Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Anthony</b><p>FWIW they were at the Hollywood Park show tonite. If you're in the area take a look and draw your own conclusions.

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Ambo</b><p>Greetings,<br /> I enjoy reading this forum.<br />I do not collect Baseball items but like to look at them.<br />I have practiced the Wet Plate Process of Photography for about six years and you may see some samples of my work by looking under the seller AMBRO on e-bay and looking at my "Me" page.<br />I can add the following facts on some of the comments about this Process in this thread.<br /> <br />"This type of 'in the image writting' could not be done on a tintype. A tintype is a primitive and completely different process than with the Old Judge paper photos. There is no glass negative involved and you can't put writing into the image-- unless you're photographing a book or such".<br /><br />A Paper Photograph Printed with the negative reversed(thus the letters would appear reversed in the print) could be used to produce a Tintype copy with the writting in the proper Direction,a Tintypist of the day(or today!) would know this was required of a copy print.<br /><br /> "It makes no sense that Goodwin & Co. would make a proof tintype or any sort of tintype. The tintype process could only produce one photo."<br /><br /> With a multi lens camera it was possiable to produce many similar images at once, of course the more images the smaller the size of each image.<br /><br /><br />"The tintype is a primitive process-- the same kind used to make the first<br /> photo in 1839."<br /> <br />The Daguerrotype,that was introduced to America in 1839 is an image on a Copper plate with a thin coating of Silver that is fumed by various chemicals and developed by Mercury Vapors. The Wet Plate Process from which Ambrotypes(Glass Plates) and Tintypes(Iron Plates) were made is completly different.<br />It uses Silver Nitrate in solution in conjuction with Salted Collodion to produce a light sensitive surface. <br /><br />"Second generation tintypes also have a loss of focus"<br />A poorly executed copy will be out of focus,however with a very sharp lens(and they had some fine ones!) it was easy to make a copy image that is every bit as sharp as the original,so much so that it can be hard to tell each of them apart.It was also possiable to leave out all traces of the edges of the Image being copied.<br /> I would add that there has been a resurgence of the Wet Plate Process in the last 10 years,from less than twenty persons worldwide doing the old process to many hundreds today. So it goes without saying that the number of Fake Ambrotypes and Tintypes is going to increase in the future.<br />Hope that info helps.<br />Tim Parson<br />Ambrotypist<br />

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>runscott</b><p>They describe the differences between Dags, tintypes, ambrotypes, etc., various plate sizes, and also the processes used to create the Old Judge and other baseball cards that we are discussing here.<br /><br />Very good reading and I think a necessity for anyone who has your interests, especially since you are interested in baseball and some of his books relate the photographic processes to that subject.<br /><br />It might also give you a better idea, not just of the technical possibility of these images having been created in the 1800's, but also the actual "likelihood".<br /><br />

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>hankron</b><p>After a 80 something post thread, I think I need a vacation.<br /><br />I stand by my opinion on the autheniciy, but am going to drop the issue. If collectors wish to beleive that Goodwin & Co was making Old Judge tintypes as proofs or to insert into packs of smokes, that's fine. If a collector who has considered the arguments wishes to purchase one of these proof cabinets, it's their money to spend. I have seen the proofs in person and won't argue that they will make pretty display pieces.<br /><br />I know most of the people on the other side of the argument-- Nick, Bob Lemke and I think I know who is the 'FBI-Guy'-- and they are honorable people who I respect. And that's as good a note as any to end my posting on the subject.

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Bob Lemke</b><p>Please allow it to sink in that the items being discussed are NOT tintypes. They are photographic prints. For those new to the thread, the discussion is whether the prints were made within hours, days or months of the original glass-plate negative, or years or decades later.<br /> Those who have access to a Robert Edward/Mastro auction catalog for the March, 2001, sale, might wish to refer to Lot 138 where a virtually identical item of a different player from the same "find" as the Flynn was offered. That lot included a stamped, dated envelope used to send the photo from "Wendel Photographic Art Studios" of NYC to the pictured player, Thomas Doran of Omaha. While it is not specified in the auction description nor pictured, I am told by the catalger the envelope was dated proximate to the original issue period for the Old Judge cards, i.e., circa 1888. (The lot sold for $3,537.) <br />

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>John Freeman</b><p>I looked at the card that was offered by Robert Edward auctions in March of 2001. I have never physically held the item in the auction, but it is not "virtually identical" to the cabinets that American Memorabilia has. First the one in the Robert Edward auciton has advertising in the photo reading "PH Mayo & Brother Tobacco Co." Also the mount that it is on is much different than cards in the American Memorablia auction. Just because the photo contains "Goodwin & Co." advertising does not make them "virtually identical." There are hundreds of generic cabinets out there that made use of Goodwin and Company photos.<br /><br />Lastly, even if the American Memorabilia cards are genuine, I highly doubt that these are proofs. First, they seem to be cut from an uncut sheet of four pieces. Why would proofs need to be mounted on generic cardboard? It would make them difficult to handle. Second, another poster said that he has the exact same four cards in uncut form. Proofs are usually not made in duplicate form. Obviously, these cards are not unique, as reported.<br /><br />I would suggest that the cards be taken to a photography expert at a museum and see if they are albumen prints or not.

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Julie</b><p>which will set you back $80. And you can look at all your early cards and photos and see if they're period or not.<br />And be delighted that almost all, if not all, of them are!<br /><br />You're looking for fibres, probably a crackled surface, and NO DOTS in an albumen photo. The PRINT, not the negative...

