Brooklyn CDV

[ramram]

It's been a while, so I think it's safe to "out" this ebay auction from a couple of months ago. Not sure how many saw this, but obviously enough that the owner was bombarded with BIN offers. The owner ended up pulling the item and reportedly has now consigned it to an unknown auction house. When it first went up on ebay, the owner had no idea what he had. This is the 1865 Atlantics of Brooklyn. It is shown in Mark Rucker's "Base Ball Cartes" book with a "Champions of America" attachment to the bottom of the image. Unless others have surfaced recently, the only other copy (the one shown in Rucker's book) is in the Library of Congress.

Rob M.

Brooklyn CDV.jpg

[D. Bergin]

Wow! Nice yard sale find.

[barrysloate]

I heard about it but this is the first time I've seen an image. That is an extraordinary find; it is also known in a mammoth plate format, owned by one of our board members. I think the seller could have let it run its course on ebay and gotten a really great price for it, but he must have gotten a little nervous and decided to pull it.

Among the notables are Dickey Pearce (third from left); manager Peter O'Brien (in suit); and Joe Start standing between them.

[ramram]

He pulled it to get it authenticated after several questioned its provenance, which is understandable. After he got it back, he had decided to sell it through a big auction house.

Rob M.

[barrysloate]

Rob- do you know who will be auctioning it? Getting it authenticated was a smart thing to do.

[ramram]

Barry -

He didn't say and, for some odd reason, didn't seem interested in divulging that yet.

Rob M.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

I heard about it but this is the first time I've seen an image. That is an extraordinary find; it is also known in a mammoth plate format, owned by one of our board members. I think the seller could have let it run its course on ebay and gotten a really great price for it, but he must have gotten a little nervous and decided to pull it.

Among the notables are Dickey Pearce (third from left); manager Peter O'Brien (in suit); and Joe Start standing between them.

They are L to R:
Frank Norton, Sid Smith, Dickie Pearce, Joe Start, Pete O'Brien (in suit), Charlie Smith, Jack Chapman, John Galvin (seated), Fred Crane (standing), Tom Pratt

[GaryPassamonte]

I spoke with the seller when the CdV was on ebay. He said he wasn't the owner, but was listing it for another party. I believe the CdV originated from an group found somewhere in Maine.

[ullmandds]

it seems it may be possible this cdv originated in the same trunk as those n173's that were auctioned a few weeks ago?

[bmarlowe1]

HoF has another one taken at the same session but with Norton and Pratt trading positions.

[Saco River Auction]

Hello all, its been awhile. As you may know we recently sold all those Old Judge Cabinets in August 2012 including King Kelly in street clothes.

Well we have some amazing news that should rock the industry. We have been commissioned to sell The Brooklyn Atlantics 1865 CDV that generated these posts and was found in Maine. This card is the rarest of the rare.

We have sent the card to SGC and they determined that the card is 100% Authentic. This card is the only example to ever come to market and the only other example is locked away in the Library of Congress.

I will be doing a formal post on Friday December 20th 2012 and I will include photos of the card encapsulated. The auction is planned for February 6, 2013.

[barrysloate]

That CdV is a great pickup. It's going to garner a lot of attention and a huge bid. Congratulations to you!

[Saco River Auction]

Thank you very much Barry we are excited!!!

[oldjudge]

I am hearing that the CdV was rejected by Leland's as being a laser copy on a period mount. After that it was deemed authentic by SGC. If all that is true, then it seems like a photographic expert needs to cast the deciding vote.

[GaryPassamonte]

Jay- What was it a laser copy of? Where is the original? A copy of the LOC example?

[bcbgcbrcb]

If that is the question, it should not be too hard to tell if you have the actual piece in hand and can look at the photo under magnification. I would think that SGC would have done that so it most likely is good but can't tell from where I'm sitting........

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I am hearing that the CdV was rejected by Leland's as being a laser copy on a period mount. After that it was deemed authentic by SGC. If all that is true, then it seems like a photographic expert needs to cast the deciding vote.

I know nothing about these CDV's to have any opinion, but I thought this ^^ was the main reason some were skeptical on the board. It was suggested to add faith for the potential bidders and to the claims of it being a laser/inkjet copy that the CDV be sent to Messier to clear this up. And, to his credit, he (Troy) went the extra mile and did as suggested.

Believe me, I am a skeptical person myself in general, but you guys still aren't satisfied with the effort and results? I'm definatley not knocking anyone for being skeptical, as I like that collectors are-but I thought the issue was with Lelands and the inkjet rejection. I'm just trying to figure out how now it's moving to processing fibers? Please educate me- thanks.

Sincerely, Clayton

[yanks12025]

Leland's posts on the board, so why not ask them about it.

