1927 or far later photograph of the WANER BROTHERS?

[sporteq]

OKay, we have here 1927 Waner Brothers photograph vintage TYPE 1 maybe OR not? Snow white borders and backside.. the paper stock seems to be heavier with rigid corners. We all know the stamps are very modern that is NOT even a question. It has paper notation dated (doesn't mean it's the day it was printed) NO real source from who made this photo. In addition NO file number no anything.

To me, it looks to be a more very very later later like 1950 reprint.

Whatcha think??????

Albert

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=251467349059

[prewarsports]

Looks like they took the paper tag from an older print and reattached it (they being SPORT magazine in this instance). I have some photos that are similar to this. Innocent I am sure from whoever the seller was but you are correct that this is not from 1927.

[Runscott]

Albert, this might help you: http://sports.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleN...No=82458#Photo

There was nothing about this photo to indicate that it was not 1927, including paper stock or image quality, other than having only a more modern stamp. It was also posted here in the forum where I asked if anyone knew the photographer, and in my store where a few forum members sent me comments. Didn't hear anything then, and I still haven't heard anything that would make me believe that Heritage was wrong in their original description of the photo.

Oh, and an ebayer who sent a few very rude emails demanding that I describe the item according to his specifications. Someone named Albert...I guess that was you?

Rhys, thanks for your comments.

[sporteq]

Scott- I had sent you a message saying that, I didn't believe this was a original 1927 photograph. Looking at the characteristics of your scanned photo, it appeared to me it was a later restrike. I also told you, don't believe auction house titans that give out wrong info. I had seen this photo at Ha.com and knew right away it was not vintage original. In your message to me, you said, its 100% 1927 vintage original. Anyhow, I'm not going to go back and forth with you on this. Let the forum speak on this photo.

Prewar- I to had some restrike photos like this. I was able to get refunds from ha and legendary auctions.

Albert

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by sporteq

Scott- I had sent you a message saying that, I didn't believe this was a original 1927 photograph. Looking at the characteristics of your scanned photo, it appeared to me it was a later restrike. I also told you, don't believe auction house titans that give out wrong info. I had seen this photo at Ha.com and knew right away it was not vintage original. In your message to me, you said, its 100% 1927 vintage original. Anyhow, I'm not going to go back and forth with you on this. Let the forum speak on this photo.

Prewar- I to had some restrike photos like this. I was able to get refunds from ha and legendary auctions.

Albert

I'm quite aware of the plethora of messages that you sent me - the ones that were readable in no way inspired me to bend to your demands. I'm glad to see that you are presenting your arguments to this forum in a very, very different manner and tone.

I'm also glad to hear that you were able to get refunds for all the reprint photos that you have been buying from Heritage and Legendary . I'm also glad that the rest of us were able to avoid these mysterious photos that duped you, and that now you have become an expert in determining the age, thickness and feel of prints based on a scan. Those must be very handy skills.

I very much respect Rhys' opinion, and while I doubt that Sport Magazine or anyone else was creating prints from negatives and pulling the original 1927 slug from an older print and then putting it on the new one, it's also possible that Rhys knows something I don't about this photo - he handles tons of photos and also - I definitely make mistakes.

And while it would admittedly be quite irksome to admit that someone as unpleasant as yourself is correct about this, and I am wrong, I will have no problem doing so if people on this forum who I respect agree with you.

[D. Bergin]

It would be highly unusual for the original tag to follow a re-strike IMO, and that appears to be an original c. 1927 era tag to me.

I've seen plenty of vintage press photos with original tags and missing stamps. Plenty of vintage press photos with stamps and missing tags. I've seen tags placed on the backs of plenty of Type III style photos (usually sound or Tele photos).

Don't recall ever seeing an old tag on a new photo before. It's obvious this photo has been passed down for several uses through the years

Also, no way you could tell that was a re-strike from the photo up on Heritage, unless you were taking the description of the stamps on the back from the text of the listing and jumping to assumptions.

Not having it in hand to see the texture of the photo itself, I'd trust Scott on this one.

