Charles Conlon photos with Underwood & Underwood stamp

[repsher]

Hi Guys,
I know there are some really great photo experts here and I'm hoping someone can shed some light on this topic since I can't find the information anywhere else.

I recently came across a couple of photos that looks like they are taken from Charles Conlon negatives but have the Underwood & Underwood stamp on the back.

This is the Garland Braxton Underwood & Underwoood:

HEA-534-BS_F.jpg HEA-534-BS_B.jpg

And this is the Garland Braxton from the Charles Conlon collection site:

http://www.theconloncollection.com/

Braxton_Garland_001.jpg

Here is the Mark Koenig Underwood & Underwood:

BNG-756-BS_F.jpg BNG-756-BS_B.jpg

And this is the Mark Koenig from the Charles Conlon collection:

Koenig_Mark_002.jpg

Is anyone aware of what the Conlon-Underwood & Underwood connection was?


Thanks,
Ryan

[Hankphenom]

Conlon was a freelancer. He sold his stuff to practically every baseball publication there was. I would assume that he either took these photos for Underwood and Underwood, or that they were serving as syndicators for them.

[drc]

The big news services got their photos from many places. They had their own photographers but also bought and distributed others.

[repsher]

So would you say these photos would be classified as Type 1 Conlon photos or Type 1 U&U photos that just happen to have Conlon images? Or something else?

[drc]

You could call it a U&U photo shot by Conlon.

[repsher]

I just had another thought about these photos. I now believe that U&U had Conlon photos that they then took a picture of, creating a copy negative. Then they could make as many copies as they want to distribute.

I came up with this because you can see a serial number in the U&U photos, when in fact the image on the Conlon negatives would be much larger.

So this would make these photos Type IV even though they are of the era? And this now makes me question a lot of the photos in my collection.

[Hankphenom]

That would make them Type III, contemporary but not from the original negative. I would guess you're right about that, but its also possible that U&U bought the original negatives and scratched the serial numbers in them, which would make those prints Type I. Probably not though, as they look to have slightly diminished resolution. More likely they made a negative from their Type I original, then scratched the number in that to make prints from. Type IIIs are much more collectible than IIs, in my experience, and Henry agreed that with hindsight he would have switched II and III to better reflect the vintage characteristic and more desirability as collectibles of the IIIs.

[drc]

At sale, you can call something a vintage 1920 (example year) photo without commenting on its originality. If you aren't sure, you aren't sure.

Btw, the resolution on the old photo looks pretty good.

[horzverti]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

That would make them Type III, contemporary but not from the original negative. I would guess you're right about that, but its also possible that U&U bought the original negatives and scratched the serial numbers in them, which would make those prints Type I. Probably not though, as they look to have slightly diminished resolution. More likely they made a negative from their Type I original, then scratched the number in that to make prints from. Type IIIs are much more collectible than IIs, in my experience, and Henry agreed that with hindsight he would have switched II and III to better reflect the vintage characteristic and more desirability as collectibles of the IIIs.

Repsher offered up a positive image of the original Conlon negative (courtesy of John Rogers' archive) to compare to the photo he purchased. Rogers' original neg was used to create the positive image that was posted for comparison to Repsher's piece. So the U & U serial number or id data is not on the original neg. Conlon distributed his photos, not his negatives. If a news service received an original Conlon photo and wanted to add their own serial number onto the original...then they would have to create their own neg by taking a photo of the original photo. This would embed their written data onto their newly created copy neg. If you were to come across a Conlon image with the info actually written on the front and not embedded into the image, then you may have an original Conlon photo created from the original neg...and it would most likely have Conlon's stamp and/or writing on the back.

So, what you have here are photos created from a copy neg. Nice, crisp images, but not original Conlons.

By the way, good eye friend!

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by horzverti

Repsher offered up a positive image of the original Conlon negative. The original neg was used to create the positive image that Repsher posted. So the U & U serial number or id data is not on the original neg. Conlon distributed his photos, not his negatives. If a news service received an original Conlon photo, they would have to write their own serial number onto the original...then they would have to create their own neg by taking a photo of the original photo. This would embed their written data onto their newly created copy neg. If you were to come across a Conlon image with the info actually written on the front and not embedded into the image, then you may have an original Conlon photo created from the original neg...and it would most likely have Conlon's stamp and/or writing on the back.

So, what you have here are photos created from a copy neg. Nice, crisp images, but not original Conlons.

By the way, good eye friend!

Actually, I do not believe this to be entirely true. Conlon DID lend out original photos and negatives to Underwood and Underwood. He had a working relationship with U AND U and was a freelance photographer as mentioned below by Hank.
Now... because of this, U AND U could certainly have printed off the original neg, then returned neg, and produced another neg later because they wanted additional/differnt images(which I have seen and have given an example below). BUT.. just because it has U AND U stamps does not mean it is not a TYPE 1 PHOTO off the orig Conlon neg (cuz of the numbers). In fact, numbers inside of a box suggests the exact opposite. Also, Conlon could have sent them originals unstamped and then UandU used their stamps.

1) Curt is right in that U and U would probably not have etched their numbers in Conlon original negs. BUT, I disagree with him in that all U and U photos with numbers are from DUPE negs. U and U would have created "catalogue plates" or simply another piece of glass with their number on it, put it on top of original neg and there you go... SEE MY CONLON OFF THE ORGINAL NEG BELOW. The number inside square imprint is actually from a piece of rectangular glass cut out with their numbers etched in and placed on top of the neg so it would not damage Conlon’s work.
THIS IS CRYSTAL CLEAR AND OFF THE ORIGINAL CONLON NEGATIVE.