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Jay Miller</b><p>Bob--To echo what John has said the item from the Robert Edwards auction is not the same as the American Memorabilia lots. Second, a photographic expert already examined the American Memorabilia lots and said they are not period. That should be the end of the story. The RE Auction card could not have been from the Vermont find. It was supposedly mailed to Nebraska. The other material came out of a basement in Vermont.<br /><br />BTW, I'm not aware of any photographic expert examining the lot in the RE Auction. Would be interested to see what the result was there. I always thought that it was interesting that this lot was associated with a Wendel Photographic Art Studio envelope. N173s were mailed out in Goodwin & Co. envelopes. I have a few that came from a find of N173s about 7 years ago. Also would have liked to see an expert verify that the postmark on the envelope was in fact put on in 1888.

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>hankron</b><p>I've talked to Julie a good number of times and I've long known that Julie is no dummy and does her homework. I also know she owns her own super power microscope that she was used to examine her MastroNet winnings.<br /><br />The albumen process was used to make almost all 19th century paper baseball photograhs, from the 1869 Cincinnati Reds trade card to Old Judges to Four Base Hits to that 1870 CDV of a kid holding a baseball. One of the keys (I said one) to authenticating 19th century albumen photographs is by examining the photographic image under a strong microscope (prefer 100x power or more, but 50x may do. I think Julie has a 600x power microscope!). Under a microscope, you can see the paper fibers in the albumen image. Looks like hay or little worms ... If you put your N173 or N172 under the microscope, you will be able to see the paper fibers.<br /><br />This may seem dumb and obvious at first, but with 99.9 percent of 20th century photographs-- from that original 1910 Ty Cobb to the Kodak snapshot of you at 5-- you cannot see paper fibers, even under highest magnification. This is because most 20th century paper photographs put a thin clear substance (for example, the gelatin in gelatin-silver photos) on the photograhic paper. This substance was used both to hold the photograhpic chemicals to the paper and for its chemical properties (gelatin allowed for better development that earlier substances). Though transparent and not effecting the image from normal view, these substances make it impossible to viewe the paper fibers. They prevent your microscope from focusing on the fibers below.<br /><br />These microscopic details have been well documented and known for years in academic circles. They were discussed in the standard academic book, "Care and Identification of 19th Century Photographic Pritns," Published by Eastman Kodak Company and written by James Reilley, Professor and Director of the Image Permanence Institute at Rochester Institute of Technology.<br /><br />Using other techniques including general obvservation, the key is that one can look look through the microscope at a questioned photograph and and say, This is a legitmate 1880s photograph. Or, there's no way this photograph was made in the 1860s.<br /><br />This technique takes some practice, but it is something that the average collector can do. A handheld microscope of power is 100x power is surprisingly inexensive (We're talking $15) and it often takes 20 seconds to look for paper fibers. When someone has me look at their 15x15" 1880s baseball photo, I take out my trusty little microscope and give the quick look over. "I see the paper fibers. Looks good. Nice photo."<br /><br />Duly note that this is one technique, and there are a vareity of other microscopic things to look for on albumen prints.<br /><br />Personally, I would love it if collectors bought my book on early baseball photographs, the above mentioned Reilly book if second opinion is needed, bought a handheld microscope that costs the price of a bottle of hair conditioner and learned how to make knowledgeable and intelligent opinions on the authenticity of these very OJ Proofs. I seriously would love it ... To me, the ultimate in any hobby is when a normal collector, like a retired 60 something baseball card collector and the only female board member named Julie V., takes the time and effort so she can make her own judgements about the stuff she collects. Tell me that isn't cool ... But the vast majority of collectors (and people viewing this thread) won't buy my book and a miscroscope. There's nothing I can do about this, other than to roll my eyes whenever some of these very people offer their exotic theories. <br /><br />One thing this thread has shown me is that many feel people they don't have to be know about a subject in order to argue about it, and that most people don't know about this subject. Considering that perhaps 5 people on this board have ever used a microscope to look for paper fibers on an 1800s cabinet card, and perhaps 8 even own a good microscope, I rest my case.<br />

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Julie</b><p>Boy, was I shocked when I looked at Scott Forrest's beautiful Old Judge reprints under 60X and saw symmetrical pink and green dots!<br /><br />When you're dealing with a framework of time from 1885-1905, not too long a period, that's when the microscope really comes in handy. Because as sure a albumen quit about 1899, silver gelatin began about 1900. ABOUT..

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>hankron</b><p>As I said earlier, it is fine with me if collectors bid as much as they want on American Memorablia's or any other proofs (Hip Hip Hooray! and all that stuff). But, unless suffering from abnormally low i.q., the collector's level of knowledge is his choice and his responsibility.<br /><br />If the bidder chooses to not learn how to make sound judgements about authenticity before bidding thousands of dollars, that is entirely his choice.<br /><br />

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Jay Miller</b><p>"A fool and his money are soon seperated..."

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Gary B.</b><p>who does not yet own one 19th century baseball item, I would certainly stay far away from an auction like this, if for no other reason than all the controversy. My money hasn't stretched far enough to include many vintage cards as of late, so esepecially for that reason, I would always want to make sure I was getting some kind of good deal and be buying something legitimate. It's so hard to say what's really going on here, as I'm so far from being an expert, and others who are have spoken in volumes here, but it would leave enough doubt in my mind that I wouldn't touch these "proofs" with a 10-foot pole. I certainly hope that whomever does buy these doesn't pay too much, and doesn't later live to regret it. Even as someone who can offer nothing close to a valid opinoin on the matter, and couldn't afford these even if he was interested, still I find the subject and the debate quite fascinating.<br /><br />Peace,<br />Gary

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>hankron</b><p>...

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Jay Miller</b><p>Can I please see a scan of her bat in left hand pose?

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Rich Jacobs</b><p>No you can't, Jay. That's already taken, since it was Farrah Fawcett's pose in the T206 "The Monster."

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Jay Miller</b><p>Rich--Welcome back! How about the Bat at ready, by head pose or the famous Silver(Larry) Flint pose Stooping, hands waist high, mask.

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Julie Vognar</b><p>even those of us you consider idiots...

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Seth Nagdeman</b><p>SOME HISTORY OF THESE PROOFS: I compared my scans of these pictures with the ones offered at American Memorabilia and they are identical - these are the same pieces I had in my collection from 1999-2004. I purchased them in December of 1999 for $1,500 from a seller on ebay from Florida: ebay id "vtholstein0esl". They were in a frame. The photos were mounted on a black background. I took them to a framer and he cut them down to cabinet card size - I thought they looked more desireable that way. I decided not to put them in the 19thCenturyOnly.com auction because I did not know enough to represent them in my auction. <br /><br />I traded them in April, 2003 with one of my customers who ended up consigning them to a major vintage card auction (other than 19thCenturyOnly.com since I did not know enough about them to sell in my auction). They were returned to him because the auctioneer after reviewing them did not feel they were original. They were returned to me in September, 2003 and I refunded my customer for more than our trade because of what happened. I then showed the photos to two major auction houses, and one major 19th century dealer - in all cases nobody would handle them because they did not believe they were period and didn't know exactly why the photos were made. I then sold all 4 photos in Ft. Washington to a dealer early this year for $1000 with an explanation that three major auction houses did not feel they were period pieces. <br /><br />I don't know of American Memorabilia - have never done business with them before. Their photography expert represents that he found evidence that the photos are vintage. I'm sure they were thoroughly examined by American Memorabilia and it's possible the other auctions may have overlooked something.

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Thank you for a VERY informative bit of data!<br /><br />If they could only track the hurricanes as accurately as you have tracked these items!! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>I have nothing to add.<br /><br />I just wanted to be Post #100 !!!

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Jay Miller</b><p>Seth--Interesting post. Now we see that three major auction houses, one major vintage card dealer, and our own photographic expert have said that these items are not vintage. I think it is time for American Memorabilia to say why they think it is vintage.

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Tom Boblitt</b><p>who the 'major' dealer was that Seth sold them to. NOT TO PUT HIM ON THE SPOT. I think he's being totally forthright in his coming to the board to give the details. They're at $4400 or so now (or were), so someone made a good deal if they got them for $1K. It would be difficult for AM to admit they're not period (if they're not) since it was the basis for the cover of their auction.

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Jay Miller</b><p>LET ME MAKE A GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENT---I will sell my group of four Flynn images (the same ones that Seth cut up and are being auctioned now) for the current bid, without the buyer's premium, of $4400. Please email me at curl777@aol.com if interested.

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Jay Miller</b><p>Will any board members be at Ft Washington this weekend to examine the Flynns?

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Jay MIller</b><p>Did anyone catch what is on the cover of this week's SCD? You guessed it--the American Memorabilia auction catalog with the Flynn piece on the cover. I guess both AM and SCD have alot invested in these pieces being vintage.

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Brian Weisner</b><p><br /> Hi Jay,<br /> You beat me to it...............<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> Be well Brian

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Bob Lemke</b><p>The "cover" to which you refer is a mailing wrapper and is a paid advertisement by American Memorabilia.

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Julie Vognar</b><p><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>MW</b><p>I believe the record is 167<br /><br /><a href="http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=153652&messageid=1054127903&lp=1055 948439" target=_new>http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=153652&messageid=1054127903&lp=1055 948439</a>

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Jay Miller</b><p>Bob--It is absolutely amazing to me but you are wrong on this. The cover, not the mailer, pictures the American Memorabilia catalog. In fact, I called SCD just to make sure I was correct and asked if this was on the cover and not the mailer and they said cover. As far as I can tell, you're 0 for 2 on this material.

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Julie</b><p>and the "Memorabilia" cover (or in this case, mailer). I THINK you're both right...Bob says that the MAILER of the auction is pictured on the SCD cover (there's NOTHING on the SCD MAILER--never has been).<br /><br />Anyway, how else would A.R. got on ---higher than I can count--SCD covers except for $$$? It's still a paid ad, no matter which it is....<br /><br />I hope...you see, I don't have one...

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Judge Dred</b><p>Julie,<br /><br />This issue of the SCD (or mailing cover) could become a VBC collectible. Anyone got one that they would like to put on ebay. You could post a message in the B/S/T thread. I'd pay a buck for it.

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>It's amazing how this thread and tbob's thread about his "proof" cards are so similar. The parties owning the cards want to live a fantasy about what they have even though the evidence says clearly says otherwise.<br /><br />Seems to me like it's time for some people to put up, or shut up in regards the their fantasies. And from where I sit, SCD is taking a hit in regards to their image and reputation with debacle. If I were SCD, I'd be trying to distance myself from this mess.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I saw weird stuff in that place last night. Wierd, strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, evil stuff. And I want in.

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Jay Miller</b><p>I went to the Ft Washington show yesterday and had the opportunity to meet Nick and the rest of the folks from American Memorabilia and see the Flynn images. First, let me say that Nick was very nice and helpful, a real gentleman. However, nothing I saw after examining the images changed my view that they are not period and were not produced by Goodwin & Co. Actually, the most interesting thing about the Flynn images was reading the catalog descriptions. The introductory sentence + to the section of the catalog describing these images states:<br /><br />"Vintage card expert Bob Lemke recently delivered an in-depth report in the pages of Sports Collectors Digest regarding a group of newly discovered Old Judge proof cards which served as models for Goodwin's standard N172 issue. This catalog offers four of these rarities......."<br /><br />After reading that it makes it sound like Bob is the resident expert who proclaimed these to be good. This doesn't give me a really warm feeling. Secondly, later in the introductory paragraph it states that the image's mountings are "absolutely unviolated". Am I having a senior moment or didn't Seth say that he had the group of four images cut up into four individual images. Sounds violated to me and it also sounds like this was a display piece. Finally, unfortunately for me and these images these are exactly the same images that I have on a four image Flynn display piece. Hardly unique proof images.

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>david</b><p>jay<br />can you post an image of your set of flynn photos

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Jay Miller</b><p>David--Since this is a framed piece I would have to take a picture with a digital camera and then download it. Since I don't have a digital camera this involves borrowing one and, in all honesty, it's more of a pain in the ass than it's worth. Imagine the four American Memorabilia pieces put back together as if Seth had never done his hatcket job and you'll be there.

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>rhys</b><p>Couldn't you tell by placing these under a black light that they are the ones Seth had since the sides have been trimmed? At the very least these could then be trimmed items which should have been detectable to a photographic "expert" and that should be mentioned IMHO in the auction discription.<br /><br />Rhys

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>George Layne</b><p>Tintypes and daguereotypes and other " positive in the camera " images can be made unreversed with the use of a reversing prism or mirror. Such devices were readily available, written about etc. as early as the 1840s-50s. Any knowledgeable expert on nineteenth century images would be aware of this. Not all photographers used them, but a tintype could certainly be made unreversed. <br /><br />George Layne, Philadelphia

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>runscott</b><p>that in the case of these items, an "expert" is anyone who supports your opinion of what you are trying to sell

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>tim mayer</b><p>wish I had paid alittle more interest in this,,,I am a bit disapointed that something so suspect made it into the auction. I have bid on a few items, and I hope I win a couple , but I really think if an item has any doubt about its authenticity it should be pulled,,,,it's hard to trust an auction house if you know that they know that they have items that might not be real..even one person saying its bad should be enough for me

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Jay Miller</b><p>Has anyone checked out the four Flynn lots ending this evening? The total for the four lots, so far, is $23,285. Yes, you are reading correctly. Underbidders, I have the same items except not cut up into four individual pieces. You can buy these at a discount to these high bids.

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>are reading any of this stuff, except tim

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Gary B.</b><p>the unfortunate aftermath of something like this thread for me is that i would be very hard pressed to trust an american memorobilia auctoin after this. i was chatting with another net54 member and they felt the same way. they might make $25,000 plus on those "proofs," but is it worth the cost in negative publicity and potetntial buyers not trusting them anymore? <br /><br />i don't want to put them down, as every other auction they have might be completely legitimate (and for all i know the proofs are legitimate), but this thread on the proofs casts a sad shadow of doubt, at least for me, that erodes my trust in them...

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>tim Mayer</b><p>I am thankful for all the comments, it was great reading, and very useful. I would like to say you all saved me some money, but I would have lost hours ago anyway, even if I had decided to stay in...I didn't stay in though,,,I am not dumb,,,the evidence is overwhelming.I amazed at the prices that are being realized as we speak. Someones going to be real unhappy in a year or two when they can't resell them. <br /><br />

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>prewarsports</b><p>Check out the prices and think about what you could have been able to pick up somehwere else for over $45,000!<br /><br />Rhys

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>runscott</b><p>...but when I received their catalog, I checked to see if the "proof" auction was indeed described as this thread indicates. When I saw that was the case, I threw my catalog in the trash without reading further.

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Nickinvegas</b><p>Gentlemen & Julie,<br />I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank those who supported our September Auction. In regards to the Old Judge Proofs, there were several bright and experienced hobby pro's that felt they were extraordinary and authentic. Last night as I viewed the list of bidders I saw several of the hobby heavyweights bidding on the proofs. At the Fort Washington show I shared in discussions and inspected the items with several of the hobby's best dealers and collectors and with one exception they agreed with our assertion of authenticity. And I think the final price on the Proofs spoke volumes. This, like any debate had two sides. Keep in mind the side of truth is not always the loudest side...<br /><br />As I have mentioned before, I will be handling and approving all future vintage baseball auction listings. I started just after this auction began. Having been an active member of this board for several years I can assure you that board members will get premium service! Please take a moment to register, just write "Nick-NET54" as your reference. I will personally take care of your transactions beginning to end. Registration is Free.<br /><br />Our current auction has some great items. We are looking for consignments for the Big Holiday Auction. We will have over 300 vintage baseball cards listed including several Old Judges(no proofs, just cards.) And of course the usual great selection of game used uniforms.<br /><br />Thanks again for your support.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br />Nick Martinez<br />American Memorabilia<br />Auctions: 1-800-430-0667 <br />

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>scgaynor</b><p>Can we have some of the names of these hobby veterans who looked at them and proclaimed them real?<br /><br />I have not seem them myself, but was just wondering who does think they are real. <br /><br />Scott

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>I was just wondering the same thing. Without getting these hobby veterans to step and put their name on the line, it's no better than the eBay scam artist claiming that he's had paper experts and other "experts" look at his item to declare it real. Ol' Blue Eyes comes to mind right off the top of my head.<br /><br />There are a lot of hobby vets that have been willing to step and say there ARE NOT legit, yet it doesn't seem that many hobby vets of similar stature are willing to put their reputations on the line to say they are what you claim they are.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I saw weird stuff in that place last night. Weird, strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, evil stuff. And I want in.

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>runscott</b><p>It went as you hoped - that's good for you. I don't think anyone on this board had any reason to want these items to be something other than what you described - in fact, most of us get really excited when something that is new and real surfaces...but this wasn't it.<br /><br />As far as "hobby heavyweights", anyone with a large amount of money and a wilingness to spend freely must be one of these. Personally, I know several huge spenders who have some of the largest and most valuable collections in the hobby, and who know about as much as the novices who buy t206 reprints...and that's fine - I don't go them when I need expert advice. What bothers me is that the auction houses are indeed more concerned with the money of the "hobby heavyweights" than with the opinions of the experts.

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>hankron</b><p>The problem with this 'debate' (I supose we could debate if the color blue is blue too), is that my assesment of these proofs is accurate, and those who disagree are ingorant. It's as simple as that. You can argue with me about this, but you'd be wrong.<br /><br />Only for the sake of argument in this paragraph, let's say the proofs are authentic. Why hasn't the AM auction description been ammended to say that these were owned by Seth N. and he stated publicly that he had these chopped down from a larger piece? I haven't collected cards in a while, but I've been under the assumtion that things like trimming and altering (cutting a thing into four smaller pieces being an example of alteration) were of significance in the trading card hobby. Has AM decided that these things are mere technicalities that should be withheld from potential bidders? What other things and kinds of things has AM decided are mere technicalites that should be witheld? In which lots?

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Bob Lemke</b><p>Unbelieveable, David. How can your assessment of the Old Judge pictures be accurate when you admittedly never personally examined them? <br /> I did. <br /> And to quote the Teri Hatcher character on an old Seinfeld episode, "They're real and they're fabulous!"<br />

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>hankron</b><p>Last winter, I was asked to formally examine a series of proofs by a highly respected person at MastroNet. Some people know who this person is, but he asked me that his name not be included in any Net54 brewhaha (can't fault him there). Independantly (we live over 1,000 miles apart from each other), both he and I agreed that the proofs were not legitimate, and MastroNet rejected them for their auction. This person originally thought them fake, but promised the consignor he would get a second opinion (me).<br /><br />When the AM auction started, I didn't have a catalog or SCD or pictures and wasn't sure what was being offered. I was later told by this person at MastroNet that the AM proofs were the same ones I examined in person.

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>hankron</b><p>It is now known that these were cut down recently at a frame or whatever shop. They were originally a multi photo framed display, and Seth had them cut into cabinet-style photos.<br /><br />When I examined them (I got them in the mail), I didn't know this history. However, I could clearly see that the edges were cut recently. The cuts were not neat die-cuts like an real cabinet card, but were kind of funky cut. Almost as if they were cut with a big paper cutter. The edges were obviously first exposed to the world just recently, as the exposed cardstock was as clean and fresh as a dewy morn. I even remarked specifically about this when I talked on the phone to the person at MastroNet.<br /><br />At least when I saw them, most any person on the street or a 75 year old neighbor or casual friend or my mailman would have have judged that they were cut recently and not in the 1880s. I'm not exagerating! The edges were so new and un-die cut that some may have even wondered if I had just cut them myself. <br /><br />This is why, irrelevant to any issue of authenticity, I found it bizarre when an auction house would judge the proofs as to have never been tampered with.

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Jay Miller</b><p>Bob--I hope you provide the same reference of authenticity for my proofs when they come up for auction as they are exactly the same as these. And, before you ask, I saw the AM ones at Philadelphia so I am positive that they are the same.

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Bob Lemke</b><p>Daid, you seem to be confusing the photos themselves with their current mounting. I do not disagree that the cardboard on which the photos are mounted is a latter-day accommodation. I am saying, and have said all along, that it is my considered opinion that the photos are genuine late 19th Century vintage. They were likely mounted and framed at a later date, (then unframed at an even later date). That should not affect the value of the photos themselves any more than slabbing a 19th Century card in a 21st Century plastic case affects the value or authenticity of the card itself. <br> And Jay, unlike some persons, I would not express an opinion on the authenticty of your grouping (or anything else) without personally examining it.

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Bob, you are well respected in this hobby, but to compare mounting a photo to a cardboard back to slabbing a card is absurd. This means that cards mounted in scrapbooks ahould be just as valuable as slabbed cards.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I saw weird stuff in that place last night. Weird, strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, evil stuff. And I want in.

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>hankron</b><p>Bob, all 19th century albumen prints were originally mounted-- the photo paper was so thin that they had to be or they would curl up into little cigarettes. The original mount, with name of studio or photographer or other information, is as inseperable a part of the cabinet card as the Sweet Caporal back to a Honus Wagner or the sleaves to a Joe DiMaggio game worn Yankees jersy. The original mount is quite simply a part of the cabinet card, and removing the print from the mount is destroying the overall photo. Any sport or non sport 19th century photo collector knows that if you peel the photographic print from a cabinet you have significanctly reduced the financial value. Any Old Judge N173 collector on this board knows that if you peel the print form a N173, you've probably reduced the value by 80 or 90 percent. <br /><br />Assuming for the sake of argument these prints are authentic as you say, this means that the prints would have had to have been pealed from the original mount, pasted to a new mount, then cut down at a framing shop.<br /><br />Are you saying that if someone peels the photographic print from a 1869 Peck & Snynder or 1887 Four Base Hits King Kelly and had them remounted at the local frame shop into 11x14 display pieces, this will have no effect on the value? Irrelevant to value, are you saying it's okay for an auction house to knowing withold the information that the Peck & Snyder and Four Base Hits were restored substantially in recent times? <br /><br />You have no problem attacking my position, but you sure seem loathe to say one thing bad about AM withholding that the 'unaltered proofs' have been, as you yourself said, far from their original state. <br /><br />Bob, do you honestly beleive that the bidders would bid the same amount of money if they were told by American Memorabilia that the proofs were remounted and put under a papercuter at a frame shop a year or two ago? <br /><br />Do you honestly beleive that the winner(s) of the proofs will have no care one way or the other if he finds out that the proofs are not on the original and unaltered mounts as AM 'authenticated' but have been altered/remounted at least twice in modern times?<br /><br />Do you honestly beleive the winner will be content and smiley the moment he finds out that AM knew about the restoration early in the auction but chose not to tell bidders?<br /><br />Bob, if you weren't an employee of SCD but the winning bidder, what would be your feelings if you found out six months or a year later that the auction house knew about but chose to to disclose such modern alterations and restorations? After an experience like that would you bid in another of their auctions?<br /><br />The financial significance of rebacking or restoring a photo or print or baseball card can be debated, but the rebacking or restoring that is known to the seller aways (e.g. without exception) has to disclosed to the potential buyers. It is up to the potential bidders, not the auction house witholding the information, to decide the financial or aesthetic significance of the substantial alteration to a baseball card, cabinet card, premium or vase.<br /><br />... The proofs are fakes AND altered. Any way American Memorabilia's apologists try and slice it, it's not a pretty sight.