[drcy]

I can't tell you anything definitive from a posted scan, but it is possible for an original photo to have an original tag and a later stamp (and no other noticeable stamps), and I've seen it a few times. For example, when UPI acquired the International News photo archives, they sometimes added their modern stamp to old International News photos.

A few times I have seen original paper tags on modern reprints (meaning, legitimate reprints made by news services not fakes), but it was more than obvious they had been removed and reattached. Sometimes scotch taped on. The old paper tags are delicate and originally glued to the photos, and it would be hard to remove and reattach one without messing it up. If you pull off an old tag, usually part of the tag will remain attached to the photo. That's why you see brown paper remnants on the backs of many old news photos.

[sporteq]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I'm also glad to hear that you were able to get refunds for all the reprint photos that you have been buying from Heritage and Legendary . I'm also glad that the rest of us were able to avoid these mysterious photos that duped you, and that now you have become an expert in determining the age, thickness and feel of prints based on a scan. Those must be very handy skills.

Oh Scott- enough with the twisted circus exaggerated comments. We all know net54 is your playground hence the 6k posts. Let me clear up the facts here. All the refunds? It was on two photos that look exactly like the 1927 Waner brothers photo you bought and sold. I wasn't duped.. I got A refund. An "EXPERT" no comment LMFAO

AGAIN, this is about the "PHOTO" not an attack on you, Scott. If your taking this personal, that's your problem not mine. This discussion is not me vs you (Scott) It's a simple discussion on a photo.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by sporteq

Oh Scott- enough with the twisted circus exaggerated comments. We all know net54 is your playground hence the 6k posts. Let me clear up the facts here. All the refunds? It was on two photos that look exactly like the 1927 Waner brothers photo you bought and sold. I wasn't duped.. I got A refund. An "EXPERT" no comment LMFAO

AGAIN, this is about the "PHOTO" not an attack on you, Scott. If your taking this personal, that's your problem not mine. This discussion is not me vs you (Scott) It's a simple discussion on a photo.

Do you really want me to post the 'age criteria' that you sent me via ebay? Or the comment that referred to what I paid for it and what I was charging;i.e - perhaps a hint of jealousy that I had gotten a good buy and, as dealers do, was going to make a profit?

When you got foolish via ebay, I basically ignored you and you kept coming at me, so if it wasn't personal at that point, I don't know what your definition of "personal" is. When you suggested that to test to see if my photo was vintage, I should bend it and see if it cracked or 'greased' (I assume you meant 'creased'), I wrote you off as a loony and moved on. Good luck bending all of your photos - I hope they all crack so you can be sure you made a smart purchase.

In any case, I have no more time for your nonsense. If we ever meet, show me your i.d. to prove you are over 21 and I'll buy you a beer.

Edited to add: I could very well be wrong about this, and you might be right, but.... "Sometimes... it's just the way you say things, Travis. That's all. I swear to God." - Jim Bowie from 'The Alamo' 2004

Myguyty: I took this to heart, but it took a while for it to stick. I'm trying, I promise

[prewarsports]

I want to ad that it is IMPOSSIBLE to tell without seeing the photo in person, but it looks more modern from a scan alone. Newspapers used to do this all the time by taking a paper caption from an older photo and adding it to a newer example. IF that is the case, I am sure it was done decades ago.

ALSO, that might be the best Waner brothers photo ever taken!

[sporteq]

Here's my copy of a 1927 Waner brothers.. from Henry Yee about 5 years ago on ebay. It originally came from 1996 Christies photo archives auction.

Albert






Scott copy

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

ALSO, that might be the best Waner brothers photo ever taken!

Rhys - I thought so as well. I haven't seen any other copies of that image, or any images of them together that really approached the composition or image clarity of this one.

