Response
 

Hi, this is whats crazy about this whole thing. Are we talking about this being a fake or are we now talking about this thing being stolen? As far as I am concerned the only person claiming this is stolen has zero credibilty and is in fact linked to fraud, deception and forgery himself.....and you all know who I am referring to. When you google a persons name and everything you find is negative, but that same individual spends his time crusading for a hobby that he himself has helped to taint, I give zero credibility to anything he says. We at SRA have never had anything stolen in our hands to the best of our knowledge. We keep meticulous records on every item we buy or take on consignment and we are regularly inspected by Local Law Enforcement and the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms(we have an FFL). We are also under the jurisdiction and regulations of the Maine Auctioneers Board and we have an unblemished record. I am not sure what the ramifications would be if an item was sold at auction and later determined to be stolen. That may be a better question for law enforcement.
One thing I will tell you all and then I am going to stop posting on this site is, this card is not stolen and this card is not a fake. From here you all will have to determine the fate and legacy of this card. We have done out job authenticating it and promoting it. The question now is do you want to own a rare piece of baseball history, or do you not?

Troy

Well like I said in my post, it was in general referring to any high priced piece of memorable sold in any auction.

Does anyone here have a scan of some high quality 19th century albumen forgeries? I've been blissfully ignorant about this stuff and have always assumed stuff that looked real was real.

I guess if this CDV could be fake there could be plenty of fake OJs out there. At the very least, I doubt this CDV was a first attempt, if it is indeed fake.

Troy--will is auction have a reserve?

Response
 

Jay This is a no reserve absolute auction.

I commend you Troy, for coming on the board and trying to do what you thought was right to put everyone's fears to rest. I know you must be a bit frustrated at this point, as you did have SGC give it their stamp of approval, and then sent it to Messier to clear up the laser/inkjet speculation. I am no one to give any opinion on the item, as I only know what I've learned in this thread, but I myself was under the impression that the remainding issue was with the laser/inkjet thing, and that you did your best to clear this up by sending it to Messier for his opinion, upon the advice of board members.

Please understand that (in my opinion) no one is questioning your ethics, and any speculation about the item is normal amongst collectors. I am the same way about the type of cards I collect. The collectors who collect these types of items spend large amounts of money on them, and just want to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt. Please don't take any of it personal.

I hope interested parties take you up on your offer to come down and check it out for themselves. This may quell their speculation, and give them the confidence to bid on what appears to be a beautiful CDV. Good luck in your auction !!

Sincerely, Clayton

Surely your 100k bid will cover the reserve Jay. :)

Yes, there is. We've mentioned it on this board, and Mr. Messier mentioned it at the end of his report. The fact that your consignor doesn't want to incur the additional tests, doesn't invalidate their usefulness.

Asking for the consignor or auction house to perform destructive investigation as part of the forensic process seems a bit much, IMO.

I do forensic investigations myself (not of anything related to this field), but it is very common to say that an investigation is limited to non-destructive means or to state that additional information could be gleaned from a destructive investigation. Analysis of the paper fibers and binder sounds like a destructive process to me.

It's simply not worth it IMO to tear apart something that is potentially so valuable only to say, well, how about that... it was still consistent with 19th c. paper and binder. Once again, that still would not be a conclusive "yes, it's authentic", but rather ruling out yet another possible avenue to prove the negative, as Corey pointed out.

Personally, I'm impressed with the efforts that were undertaken.

Agree with Brian, I think much has been done above and beyond many other auction houses. If I was the auction house I would say bid accordingly or pass at this point.

........

Seems like the definition of due diligence on Troys part. Best of luck on the auction. I've not been in Jays house but I bet he could make space on the mantel for that photo?.....

...........

I've resisted posting thus far, but will merely add that print quality (resolution) can be impacted by several factors including whether the negative is accidently nudged while creating the print or even the weather & time of day. If you take a dozen 1889 Charlie Bennett Old Judge cards, some will be more clear than others. Actually, many of them will have a pink tint which in itself tends to result in a lower quality image, but if you compare those that don't have a tint, you might find one that has a double image from the negative being bumped while creating the print. You might also find several that were created on overcast days or late in the afternoon that will not be as crisp as those that were created on a clear day at high noon (shorter exposure time, sun traverses negligible distance start to finish).

nm

the card has been "outed" on Yahoo
 

the card has now been "outed" on Yahoo front page:

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-bi...4590--mlb.html

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.

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"? :eek: 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. :mad:

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

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.

Haha. I was just saying that he dug a bit deeper than the non-skeptics here on Net54....who didn't actually dig at all.

+1 to all of the above.

I actually would have stopped responding on this thread a while back, but a few of the comments kind of drug me back in against my will. But that's what these discussions are for - you see something that interests you and you comment. This is very interesting stuff. Hopefully everyone's learned a bit more about albumens, but not enough to outbid me on the far cheaper ones that I collect.

I think it is the relatively recent exposure of a number of very high dollar elaborate forgeries exposed by materials testing that has lead to the healthy skepticism that appears on this thread.