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Bob Lemke</b><p>What the Flynn proofs are mounted on today cannot in any way be compared to a Wagner card's front and back or a Peck & Snyder, or even an Old Judge cabinet. Those items were intended to be issued to the public in the manner in which you see them today. There was never any such intent with the proof photos. They would have been mounted on something sturdy -- surely NOT a printed Goodwin or other identified cabinet backing -- so that they were protected and viewable by the cigarette people, the printer or whomever participated in deciding whether or not the image made it into production as an N172 or N173. Is a Rembrandt worth any less if it's mounted in a 19th Century frame than a 17th Century frame? As for the buyers . . . anybody who plunks down $10,000 or $20,000 on any item in this hobby should have the sense to thoroughly investigate their proposed purchase regardless of what the seller or numerous uninvolved third parties have to say. <br /><br />I am going to conclude my participation in this particular "debate". We still seem to be missing each other's points and are unlikely to change anybody's mind. <br />

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>david</b><p>certainly if the backing was replaced and the piece was cut up into four individual 'proofs' this should have been disclosed by the auction house. for AM not to do so is irresponsible. also, i would like to know who was able to remove the albumen photo from the original backing and the put it on another backing causing ZERO damage to the photographic images all the while displaying no evidence of the change in mounting. i will put this offer out to the winners of the auction if they are there. there is a lab in my dept that tests fake currency, stamps etc. i would be willing to have the lab perform a forensic examination on the proofs to determine if the mount, photo and glue used to adhear the photo to the mount are period or not. perhaphs then this issue will be over with and we will all know for certain if the proofs are real or not

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>So I am a perfect candidate for the "jury" on this. Tabula rasa (blank slate) so to speak. Here are my reactions:<br /><br />If AM knew the checkered history of these photos, AM absolutely had to disclose it. I would be very pissed off if I bought a vintage photo on a modern board and the seller knew that the item had been cut down, peeled, remounted, etc.<br /><br />I simply cannot believe that altering the item by removing it from its existing old mount and remounting it on new board would not alter the value of the item. Apples ain't oranges (to steal a phrase): I cannot believe that a vintage period piece is worth the same as a piece that is partly vintage and party contemporary. Watch Antiques Roadshow; when you restore an antique, you affect its value (and no, I am not talking about cleaning it, de-acidifying it, etc., although that too can affect value). <br /><br />I do not believe that peeling the photos and remounting them is an appropriate means of conservation framing for these photos and that leads me to believe that the current condition should be disclosed in full. I spent a great deal of my misguided youth working as a framer. No museum would EVER chop down a mounted piece, peel it, and remount the image. At most, they would place the pieces of paper between plexi or mylar or glass and store it that way in a "sandwich". What happened to these images is simply unprofessional.

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>scgaynor</b><p>A couple of questions:<br /><br />There are ways of removing the photo from the backing wihtout damaging the photo itself, but did David Rudd base his opinion that they were not authentic only on the mount? It does not sound like it based on his responses above. <br /><br />Since the word "proof" is stamped on the back of the mount, and the mount is not vintage, what other reason could somebody have to stamp "Proof" on the back of the mount unless they were intending to deceive?<br /><br />Is there anybody else out there, except AM and Bob Lemke, that is willing to say that they are authentic? Somebody who deals in 19th century material and would know. It really should not be that hard to tell if the prints are modern or vintage. For those of us that deal in 19th century photos on a regular basis, all that you have to do is look at the item, and hold it in your hand, all of the forensic tests are not needed. It would be about as easy as telling a real Goudey Lajoie from the one pulled from the Bert Sugar book. <br /><br />Scott

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>hankron</b><p><img src="http://www.cycleback.com/fashionphotos/lichfield-2.jpg">

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>AM has an ethical responsibility to inform prospective bidders that at the very least there is a controversy regarding whether or not the proofs are period, and that bidders should take this into consideration before making their decisions. From my experience in this area, auctions houses can be told the same thing from any number of experts and will still do nothing. Several years ago Sotheby's photo department sold a full plate tintype purported to be Jim Creighton. It was categorically and undeniably not Jim Creighton, and as an early baseball expert I can say this with 100% certainty. I went down to Sotheby's along with several other experts to tell the head of the photo department that it was positively not Creighton and that if they did not want to pull the lot they should at least make an announcement before the lot went up. They of course wanted nothing to do with this, and refused several expert opinions even though at the time they had nobody on the staff who really even knew who Jim Creighton was. They identified him solely on the word of a less than scrupulous consignor. And as far as Bob Lemke's statement that anyone who spends $10,000 or $20,000 on an object should do their homework, I must tell you that in this overheated market buyers are quick to throw money around without doing much homework at all. If it looks impressive in the catalog, they will accept the opinion of the auction house. I have not personally viewed the Flynn proofs so I do not wish to render an opinion, but for AM not to disclose that there have been many experts who have doubted their authenticity is plainly fraudulent. There is no controversy there.

