helps clean things up a bit. People attempt to forge anything and everything in order to make a buck.. photography is no exception. It is important to work together to protect the hobby that we love .

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

HEE HAW! NICE SCOTT! No wonder why you were happy getting that one back. Let me guess..... no longer for sale?? Awesome photo with ORIGINAL CHARLES CONLON handwriting.

Nope. An original Conlon print is an original Conlon print, regardless of what some jacktard does to the back of it for his own nefarious reasons. But I am definitely grateful that you pointed out the blue stamp - once I knew what it was, it had to go

[Lordstan]

Taking Scott's lead on continuing the discussion over here, I cut and paste a question I have below.
Also thanks to Rhys and Ben for coming together to create a very nice summary.

Originally Posted by drcy

Dennis, a photo expert or seasoned collector doesn't look just at the stamp to determine the originality and age of a photo. Photos with no stamps or marks can be identified as Type Is due to their physical qualities. Many original photos have no stamps.

David,
I have a question about this statement. I agree that one can tell an original/vintage photo by the physical characteristics, but how can anyone say a photo is a type 1 when the rules of the type system have a set time duration? A photo produced in 1932 would certainly have most, if not all, the same physical qualities of one made in 1929, but if the photo was taken in 1927, the 1929 photo is a type 1 and the other is not.
Personally, it is with the multitude of unmarked photos that I feel the Type system has some limitations. Ben has often noted that he would much rather had a photo of 1915 Babe Ruth image produced in 1915 than the same image produced in 1919. He backs up these words by paying quite aggressively for those 1915 images. So if the physical qualities of the 2 prints are the same and there are no markings, how can one really tell?

Mark

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

Taking Scott's lead on continuing the discussion over here, I cut and paste a question I have below.
Also thanks to Rhys and Ben for coming together to create a very nice summary.



David,
I have a question about this statement. I agree that one can tell an original/vintage photo by the physical characteristics, but how can anyone say a photo is a type 1 when the rules of the type system have a set time duration? A photo produced in 1932 would certainly have most, if not all, the same physical qualities of one made in 1929, but if the photo was taken in 1927, the 1929 photo is a type 1 and the other is not.
Personally, it is with the multitude of unmarked photos that I feel the Type system has some limitations. Ben has often noted that he would much rather had a photo of 1915 Babe Ruth image produced in 1915 than the same image produced in 1919. He backs up these words by paying quite aggressively for those 1915 images. So if the physical qualities of the 2 prints are the same and there are no markings, how can one really tell?

Mark

Well, first off.. the Type system says APPROX 2 years. This was done so a 1919 or 1920 restrike of a rookie babe Ruth or a 1954 mantle vs 1951 rookie or not equals. The two year window was created for this reason. HOWEVER... GEO. BURKE is a perfect example of approx two years is flexible. If A BURKE photo was made in the30s with a 30s stamp.. it will be deemed a type 1 as it was made off orig neg and at the approx time and hard to distinguish within 2 years(burke used same paper in house for example/why hard)..
Many things can be determined by the paper other than stamps through fluorescents in paper and exemplars( to name a couple).
The “apprx” 2 years things seems to be a hang up to some. It isn’t for me. Probably because I know that it is not used to willy nilly authenticate. PSA actually goes out of their way to be as exact as possible in photo authentication. They actually go a little too extreme sometimes if you ask me. i.e. not authenticating bains on mounts or real photos if it has a fake stamp. They will actually say they don’t know if they do not know. I understand why they do these things though. I believe the photo authentication division has learned from authenticating mistakes(other genres) of the past.

Originally Posted by Lordstan

So if the physical qualities of the 2 prints are the same and there are no markings, how can one really tell?

If they were the exact same.. they would have probably been printed at the same time

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Well, first off.. the Type system says APPROX 2 years. This was done so a 1919 or 1920 restrike of a rookie babe Ruth or a 1954 mantle vs 1951 rookie or not equals. The two year window was created for this reason. HOWEVER... GEO. BURKE is a perfect example of approx two years is flexible. If A BURKE photo was made in the30s with a 30s stamp.. it will be deemed a type 1 as it was made off orig neg and at the approx time and hard to distinguish within 2 years(burke used same paper in house for example/why hard)..
Many things can be determined by the paper other than stamps through fluorescents in paper and exemplars( to name a couple).
The “apprx” 2 years things seems to be a hang up to some. It isn’t for me. Probably because I know that it is not used to willy nilly authenticate. PSA actually goes out of their way to be as exact as possible in photo authentication. They actually go a little too extreme sometimes if you ask me. i.e. not authenticating bains on mounts or real photos if it has a fake stamp. They will actually say they don’t know if they do not know. I understand why they do these things though. I believe the photo authentication division has learned from authenticating mistakes(other genres) of the past.

