Vintage photo back. Or is it?

[Ladder7]

Culver Pictures Inc.

Of course the UPC stickers/tape is modern. I believe this is simply a modern cataloging system.

Wish the images were larger... Do you T1 photo gurus think this photo could be original 1912?

Thanks, Steve

[prewarsports]

Not likely, but it is impossible to tell. If I owned it I would soak that tape/paper off the back and see what that purple stamp says.

[drc]

I don't know, but it could be original. It has a resemblance to an original and there's nothing I see that says it isn't.

[Robbie]

If you would like to sell the photo as a NON original, I would be interested in buying Of course based just on a scan, it's hard to say for sure, but I definitely lean towards vintage from original negative.

BTW, I really like the shoes.

[drc]

I should add that it is correct the Culver often put their modern stickers on old photos as their way of labeling and cataloging the photos.

[autograf]

I have a Newsboy cabinet of a man riding a bicycle with the culver info on the back of it.

[scgaynor]

The photo is old, but most likely not a vintage 1st generation. Don't let the bar code stickers fool you as they put those on vintage photos too. The key is the number code in the lower right corner. The photos from Culver that have that code (at least all of the ones that I have seen in person) were printed in the 1940's or 1950's. So you have a 1910's photo of Thorpe but it was printed 30-40 years later.

Also, all of the photos from Culver with "Sy Siedman" stamped on the back (at least the 50-100 that I have seen) were printed later.

Scott