[Duluth Eskimo]

I am not a photo guy, but often read these posts to learn about items. To clarify one thing, the was a Sport magazine in late 1920's. In fact I believe it is 1927 that I have an issue of with Babe Ruth. I do not believe it is an way affiliated with the Sport magazine that started publishing in 1946. Maybe this is well known, but I though I would throw it out there. Jason

[Runscott]

Jason, I don't know all the details, but I think there is probably some documentation somewhere indicating that the modern 'Sport Magazine' got hold of a bunch of negatives or prints, as well as slugs, and, if it was negatives, in the 1950's began making high-quality prints, and created new back-dated slugs (if they weren't using old ones) to put on them, then WWP got hold of them and added their stamps. I would bet a round of beers that old slugs were not removed from old prints and then glued to new ones, and I also doubt that 'Sport Magazine' obtained a pile of negatives and a pile of old slugs that happened to match the negatives. It would be more likely that 'Sport' actually acquired a pile of original prints along with their slugs, then the WWP stamp was added. No one has suggested that up to now, but it would help explain why there is only one copy of this print. I don't know about the other prints that have been referenced - were there multiples of some of them?

This is all information that I'm gleaning from emails, phone conversations, PM's and Rhys' comments. I had no knowledge of any of this until recently, but I also have no reason to doubt it. It doesn't change my thinking about this particular print, but if there are a bunch of them out there with the same quality paper, image and slugs, and they are definitely 1950's prints, then it makes sense that this one is as well, despite how it looked and felt when I handled it.

One thing that would help would be if someone could show one of these newer prints with its slug, alongside the original print and its slug. As I mentioned earlier, I haven't even seen this Waner brothers image before, in any form. You would think that there would be multiple copies of each of these images, if they were made from the original negatives.

[sporteq]

This is an actual sample I handled. It was sold as, "Vintage Original." The paper weight is slightly more thicker and more rigid. Also, the color scale is black to white. Normally, not always, you see other color hues in vintage original photographs.

Sorry about the washed out image.

Albert

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by sporteq

This is an actual sample I handled. It was sold as, "Vintage Original." The paper weight is slightly more thicker and more rigid. Also, the color scale is black to white. Normally, not always, you see other color hues in vintage original photographs.

Sorry about the washed out image.

Albert

Wow.

As I originally surmised, it's now even more obvious that you made your assessment of a photo based on the backstamp, and assumed that because your photo had the physical characteristics of a modern reprint, then the 'Waner brothers' one did as well, which was a mistake on your part and was incorrect.

I'm closing the books on this one.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by sporteq

This is an actual sample I handled. It was sold as, "Vintage Original." The paper weight is slightly more thicker and more rigid. Also, the color scale is black to white. Normally, not always, you see other color hues in vintage original photographs.

Sorry about the washed out image.

Albert

World Wide Photos era backslug on this one. What looks like a 1920's era backslug to me, on the Waner photo. Tones are also completely different.

Apples to Oranges here.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

World Wide Photos era backslug on this one. What looks like a 1920's era backslug to me, on the Waner photo. Tones are also completely different.

Apples to Oranges here.

Albert's photo might explain this situation a bit better, but without additional information, it's still just theory. I'm going to guess that someone (Sport Magazine?) acquired an archive that included both prints and negatives, created reprints from some of the negatives and added slugs, then those ended up with WWP who in turn added their stamp to all of them. If that's the case, I can certainly see how someone who had handled only examples like Albert's, would assume that all examples were modern.

I apologize for calling Albert out on this in the other thread, but it is at least giving some of us an additional education on these prints.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Albert's photo might explain this situation a bit better, but without additional information, it's still just theory. I'm going to guess that someone (Sport Magazine?) acquired an archive that included both prints and negatives, created reprints from some of the negatives and added slugs, then those ended up with WWP who in turn added their stamp to all of them. If that's the case, I can certainly see how someone who had handled only examples like Albert's, would assume that all examples were modern.

If anything, since all of these types of photos that I have handled actually came from Sport Magazine's archives, I would think that it would be WWP that created reprints in the 1950's, added the slugs, then sent them off to Sport who added their stamp and eventually filed them in Sport's archives. For any reprints to have originated with Sport and wound up with WWP seems backward to me, given where they wound up.