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Jeff O</b><p>David Rudd wrote:<br /><br />"So, from what I gather from this thread, Bob Lemke, editor of the Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards, beleives that auction houses should not be compelled to disclose to bidders that antique or vintage items have been substantially retsored or altered in recent times, as it's the bidder's responsibility to figure it out him or herself.<br /><br />Is this Sports Collectors Digest's official policy, or it just your personal one?"<br /><br />OK. I went back and re-read every post by Lemke on this longwinded thread, and I can't find a post in which he states anything like what you are implying, David. While his "buyer beware" point is certainly overly casual, he never states that "auction houses should not be compelled to disclose..." as you write. Frankly I find what you wrote to be potentially libellous and your implication troubling. <br /><br />For the record, I don't know Bob Lemke - never met him or spoken to him, just exchanged a few emails with him. I'm also not an expert by any stretch of the imagination in the area of 19th century material - I have no opinion either way on the piece under discussion. I just hate to see a man's reputation dragged through the mud, especially after he has already said he won't post about this issue any longer.<br /><br />If I missed something in this thread that Bob wrote that matches what David implies, which is possible, I will be the first one to post an apology to David.<br /><br />I'm sure that I'm going to regret ever getting involved in this one...<br /><br />Jeff

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>hankron</b><p>Jeff, all I am hoping for is that Bob will say that he beleives AM should have disclosed to bidders that they knew the proofs were altered and/or restored in modern times. That is all I am asking for. <br /><br />Am I asking for too much?

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Jeff O</b><p>No, that's not asking too much. But if that's what you want to ask, just ask it and don't put words in Bob's mouth... words that he didn't say (or write) and that could be very damaging to a reputation that has been built over 25 years in the hobby.<br /><br />Again, I'm not saying who's opinion is right or wrong in this matter. I can only form an opinion based on what I've read... and as I wrote before, I certainly don't have enough experience in this area to be comfortable in voicing that opinion. <br /><br />I just hate seeing someone accused of saying or writing something that they did not. I have seen this kind of stuff happen too many times in my line of work dealing with bodily injury lawyers (disclaimer - I'm only referring to a very small number of specific BI lawyers... most of them are honest and ethical) who will turn around something that was said and then make unfounded accustations.<br /><br />If you want his opinion, or need him to clarify a statement, simply ask. It's better than implying something unfounded.<br /><br />Jeff<br /><br /><br /><br />

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>hankron</b><p>Obviously I disagree in the extreme with American Memorabilia and how they handled the auction, and, to a lesser degree, I have issues with the way Sports Collector's Digest handled it. SCD doesn't run American Memorabilia and may be under financial obligations that prevent them from being forthright, so I don't have near the grief towards them.<br /><br />I have long admired Bob Lemke's work, and recommend his price guide and 'Sportscard Counterfeit Detector.' I will continue to recommend the books, as they are good ones. <br /><br />I promise I won't post anymore on the subject, assuming Nick doesn't come on once again and post how wonderfully beautifully sexily authentic the photos are, and Bob doesn't claim that I'm wrong when I'm not (Helpful hint: The later is not a good technique to to keep quiet). As one sign of truce, I will remove the above admitedly goading post and replace with a Shrimpton.<br /><br />There are people who disagree on this subject, and I am willing to call a truce<br /><br /><img src="http://www.cycleback.com/fashionphotos/lichfield-2.jpg"><br />(soothing flowery 1970 Jean Shrimpton photo indicating peace and truce).

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Bob, you of all people should know that there are far too many people that pass thru the hobby that have alot more money than common sense. If the flavor of the day is baseball memorabilia, then they are going to drop some serius cash on the stuff to impress their friends, regardless if they know anything about the steff or not.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I saw weird stuff in that place last night. Weird, strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, evil stuff. And I want in.

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>nickinvegas</b><p>Gentlemen & Julie,<br />This will be the last time I comment on this issue. (Unless there is an update of major importance). I will try to be brief, please give me a moment.<br /><br />When I first came to Victor Moreno (Owner of AM), I met him to tell him about all of the controversy regarding the auction. He doesn't read the board. He explained that he handled the auction of the proofs in the best way he knew. He found the best authenticator that was available to him. He asked opinions of other collectors at the nationals. He did the best he could, the catalogs printed and that was that. So, he thought.<br /><br />I told him I knew David and I was sure he would personally inspect the proofs. I know David has a strong degree of influence with this board. Some choose to take whatever he says as virtue, without doing any research on their own. As many on the board would do I contacted David and asked him to look at them. I offered to pay him, and ship them overnight. DAVID REFUSED TO EXAMINE THE PROOFS. He also refused to speak to our photographic examiner. Had David looked at the proofs and rejected them with good reason,I would have lobbied to have them pulled. I trusted him at the time. <br /><br />Why would he refuse? If he had taken them, this would have been a short discussion. He could not spread disparaging remarks about American Memorabilia or me. There were several comments made to appeal to those who are looking for an opinion (Slipping in how to tell fake tin types and other items that aren't relevant is an example.) I do not think David is a bad guy, I just feel strongly that there is a hidden agenda. <br /><br />I respected all of the contrary opinions. Unfortunately,many came from competing auction houses.<br /><br />I close in saying that, had I started before the auction launched perhaps I would have made some changes. But, as of this moment I still believe the proofs are period and gorgeous. There is a double layer of mount. The original mount that the picture is on is un-violated. <br /><br />I am sorry if my opinion on this matter offends anyone. I will always do my best to help those that support me in my new job. <br /> <br />Regards,<br />Nick Martinez<br />American Memorabilia<br /><br />PS: Barry Flynn (great grandson) of Paul Flynn called and gave me some great biographical information.

