Help from any photo experts on a Sporting News photo

[mighty bombjack]

I bought this photo recently. I'm an auto guy and bought it on the possibility that Wilbert Robinson's auto is real, but I know nothing about photos. Can anyone school me on this item? Any and all input is greatly appreciated.

[drcy]

I have no knowledge on autographs, but it is an original photograph from The Sporting News. Not a modern reproduction.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by drcy

I have no knowledge on autographs, but it is an original photograph from The Sporting News. Not a modern reproduction.

Thanks, I figured so with the stamps, but as I said any input is welcomed. Is there a trick to determining this "type" stuff I have seen on here?

Also, anyone know of a ballpark value for a photo like this, autograph aside?

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by mighty bombjack

Thanks, I figured so with the stamps, but as I said any input is welcomed. Is there a trick to determining this "type" stuff I have seen on here?

Also, anyone know of a ballpark value for a photo like this, autograph aside?

No trick, you just need to know what day the picture was taken and then what day the print was made. Pretty easy, right?

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

No trick, you just need to know what day the picture was taken and then what day the print was made. Pretty easy, right?

Well, I can say that Art Fletcher was helming the Phillies from 1923-1926, so the photo was taken sometime in that period. Day? No idea.

I am even more clueless about the print date, and fear that it is unknowable.

[HRBAKER]

Not unusual, my point being that unless a photo depicts a fairly significant event or subject matter that can be pinned down to a specific date and then is coupled with a reliable date stamp or such on the back then it is an educated guess as to the Type.

[Hankphenom]

This has an International News stamp that dates it to 1921-22, according to the Yee/Fogel guide.

[tnfoto]

Originally Posted by mighty bombjack

Well, I can say that Art Fletcher was helming the Phillies from 1923-1926, so the photo was taken sometime in that period. Day? No idea.

I am even more clueless about the print date, and fear that it is unknowable.

Based on the uniforms the photo was taken in Brooklyn in 1923 (Brooklyn home and Philadelphia road jerseys). The photo is a typical opening day pose, and Philadelphia opened the season in Brooklyn on April 17. Absent other information that might be a good guess as to the "taken" date.

[mighty bombjack]

Wow, thanks guys. Great information.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by tnfoto

Based on the uniforms the photo was taken in Brooklyn in 1923 (Brooklyn home and Philadelphia road jerseys). The photo is a typical opening day pose, and Philadelphia opened the season in Brooklyn on April 17. Absent other information that might be a good guess as to the "taken" date.

Thanks for the uniform links. I just found this auction, and it turns out that you are right

http://sports.mearsonlineauctions.co...entoryid=41515

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

Not unusual, my point being that unless a photo depicts a fairly significant event or subject matter that can be pinned down to a specific date and then is coupled with a reliable date stamp or such on the back then it is an educated guess as to the Type.

Photo authentication is more scientific than just about any memorabilia genre there is. The image can be dated by countless things; sig event, sub matter, uniformers, stadium signs..to name a few. The photo print date can also be dated by numerous things and the type determined; paper(fibers/ amount of chemical in paper under lack light that changes more often by era then one thinks), date stamps, news stamps, under magnification if a wire or original ect. Yes, to determine the type.. You need to know the date of image and when it was printed but it is far from a guess. This photo is an international news photo that was used by the sporting news. If the image is from 23( have not researched but trust what was said on here is accurate) and that is in the timeframe of the date stamp per the research of Henry and fogel's book. So far, by JUST seeing sans, i would say it has all the indicators of a type 1. It amazes me why people seem to think photo authentication is not based on scientific research and provable. These seem to be the same guys who collect cards that can be doctored/trimmed, jerseys that can be manufactured/restored and autographs(talk about a guess)to name a few(or people that are simply misinformed). Make no mistake, there is more to it than a guess. At the very least, the guess is a more educated one than just about every other area in this hobby. There are times where it is inconclusive through facts, thus a guess, but that goes for every memorabilia genre but with less subjectivity. In these situations, PSA or a legit/educated authenticator will state as such.

[drcy]

Unlike handwritten ARod autographs on a new baseball, authentication of old photographs (and ink prints) is a very scientific area, as photographs were made with the day's technology and materials. For example, 1910 photograph was made on chemically formulated paper from 1910. I examine the paper etc of each valuable photo with my trusty handheld microscope.

However, general appearance, stamps, experienced collector's eye, paper toning etc are also an integral part. Most modern reprints simply look modern, even in an online image. Just looking at the stamps and 'look' of this Sporting News photos it was clear it is not a reprint. If you collect enough baseball cards, autographs or photos you can identify many bad reprints just from first glance.

The stamps and paper tage on a photo tell a lot about a photo, including who and from when it was made. These are details you can examine even in an eBay auction. Even if you don't know what the stamps mean, many Net54 collectors here can tell you.

People collect photographs because they are art, historical artifacts and scientific artifacts. Some like the art, some like the science of their photos.

In person, an expert call show you exactly why your photo is original or reprint.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by drcy

Unlike handwritten ARod autographs on a new baseball, authentication of old photographs (and ink prints) is a very scientific area, as photographs were made with the day's technology and materials. For example, 1910 photograph was made on chemically formulated paper from 1910. I examine the paper etc of each valuable photo with my trusty handheld microscope.

However, general appearance, stamps, experienced collector's eye, paper toning etc are also an integral part. Most modern reprints simply look modern, even in an online image. Just looking at the stamps and 'look' of this Sporting News photos it was clear it is not a reprint. If you collect enough baseball cards, autographs or photos you can identify many bad reprints just from first glance.

The stamps and paper tage on a photo tell a lot about a photo, including who and from when it was made. These are details you can examine even in an eBay auction. Even if you don't know what the stamps mean, many Net54 collectors here can tell you.

People collect photographs because they are art, historical artifacts and scientific artifacts. Some like the art, some like the science of their photos.

In person, an expert call show you exactly why your photo is original or reprint.

Yah! We agree David! Hope you are feeling better and good to hear from you on here.

[HRBAKER]

Ben,

Not disagreeing with you, my point is that some guesses are more educated than others.

[drcy]

By definition, an 'educated guess' requires education.

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by drcy

By definition, an 'educated guess' requires education.

And some guessers (and there are a lot of them) have less education than others.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

And some guessers (and there are a lot of them) have less education than others.

lol..very true

[Runscott]

Wow, everyone is in agreement (even me)!

I just looked outside and the sun was blue.

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Wow, everyone is in agreement (even me)!

I just looked outside and the sun was blue.

Don't get used to it.

[mighty bombjack]

I've learned a lot here, thank you everyone. I'm glad I could help foster some (seemingly rare?) agreement.

[ethicsprof]

very impressive clarity and precision in your logic.
most refreshing.
all the best,
barry