Originally Posted by Forever Young

If they were the exact same.. they would have probably been printed at the same time

Ben,
I understand what you're saying here and I don't disagree with your logic. My concern is that by having this ambiguity of interpretation, it creates confusion and the possibility of the appearance of uneven application of the rules. By no means am I saying that they are playing favorites, but the more strict the rules are, the more even it appears.

Your explanation of the Burke photos is exactly the type of example that creates confusion. Nowhere in their book or on PSA's website do they say that all Burkes with a 30's stamp are type 1. Understand that I don't think this decision is unreasonable, but being that this sort of information is published nowhere, how are photo collectors or sellers supposed to know this?

By having this sort of unknown rule, what you're saying to people that it's not OK to call a 1919 original negative re-strike of 1915 Ruth a type 1, because it's over 2yrs, but it is OK to call an original negative restrike of a Burke image a type 1, even if if could've been produced 6 or 7yrs later. Can you see how this can create confusion?

If I understand it correctly, the paper's fluorescence and many other physical characteristics aren't likely to be significantly different from the 20s through the end of the 30's. This is why I asked the question.

[GKreindler]

Bravo to both of you, Rhys and Ben. Wonderful thread that I'm sure is going to be SUPER helpful to a lot of people.

Graig

[Exhibitman]

That's true, Mark.

Now, to expand the issue slightly, are there incidents of other stamps being forged, like the NEA/date stamps that are seen on so many vintage photos? I ask because I have seen some plainly original photos with seemingly inconsistent stamps on them.

Another question: Many archive liquidators are putting bar code or other modern pressure labels on photo backs. Personally, I remove them when I can because I hate how they look, but what is the consensus on that practice? Is it worse to have the modern sticker or to remove it?

Another question: I have heard that some collectors will 'clean up' messy photo edges on the thought that the newspapers often cropped photos in their archives. What is the consensus on that practice? Is it akin to trimming a card or is it acceptable?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Another question: I have heard that some collectors will 'clean up' messy photo edges on the thought that the newspapers often cropped photos in their archives. What is the consensus on that practice? Is it akin to trimming a card or is it acceptable?

I don't think collectors trim edges - it's the sellers who are trying to make the photos look like they are in better condition, so they can get more money for them. Most collectors hate the trimming, as you need the edges for matting. Also, I don't think the newspapers actually cut that many photos - they marked the area that would not be included, but there wasn't any need to cut much. The extra area on the print gave them more room to make notes on the back.

What I used to do to improve a photo's sale potential, was to show what the print would look like with the edges matted out. No need to cut a vintage photo!

[T206Jim]

Good work Ben, Rhys and Scott; all very enlightening. I raised the question about Conlon stamp dating and unintentionally hit upon the issue of fake stamps.

I purchased the Wheat photo from Scott at a good price for a Conlon, but a poor price if not. Rather than remove the photo from the mount to look for further identifiers, and risk damaging the photo, I opted to return it. Congrats to Scott for taking that chance and reaping the satisfaction of discovering the Conlon handwriting, I'm pleased for him and know he will cherish the photo all the more.

Jim

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by T206Jim

Good work Ben, Rhys and Scott; all very enlightening. I raised the question about Conlon stamp dating and unintentionally hit upon the issue of fake stamps.

I purchased the Wheat photo from Scott at a good price for a Conlon, but a poor price if not. Rather than remove the photo from the mount to look for further identifiers, and risk damaging the photo, I opted to return it. Congrats to Scott for taking that chance and reaping the satisfaction of discovering the Conlon handwriting, I'm pleased for him and know he will cherish the photo all the more.

Jim

Thanks Jim!

[Runscott]

Good thoughts, Rhys.

Econteacher - interesting theory and plausible. Could explain non-Conlon notes or prints with only a stamp.

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk