Are Type I Photos The Only Safe Bet In This Hobby?

[drcy]

I think alterations and high graded graded cards is likely an issues. But that's not stuff that interests me (collecting-wise).

As someone said, mid to grade cards are nice.

There will be forgeries (and I know of another problem which I've subtly alluded to before), but I think photos are safe if you know what you're doing. News photos are generally safe. For the record, of what I've seen, PSA does a good job with photos. I'm sure there's lots of other memorabilia too that's safe if you know what you're doing. The areas that are more "scary" are autographs and game used-- but I deal in neither.

[Leon]

Hey David
Quick question sort of in line with this thread. Have you ever seen a real albumen print be faked? In other words it is a fake real albumen card? For example, a fake Old Judge that is a real albumen photo and it's fake? This question is about to be more pertinent, to me, soon.

Originally Posted by drcy

I think alterations and high graded graded cards is likely an issues. But that's not stuff that interests me (collecting-wise).

As someone said, mid to grade cards are nice.

There will be forgeries (and I know of another problem which I've subtly alluded to before), but I think photos are safe if you know what you're doing. News photos are generally safe.

[drcy]

I've seen original albumen photos remounted (I think there were remounted Kalamazoo bats out there-- with obviously different mounts, and a matter of restoration), but have never seen a forgery using albumen.

I know there was questioning about one big albumen baseball photo a while back in an auction. But it wasn't about the photographic print itself-- no one doubted it was original--, it was about the mount. Some thought it was remounted. But it was an esoteric, early photo, not a trading card like an Old Judge. Whether remounted or not, it still had a lot of value.

The good deal with photos is the older they are, the easier they are to authenticate. The older the materials, the older the processes, etc. Also albumens get wear and aging signs distinct to the process and materials. Theoretically, modern photos are easier to forge, because the original and forger-used materials and processes are from the same era.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by drcy

I've seen original albumen photos remounted (I think there were remounted Kalamazoo bats out there-- with obviously different mounts, and a matter of restoration), but have never seen a forgery using albumen.

I know there was questioning about one big albumen baseball photo a while back in an auction. But it wasn't about the photographic print itself-- no one doubted it was original--, it was about the mount. Some thought it was remounted. But it was an esoteric, early photo, not a trading card like an Old Judge. Whether remounted or not, it still had a lot of value.

The good deal with photos is the older they are, the easier they are to authenticate. The older the materials, the older the processes, etc. Also albumens get wear and aging signs distinct to the process and materials. Theoretically, modern photos are easier to forge, because the original and forger-used materials and processes are from the same era.

Are you referring to the 1865 Atlantics CdV?

[drcy]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Are you referring to the 1865 Atlantics CdV?

Yes.

[benjulmag]

The item did not meet the reserve when it last appeared in the Heritage auction. My guess is the reason is that the leap of faith required to believe the photo was real was too great.

I do not question it is an albumen photo. What I do question is how one can be so sure it is a period albumen photo. I know someone who examined it before it was slabbed. He told me that because the photo was not completely adhered to the mount he was able to inspect a portion of the verso, which appeared to be unsoiled and on paper that looked to be modern and perfectly white in color. Adding to this that the CdV has no known provenance, appears to clearly have been remounted, and shows a clear degradation in resolution from the other known copy, I am surprised you express the confidence you do that the photo is genuine.

[drcy]

We may or may not be talking about the same CDV. I don't know, and am too lazy to look into it.

The one I was thinking of was supposedly remounted from a stolen stereoview, and the remounting was to hide that it was stolen. At least, that's the story someone told me.

But, either way, I'm too busy with work to get in a debate on it, and won't refute anything you say about the HA photo.

[Leon]

So are you implying that you feel it could be a faked albumen photo? I have asked quite a few experienced hobbyists and no one has said they have seen one yet. There is a reason I am asking these questions and it has to do with a card I am getting graded.

Originally Posted by benjulmag

The item did not meet the reserve when it last appeared in the Heritage auction. My guess is the reason is that the leap of faith required to believe the photo was real was too great.

I do not question it is an albumen photo. What I do question is how one can be so sure it is a period albumen photo. I know someone who examined it before it was slabbed. He told me that because the photo was not completely adhered to the mount he was able to inspect a portion of the verso, which appeared to be unsoiled and on paper that looked to be modern and perfectly white in color. Adding to this that the CdV has no known provenance, appears to clearly have been remounted, and shows a clear degradation in resolution from the other known copy, I am surprised you express the confidence you do that the photo is genuine.

[maddux311]

Originally Posted by drcy

I think alterations and high graded graded cards is likely an issues. But that's not stuff that interests me (collecting-wise).

As someone said, mid to grade cards are nice.

There will be forgeries (and I know of another problem which I've subtly alluded to before), but I think photos are safe if you know what you're doing. News photos are generally safe. For the record, of what I've seen, PSA does a good job with photos. I'm sure there's lots of other memorabilia too that's safe if you know what you're doing. The areas that are more "scary" are autographs and game used-- but I deal in neither.

PSA may do a good job, but the authentication fees are high in respect to declared values. Unless the photo is on the high end of the first tier it is cost prohibitive to get the photo authenticated. I have a type 1 photo that would sell in the $300 range and I can't see any reason to have it authenticated when they charge $50 to authenticate, $30 to encapsulate and the shipping on top of that.

[Bpm0014]

The good deal with photos is the older they are, the easier they are to authenticate. The older the materials, the older the processes, etc. Also albumens get wear and aging signs distinct to the process and materials.

I would never get out of collecting cards, but this is why I love old photos so much!