[benjulmag]

Barry is correct in that one should be very cautious when comparing scanned images. Examination of and comparison to original images should, if possible, be the preferred approach. I also agree with Scott's point that one could find a genuine Williamson mount and replace its photo with a fake.

I'd be very interested to compare the resolution (as opposed to the contrast) of this image to the one at the LOC. Even the slightest difference would suggest to me that it is a fake. Same too for the lettering on the mount. Differences in resolution can be very subtle and such a comparison should be made by comparing originals.

As has been discussed in this thread, there is a lot that can be done to assuage concerns that the CdV is not authentic, and I would respectfully urge the auction house to do it.

[Leon]

Lelands, not Josh as he didn't see it, but other executives, think it is a color xerox. If I were bidding I would want further authentication....and I trust SGC a ton but no one, even me , is perfect. I am not making any claims personally as I have not handled it, nor am I a photo expert though I have handled quite a few.

[oldjudge]

Leon--a color photocopy of what image? These don't pop up every day. It doesn't look like a color photocopy of the LOC image as it is not clear enough.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Leon--a color photocopy of what image? These don't pop up every day. It doesn't look like a color photocopy of the LOC image as it is not clear enough.

I just got a message that said the Lelands execs that looked at it thought it was a color Xerox. That is all and I have no other info. You might contact Josh or Mike Heff.ner for more info.

[aabram23]

I hope you kill it at the auction with this piece. I think it's great for the hobby and baseball when finds like this arise. Look at the national attention this brings to our hobby. People need to realize this brings more people to the hobby when stuff like this happens which creates more potential buyers and leads to higher prices of our valuables. Like anything there are haters everywhere. This board is extremely helpful in so many areas with the deep knowledge and passion people have but there are a lot of jealous individuals and low ballers that also swarm. I first realized this with my first sell to test the waters with my Carolina brights lot. People offering me 100 a card. Come on. Lets be happy for people when they find this stuff and the good fortune that it brings. If its fake ill be in line to eat my helping of crow pie.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by aabram23

Like anything there are haters everywhere.

I was wondering when someone would pull out this nonsense cliche.

Troy - did you sent the 1889 Boston Bean Eaters cabinet card to Lelands or SGC? (I'm referring to the forgery that I called about while it was still up for auction - the day before the January 1 auction).

Oh, wait...does calling an auction house to tell them they are auctioning a $10,000+ forgery....being a "hater"? Quite honestly, I sincerely wish I had never said a word about the Bean Eaters cabinet, and one of you had won it. Sometimes the best lessons cost a few bucks, and some of you really need to be educated.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I was wondering when someone would pull out this nonsense cliche.

Troy - did you sent the 1889 Boston Bean Eaters cabinet card to Lelands or SGC? (I'm referring to the forgery that I called about while it was still up for auction - the day before the January 1 auction).

Oh, wait...does calling an auction house to tell them they are auctioning a $10,000+ forgery....being a "hater"? Quite honestly, I sincerely wish I had never said a word about the Bean Eaters cabinet, and one of you had won it. Sometimes the best lessons cost a few bucks, and some of you really need to be educated.

Because we question something we are haters!!! How dare you Scott.

If anything I am sure this thread has helped the photo in question. And if the auctioneer really understand how adding a few high end bidders to the mix could add value, with lessening any leap of faith to the equation, he would have done so. But then again, we are haters. And would you please just forget about the fake that got pulled and the comment about just putting the photo back in the SGC holder? I cement holders back together all the time, don't you, you hater? Enough is enough with all of the questions.....just sell it.

[Matthew H]

Troys taken a few punches already... Is anyone ready to slam SGC for slabbing this without really knowing whether or not it was really authentic?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Matthew H

Troys taken a few punches already... Is anyone ready to slam SGC for slabbing this without really knowing whether or not it was really authentic?

SGC gave their opinion. They think it's real. I think it's real. I just am not at 100% on it. The photo will do great in auction. Isn't that all that matters?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Matthew H

Troys taken a few punches already... Is anyone ready to slam SGC for slabbing this without really knowing whether or not it was really authentic?

Personally, I think SGC should stick to slabbing cards. I visited SGC's site and was unable to find their standards for slabbing photographs such as this cdv. It's probable that their photo-slabbing comes with a disclaimer as to what sort of tests they are willing to do. So you get what you buy. For example, if SGC performs all the tests that Mr. Messier performed, but does not perform the additional ones that he mentioned in his report, then you end up with the same level of authentication with each. You can't blame Mr. Messier for stopping where Troy asked him to, any more than you can blame SGC for performing a level of authentication that they contractually promise and that you agree to.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Leon

And would you please just forget about the fake that got pulled and the comment about just putting the photo back in the SGC holder? I cement holders back together all the time, don't you, you hater? Enough is enough with all of the questions.....just sell it.