Edited to add: If I'm going to reference photos I've handled, I guess I should show them Here are a few that I was able to locate quickly. I'm sure there are more, but would require more digging than I have time for at the moment.

First one of Schoendienst is Type 1 from the period for comparison's sake. Last one is obviously a 2nd generation print, shown for its similarity of caption type.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

If anything, since all of these types of photos that I have handled actually came from Sport Magazine's archives, I would think that it would be WWP that created reprints in the 1950's, added the slugs, then sent them off to Sport who added their stamp and eventually filed them in Sport's archives. For any reprints to have originated with Sport and wound up with WWP seems backward to me, given where they wound up.

Okay, I didn't realize that Sport was their final resting place.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

If anything, since all of these types of photos that I have handled actually came from Sport Magazine's archives, I would think that it would be WWP that created reprints in the 1950's, added the slugs, then sent them off to Sport who added their stamp and eventually filed them in Sport's archives. For any reprints to have originated with Sport and wound up with WWP seems backward to me, given where they wound up.

Yup, that is what I was going to assume myself. SPORT magazine stamps were added OVER the WWP stamps.

It's also not out of the realm to assume that WWP had acquired both original prints AND negatives during their reign. I've seen too many originals passed down and stamped by various news archives through the years, to think otherwise. Sometimes 3-4 different organizations on popular shots.

[sporteq]

Scott- I do believe your correct. The rights to these images were purchased.. then reproduced. I don't know when they were produced, maybe in the 50's but they're certainly not period photograph as advertised by top auction houses.


Albert

[thecatspajamas]

Okay, so after much speculation (including my own), here's the inside scoop from Henry:

These photos are simply 1950's restrikes off of Associated Press original negatives. AP and Wide World Photos were 1 and the same company by then (operated as separate arms, but were the same company, as AP had purchased WWP from The New York Times in 1941). The captions look old, but are consistent with what they used in the 1950's. They are backdated, as the clerk simply typed the info that was on the original negative's sleeve onto a then-new caption slip, including date of the original shot (NOT the issuing date), and affixed that to the back of the photo. They are Type II 1950's-60's restrikes, and the ones that are post-1955 will fluoresce under a black light.

The biggest kicker for me ["me" being Lance] is that the big, fat, red SPORT stamps on the backs were placed there later, when the archives were sold, to identify the photos as once being the property of Sport, NOT something applied earlier to indicate Sport had issued the photo. This is not speculation, and he has seen the actual SPORT stamp used.

In summary, though there is clearly a lot of confusion out there regarding these, they are definitely Type II restrikes produced years later, and are worth a fraction of what their Type I counterparts would be (if you could find a Type I counterpart for a given image, that is, though there are surely instances where no Type I's are known and the Type II is all that remains today, as seems to be the case with the Waners photo that started this whole discussion).

I personally doubt that most auction houses representing them as Original/Type I's are doing so maliciously, but would have to take that on a case-by-case basis, knowing that not everyone comes to the auction block armed with the same information.

[Runscott]

EDITED

I don't normally like to edit one of my own controversial responses, but in this case I think it is warranted, so here's a re-write:

I just spoke to a very trusted hobby buddy, and also have exchanged emails with another trusted hobby buddy. Based on those conversations and Lance's post, this must be a 1950's print made from the original negative. I don't know all the research that was done that negates the possibility of it being an original print that was acquired along with negatives, but I'm told it's not possible.

My apologies to Henry or anyone else who my responses might have irritated or offended. It bugs me somewhat that I could be fooled by a print that's 23 years newer than I thought, but I'll chalk it up as an education experience.

[sporteq]

Glad to here the final conclusion that this is in fact a 1950s re-strike, which I have been saying all along. I'm sure it won't end here, but I'm satisfied with the outcome. This was very educational discussion.

Albert

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by sporteq

Glad to here the final conclusion that this is in fact a 1950s re-strike, which I have been saying all along. I'm sure it won't end here, but I'm satisfied with the outcome. This was very educational discussion.