2) EXAMPLE NUMBER TWO IS WHAT I SPOKE ABOUT ABOVE; U AND U CREATED A DUPE NEG(PROBABLY RARE BUT DOES HAPPEN).
It is of the famous Conlon 1927 "eyes" of both Ruth and Gehrig stacked on top of one another. Actually, the known examples of this zoomed in format as "TYPE 1 " images are from U AND U archives. This stacked example was done in house and most likely used for publication by U and U after negs were returned to Conlon. OR.. Conlon sent them original photos and that is all they had to work with to create this. This is clearly done by stacking them on top of one another and creating a DUPE NEG even though there are no cat numbers. The images are not crystal clear like the originals, the boarders are not crisp and there are white spots all over it(suggesting dust ect. on originals when done).



I am sure this will spawn a flurry of additional questions but I hope it clears up the fact that if you have a Conlon image that is stamped UandU amd/or has numbers on the front, it doesn't mean it is some type other than a type 1. In fact, it probably ups the chances if you are going strictly by the stamps

PS: If anyone has any Ruth/Gehrig UandU photos that are Conlon images, I would be glad to purchase them from you numbers or not

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Actually, I do not believe this to be entirely true. Conlon DID lend out original photos and negatives to Underwood and Underwood. He had a working relationship with U AND U and was a freelance photographer as mentioned below by Hank.
Now... because of this, U AND U could certainly have printed off the original neg, then returned neg, and produced another neg later because they wanted additional/differnt images(which I have seen and have given an example below). BUT.. just because it has U AND U stamps does not mean it is not a TYPE 1 PHOTO off the orig Conlon neg (cuz of the numbers). In fact, numbers inside of a box suggests the exact opposite. Also, Conlon could have sent them originals unstamped and then UandU used their stamps.

Haha. I will further muddy the waters by repeating your first sentence, but this time regarding what you stated below it

The first thing I thought when reading this thread was...my understanding was that freelancers like Conlon ONLY sold original prints to U&U,etc., and that U&U could then add their own stamp to the back. I can't imagine Conlon sending an original negative to anyone, so this would be news to me, but I'm always glad to learn something new.

If I saw a nice clear photo with a Conlon stamp AND a U&U stamp, I would assume it was an original print from the original negative.

When determining if a photo is original, I always look at physical photo evidence first (not the stamping): clarity of image, type of paper, aging. Then I look at the stamp. If the stamp indicates it is original, but it failed the other tests, then it's not original. Basically, you could make a print from a negative on day 1, then make a print from that print on day 2 and give it a stamp. It wouldn't be original. Anyone who is making decisions entirely based on a back-stamping is setting themselves up.

[horzverti]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Haha. I will further muddy the waters by repeating your first sentence, but this time regarding what you stated below it

The first thing I thought when reading this thread was...my understanding was that freelancers like Conlon ONLY sold original prints to U&U,etc., and that U&U could then add their own stamp to the back. I can't imagine Conlon sending an original negative to anyone, so this would be news to me, but I'm always glad to learn something new.

If I saw a nice clear photo with a Conlon stamp AND a U&U stamp, I would assume it was an original print from the original negative.

When determining if a photo is original, I always look at physical photo evidence first (not the stamping): clarity of image, type of paper, aging. Then I look at the stamp. If the stamp indicates it is original, but it failed the other tests, then it's not original. Basically, you could make a print from a negative on day 1, then make a print from that print on day 2 and give it a stamp. It wouldn't be original. Anyone who is making decisions entirely based on a back-stamping is setting themselves up.

Yes I agree Runscott, it is a given in our hobby that Conlon did indeed share/distribute his original prints. Seems factual, and we all seem to agree on this point.

I also agree that Conlon didn't share his negatives. Why would he risk destruction of his work by passing the fragile glass negs through other peoples' hands when all he had to do is produce another print for his customers? Especially the original negs of the superstars like...say, Babe Ruth!

I'd also like to comment on a post from yesterday regarding how Underwood & Underwood's catalog numbers came to be embedded into Conlon images...but first I want to get this straight to make sure I understand what was written. Ben, you believe that Conlon lended or sold his original negatives to U & U...then U & U placed "another piece of glass" bearing their catalog number on top of the original neg and created their own prints which had the catalog number embedded into them. Do I have this correct so far? I continue...then U & U either returned or sold Conlon's original neg back to him? Seems like a lot of work by U & U to merely create an image with their catalog number embedded in it. It seems much more logical that U & U obtained an original Conlon print, added their catalog number and took another photo of the original photo. What about the U & U prints of Conlon images on which you cannot see the shape of the said "another piece of glass" bearing the number? The number must have been written on the original print and then a photo was taken to create an image with embedded number, right?

I am always seeking more info on everything Conlon (Charlie, not Jocko )...so please share.

[Ulidia]

I cannot add any information to the debate.

However, I am interested in it as own some U&U photos from Conlon that clearly have U&U reference numbers stamped on them, stamped U&U on the back and have been certified by PSA as "type 1".

I've come across some photos in my small collection that are PSA-certified as Type 1 which clearly aren't (for example, a John McGraw photos labelled as from the 1920s which was actually printed in the late 1940s) so interested to understand more.

Should add also that, without any equivocation, I am a bidder in the current Henry Yee auction. In fact, any price I was going to pay on the items I am interested in has increased due to frustrations over this past weekend .... i.e. I flew in from London to NYC on Saturday to see the Yankees vs Blue Jays game on Sunday that was rained off.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Ulidia

...and have been certified by PSA as "type 1".

I think PSA is an expert at grading cards, and they should stick to that.

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I think PSA is an expert at grading cards, and they should stick to that.

On that we can agree.