I'm wondering where all the non-'haters' were while we were discussing the Brooklyn cdv on this board WHILE the 1889 Boston cabinet was still up for auction on Saco's website? They are knowledgeable enough to insult the skeptics, but not diligent enough to check out Saco's other auctions. Hell, even Peter Nash checked them out!!! (you know, the guy you hate, but who actually does his research).

You would think that those of us who gave a damn enough to research this thoroughly and actually spot the Bean Eaters forgery, would get a little bit of respect, possibly even gratitude? Nah. We are haters. But I can tell you this much - without the skeptics the forgers would have a field day, and YOU will be their customers, not me.

[wonkaticket]

Scott, no offense I have no issue with anyone questioning in this thread. But the Pete Nash does his research give me a break!

Maybe he does so much research to help make those fakes he sold?

I don’t like Peter Nash because….gee I don’t know he is uhhh….a forger responsible for countless fakes in peoples collections some well over 100k. Not to mention at least two fake photos BTW. I’ve said it time and time again….his site exists to draw attention away from the bad crap he has done and is most likely still doing. The fact that this guy is even listened too makes me throw up in my mouth a bit. I also love the recent drag a dead Barry Halper thru the mud classy guy.

Not hearsay public record look it up while you are speaking if his wonderful research.

Having Pete Nash shed light on crime is like have Jerry Sandusky going door to door letting folks know there are pedophiles in town.

John

[Runscott]

One additional item regarding the mount.

I believe the mount is real, but this fact is useless when it comes to authentication. Williamson was a prolific photographer and a prolific creator of cdv's, so procuring a genuine Williamson mount is simple. Procuring a genuine Williamson mount with a photo the same size as the one on the Brooklyn cdv would be a bit more difficult, as this is not the normal image size that Williamson put on his cdv's. The normal size image would be the one that used to be on this mount, as evidenced by the residue that shows both above and below the image (especially below), from the placement of a previous photo. As prolific of a photographer as Williamson was, why wouldn't he simply use a new mount? I'm sure he had plenty of them.

You can google 'williamson brooklyn' images, and you will ONLY find cdv images of the larger size. Williamson had access to the original negative and could have shown more of the baseball players and still used his vignette process, AND produced his normal image-size. But he didn't. Curious. I'll create an example and post it here later.

Yet another reason to test the binder - a bit from just above 'Williamson', and a bit from a corner of the image. Simple process, and removes more doubt.

[oldjudge]

Scott-I agree 100%. That residue, which seems to imply that a larger photos was once attached to this mount, has bothered me since the beginning.

Don--it's only a great piece if it is period.

Troy--thanks! Without that type of guarantee I think you will lose a lot of bidders.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Scott-I agree 100%. That residue, which seems to imply that a larger photos was once attached to this mount, has bothered me since the beginning.

Don--it's only a great piece if it is period.

Troy--thanks! Without that type of guarantee I think you will lose a lot of bidders.

This is kind of ugly, but you get the picture - imagine the 'vignette' spreading all the way to the new (normal) edge that I've added to the albumen part. (By the way - I used the loc image and had to reduce contrast significantly in order to approximate what's on the Brooklyn cdv)

[oldjudge]

Just thought of one other thing to look at. Since albumen prints are made from laying the photographic paper on the glassplate negative, all first generation albumen photos from the same glass plate negative have to have player images that are exactly the same size. If the SRA CdV is second generation then there is a possibility that the player images are of a slightly different size than the one in the LOC. If they are I would think that this would be a huge red flag.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Just thought of one other thing to look at. Since albumen prints are made from laying the photographic paper on the glassplate negative, all first generation albumen photos from the same glass plate negative have to have player images that are exactly the same size. If the SRA CdV is second generation then there is a possibility that the player images are of a slightly different size than the one in the LOC. If they are I would think that this would be a huge red flag.

Based on the size of 'Brooklyn' and 'Williamson' on the two mounts, the player image sizes appear to be an exact match.

Everyone needs to keep in mind that those of us who think more tests are warranted, are NOT saying that this is a forgery - we are simply stating that the rarity and value of this piece, along with a couple of 'light red' flags (re-use of mount, blurry image) warrant additional tests. "Why?' you ask, would someone who isn't planning on bidding, be concerned? The answer is simple: I am an avid albumen collector. And if members of our hobby feel that a $50,000+ rare (only 1 in existence) does not warrant the tests that Mr. Messier mentions in his report, then what cdv does?

The above is a conclusion that prospective (and existing) forgers will come to as well. This means that, even if this cdv is legitimate, we are exposing our hobby by not doing additional tests. It's important enough that I personally would be willing to contribute $500 toward the testing that Mr. Messier mentions, if it's done prior to the auction.

If it proves to be what Troy says it is, then I'll be elated.