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Julie Vognar</b><p>at Seth Nagdemasn's request, when he owned them. He found them not to be albumen prints, and to have been cut apart and remounted. Oh, and 50 posts back, Seth said they were the same photos he had once owned.

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>runscott</b><p>In an earlier posting in this tome of a thread, you attempted to use yourself as your own source of expert opinion - many of us felt that David's opinion was a bit more credible regarding old photographs, which shouldn't really offend you given the amount of time David spends with photographs. If you and David got into a debate over baseball cards from the '60s, I would certainly tend to give your opinion more attention.<br /><br />Previous post by Nick:<br /><br />The reasons they are the real deal: September 6 2004, 1:11 AM <br /><br />I have personally examined the 6 OJ proofs(american memorabilia auction) for several hours and these my conclusions:<br /><br />1) The photographs are albumen. I say that because they are the proper gauge for albumen of this period, They smell like Albumen, Under the microscope they look like albumen should. <br /><br />2) The wear on the actual photo is what it should be. While they were obviously not left out in the sun or light for the last 100+ years; each one has a great patina that would be difficult to fake. <br /><br />3)The player, team, uniform all match the time period the proofs would have been created.<br /> <br />

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Jay Miller</b><p>Two points<br /><br />1-If Nick asked David (and offered to pay David) to examine these proofs and David refused and David has never seen these exact cards(which I think he said in an earlier post) then I think this has to somewhat diminish the impact of his objections.<br /><br />2-David said that albumen photos cannot exist off a mount without curling up. I have had numerous skinned Old Judge cards (just the photo with no backing) which were perfectly flat. My guess is that even without a backing these albumen prints could have been stored to remain flat.

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>MW</b><p><i>&lt;&lt; I do not think David is a bad guy, I just feel strongly that there is a hidden agenda. &gt;&gt;</i><br /><br /><br />Nick,<br /><br />I too have long suspected this. I fervently believe that David's dog, Henry, is none other than a mutated New York subway sewer rat. Shocking? Absolutely. Unexpected? Perhaps not. I know I can't scientifically prove my hypothesis, but I believe a fair number of forum members share my viewpoint.

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Jay Miller</b><p>Mike--I strongly disagree--there was no mutation involved. That "dog" is a pure bred sewer rat.

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>MW</b><p>Jay,<br /><br />Either way, I think David has some explaining to do.

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>runscott</b><p>I thought David claimed to have seen the EXACT same cards. I don't have the energy to re-read all of David's posts in this thread, so I'm giving up and turning on the baseball play-offs.

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>hankron</b><p>First, I will admit that Henry looks a tad like a rat. No argument or offense there.<br /><br />Before the auction, Nick contacted me to ask for me about the proofs. I said quite specifically that it was my opinion that American Memorabilia should not have them in auction. I said that I had long been familiar with these types of Old Judge proofs and had examined some before for MastroNet ... As I found out later, the American Memorabilia proofs were the exact ones that I examined for MastroNet and that both MastroNet and I agreed were fake.<br /><br />I don't have a hidden agenda. All I have been doing all along is refuting the accuracy of AM's description (I dare to find anyone here who closely reads the auction descriptions and sincerely states that the description should not have been rewritten in some shape or form so as to better inform the bidders. Beyond Bob and Nick's opinions, is there really anything controversal or radical about that statement?). I don't own any 19th century baseball photos or Old Judge cards, I am not an employee of any auction house or grader or rich collector, I don't get paid by anyone to give my opinions on or examine photos. In fact I don't work for anyone, even part time, not even mowing the neighbor's yard. I do volunteer part time for a local art museum, but I haven't noticed any Old Judge baseball cards on he walls or in the back rooms. Check out my ebay auctions (i.d. = drcycleback) to see the type of stuff I sell and you will see that I don't have a sellers conflict of interest. I don't think Shalom Harlow puts me in coflict.<br /><br />Anyone who reads this board, knows that I have criticized about every auction house and grader under the sun (Remember the brewhaha with Rob Lifson over the DiMaggio photo?). Ask Doug Allen or Bill Mastro, and they said that I am not shy to voice my opinion when I feel a MastroNet photo is misdiscribed. Beleive me, Nick, that I have complained about photos in an American Memorabilia auction doesn't make AM special.<br /><br />I have sold items before to Nick, on and off eBay. Before this auction, Nick would have readily said that I was an honerable and honest seller. To his credit, I also found Nick to be honerable and friendly. I didn't know Nick worked for AM until he contacted me to ask for my opinion. He said he contacted me because he trusted my insight of photos, and said he recommended me to AM's President as an expert on baseball photographs.<br /><br /><br />In short, I have examined the proofs that were auctioned, I was contacted before the auction by Nick for an opinion and I offered my opinion. MastroNet rejected these same photos, and Leland's has also stated they beleive them fake. Beyond Bob and Nick, there is not a person on this board who doesn't beleive that, at least, the auction description should have been rewritten. I have no hidden agenda or financial motive, and, again, it was Nick who contacted me before the auction even started as he felt my opinion was worthwile and trustworthy.<br /><br />... P.s. Jay, the curling of the albumen prints is caused if the were never mounted in the first place (meaning albumen prints almost always have to have been affixed to a mount originally, and if a albumen is on a modern mount this means the albumen had to have been removed form the original mount at some time.). If they were mounted flat like on a N172, and pealed off many years later (inevitably with mount residue stuck to the back) that is a different scenario. <br /><br /> (

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>hankron</b><p>.