Wagner photo authentication

[JoeyF1981]

Came across this and don't see any markings to indicate when this was taken. It looks old but wanted to get other people's opinions on it

[thecatspajamas]

I agree, it looks "old."

[JoeyF1981]

If somebody offered this to you for $100 would you buy it

[thecatspajamas]

How big is it? What type of photo paper? Any story behind it, where it came from, who is selling it, etc? Something seems very familiar about the lettering of the writing on the back, but I'm not sure if that is a real concern or just paranoia that has my "spidey sense" tingling.

[Runscott]

Joey, not based on the scan you are showing us, unless it's worth $100 to hang on your wall as a piece of art.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Originally Posted by JoeyF1981

If somebody offered this to you for $100 would you buy it

I would counter with a lower amount. To me it's not worth $100 but what matters is what it's worth to you. Good luck either way.

[prewarsports]

No way that's a first generation photo. It might still be "old" but it looks 1930's-1950's old from the scan and those big white borders. If its worth $100 to you, go for it, but I doubt you turn a profit when it comes time to sell at that level.

Rhys

[sporteq]

its all WRONG!!

Albert

[drcy]

I agree with the others, it's possible it's old but it doesn't look original. Not saying it isn't, that it looks different. A quick check with a black light would identify if it's a modern reprint. Thickness of the paper would also be indicative, as early 1900s photo paper is very thin, while 1950s and later (for examples) would be much thicker. 1800s albumen prints are identified as period in part because they are on super thin paper that isn't around anymore. That's why albumen prints were mounted to cardboard-- the paper is so thin and delicate it needs backing to survive. Very early 1900s standard photo paper is similarly thin, even when not mounted.

To me, the grey image versus the sepia borders comes across as odd. Also, I'm not sure of the date of the image, but photos from before 1910 rarely had white borders. For whatever reason, white borders seem to be a post 19-teens thing. If you look at the Pre-1910 George Grantham Bain photos, you will notice none of them have white borders-- aka, they're 'full bleed' (image to the edges).

The other thing with photos is you will occasionally come across an odd photo that is original. Anyone who comes across his first tintype will say, "What the heck is this thing?" Someone emailed me about black borders on a photo and wondered if that meant it was a later reprint. I said, while borders are usually white, they were sometimes black on originals. Vintage photos can have black borders instead of white. It's just that black borders stand out as odd as they're uncommon. Different can be an indication of it being a modern reprint or fake, but different can sometimes merely mean its different.

For a photo like that, in person examination is required to give a final 100% opinion (you can't apply a black light or microscope to a digital image of a photo posted on a chatboard-- or, rather, you can but it won't help), but it does have a few odd qualities about it strongly suggesting it may be a later second generation photo. And, if it is second generation, you definitely need in person examination to determine if it's a new old reprint. Even if it a a reprint, the age still effects value. As age is so important to many collectors, a 1930s reprint will be worth more than a 1980s reprint-- and, in fact, a 1930s reprint may have a reasonable value because it's from the 1930s. Technically speaking, the images on the N172 Old Judges are second generation, it's just they are vintage 1880s second generation photos (and baseball cards, which of course boosts the value), and obviously Old Judges have lots of value on the market. Age in and of itself heavily contributes to value.

But, to me, if it is a reprint it isn't worth $100, unless perhaps it is a really old reprint, say from the 1920s or 1930s. I'm not an appraiser, so that's strictly my personal opinion on value.