Albert

So, you knew all this stuff that Lance said, so that's why you were correct? Or did you get burned and found out they were fakes when you sent them in to PSA?

Seriously, you suggested that I bend the photo to see if it cracked or creased, and that would dictate whether or not it was real. Guess what? It would have cracked or creased.

You claim to have seen the photo in HA (front image only), and it looked so much like your blatantly fake 1960's print, that you KNEW it was fake automatically? Guess what - no one on this board would have known that it was a 1950's WWP based on the image shown in HA. You saw my back-scan on ebay, compared it to yours, and made a blanket assessment that because the stamps were the same, that it had the same problems as yours, and that it was printed at the same time, ignoring the obvious difference in frontal characteristics; i.e-lacking the skills to do anything other than ignore them. The Waner print front scan looked NOTHING at all like the ones you received. In summary, you were accidentally correct and now you want to gloat about how brilliant you are.

Gloat away. Basically, you learned nothing, but the rest of us did, so thanks for starting the thread. I'm not going to call you an idiot, because I don't call people names on the internet, but if I were going to label someone with that name it would certainly be you.

[sporteq]

Scott, I find it comical that you are questioning my "brilliance", considering that you view the accuracy of a point I have been specifically arguing as "accidental". Clearly you are not capable of being a gracious in accepting the fact you were simply wrong and I will not discuss the matter further. The verdict is final.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by sporteq

I will not discuss the matter further.

For the sake of vintage photography discussions, we can all only hope that you won't be discussing ANY matters further.

[sporteq]

Originally Posted by Runscott

For the sake of vintage photography discussions, we can all only hope that you won't be discussing ANY matters further.

Like wise since you can't tell the difference from vintage and a re-strike.

Albert

[Runscott]

I have a tough time being humble, but I did it. Your responding like an ass made it a bit difficult to keep a humble attitude.

Either respond to the following or STFU.

"So, you knew all this stuff that Lance said, so that's why you were correct? Or did you get burned and found out they were fakes when you sent them in to PSA?

Seriously, you suggested that I bend the photo to see if it cracked or creased, and that would dictate whether or not it was real. Guess what? It would have cracked or creased.

You claim to have seen the photo in HA (front image only), and it looked so much like your blatantly fake 1960's print, that you KNEW it was fake automatically? Guess what - no one on this board would have known that it was a 1950's WWP based on the image shown in HA. You saw my back-scan on ebay, compared it to yours, and made a blanket assessment that because the stamps were the same, that it had the same problems as yours, and that it was printed at the same time, ignoring the obvious difference in frontal characteristics; i.e-lacking the skills to do anything other than ignore them. The Waner print front scan looked NOTHING at all like the ones you received. In summary, you were accidentally correct and now you want to gloat about how brilliant you are.

Gloat away. Basically, you learned nothing, but the rest of us did, so thanks for starting the thread. I'm not going to call you an idiot, because I don't call people names on the internet, but if I were going to label someone with that name it would certainly be you."

[Runscott]

If anyone else wants to discuss this further, please feel free to send a PM or email, but the thread has degenerated to "Hey look at me, I'm Albert, I was right", and anything useful regarding these photos has either already been posted, or is being discussed offline. So, adios.

[sporteq]

Lance post was info I never heard before.. thanks for posting it.


Scott, you've been rude to me, don't you recall this post you made about me on this forum.. "Albert doesn't know his Type I's from a hole in the ground."

Then you go and post this dumb meme pic or whatever its called. This one.





I never called you a bad name or posted anything wrong about you. It may be possible just because you have 6,000 post you can't be wrong, I'm not really sure. You called me out and I answered with a thread. It's really that simple. But then again, not really with all your frivolous comments.

I knew it was a reprint from handling a 5/600 hundred photos.. so it was thru my experience, that I knew it was a re-strike. I know you won't accept that answer, there's nothing I can do about that.


I'm getting messages that you won't stop.. you'll be ignored from this point.

[Runscott]

...enough...

[Runscott]

...