You Keep Calling Me out
 

As I said yesterday I am going to try to stay out of the discussions on this forum from now on. Unfortunately I do not like being called out by Scott and Others. You can say what you want about this card and take your shots at the process or whatever. But do not take shots at the credibility of me or this auction hall. We have a unblemished reputation and I will not remain silent when I see Scott trying to smear our reputation over the bean eaters photo. For the record we are not experts on every item that walks through the door. Alot of the provenance and history of items come directly from the consignor. At times and on items that are not big hit items we rely on the statements of the consignor to formulate our descriptions for individual items. The bean eaters photo was explained to me that it was "a print taken off the original negative". We listed it as such, and withing days of the auction realized(based on the interest) that something was wrong. It was worded in a way in our description that lead people to believe that it was an original photo. We looked at it under high power magnification and determined that this was a very modern re-production of the original photo. We decided to pull the item from the sale and cancel all bids as we do not want our customers buying an item that we do not believe in. Pardon us Scott for making a mistake and correcting it before anyone was affected financially. I guess that gives us a bad reputation. Also Scott you are becoming very paranoid as everything to you is a forgery. I am shocked to learn that you feel that because a 19th century photo was re-produced for a decorative piece, there must be bad intentions behind it.

Lastly I have an appointment and have for days with SGC to re-holder the card. Scott at SGC has agreed to do it and it will be done long before the sale. We haven't been able to send it out yet because the press has been here at our hall looking to view the card and shoot their stories. He is going to verify that the card is the same one he authenticated in the first place and re-holder it for safety.

I feel that you all would love for me to stop posting on this site, and I would rather not post on here until after the sale, but I refuse to listen to a giant smear campaign of my reputation and the auction halls reputation without responding accordingly.

Troy

Troy, if interested parties may be coming in to see the photo, it might be in everyone's best interest to not re-holder it yet, so that they can get the best possible view of the raw item. Seeing documentation is great and all, but getting a clear in-person view may be required by some potential buyers as well. The holder can somewhat obstruct that.. I think leaving it raw for now, could help re-assure someone of their potential purchase, and could help lead to higher bids. Re-holdering can always be arranged at a later date, before final delivery of the item, if the buyer chooses..

No conspiracy theory, or anything. Just an honest opinion..

Thanks for the advice
 

That's great advice and I thank you, however there are people on here that do not allow for a common sense approach and feel that every move we make is a way of decieving potential buyers of this card. To leave it out of the holder or in its current re-glued state is going to force a select number of people to continue to speculate that we are doing something ridiculous like a bait and switch or forgery. I would feel better if I could put that particular fire out long before the auction occurs.

Troy

You are creating a straw man. We asked valid questions and presented facts.

Any smearing of your reputation is being done by you, not me. If you are going to sell multi-thousand dollar cabinet photos, you better not rely on your consignors to write your descriptions. And you might want to determine the authenticity of items a bit sooner than the day before the auction.

When I called and told you that it was a forgery, I also responded to you that it was not taken from an original negative, and I explained to you how I knew this: an original negative would have to exist, which was highly unlikely, plus I matched your scan up with a scan on the internet and found a piece of residue on the 'real' photo, meaning that yours was copied from that image (not from a negative). This all occurred on December 31 - the day before the auction.

High-power magnification was not needed - I have bad eyes and was able to do it simply by looking at my computer screen. This should have been done before the item ever was put up for auction by you.

You are pardoned for making this mistake. No, not all are forgeries, but the Bean Eaters cabinet is. Now you are back-peddling and calling it a "decorative piece" and telling us that you knew this all along? What kind of auction house would auction off real 19th century mounted photos, alongside a fake that they knew was a fake? Answer: No one. And either did you.

There is no "giant smear campaign" of your reputation, and playing the victim is a waste of everyone's time.

I will say this - my opinion of you has definitely changed. You were happy discussing these pieces with me until I started asking questions. This is a hobby where questions get asked, especially when we are talking about very expensive and rare pieces. If that bothers you, then you should stick to that other stuff you normally auction.

Troy, this is a ridiculous assertion. One thing we ALL have stated is that we are CERTAIN that you are NOT trying to deceive anyone.

There is absolutely no doubt here that you are honest. I can also assure you that no one thinks that your re-gluing the SGC holder would be akin to a 'bait and switch' - it would simply be indicative of ignorance regarding our hobby and slabbing.

Edited to add: Regarding the Bean Eaters cabinet, I felt that it was simply a case of your putting up something for auction that you did not know was a forgery. Yes, your practices are questioned, but not your honesty. There is a huge difference.

Response
 

Scott your are completely delusional and I have no way (or need) to respond to you further. You love to stir up hornets nests and love the controversy. I am not going to get into a battle with you because your have no relevance in this matter. You are not going to be a bidder on this and would love to see this whole thing turn into a bad deal for the auction house and the consignor. In one breath you call me both honest and dishonest. Which is it scott? I have spoken with you numerous times on the phone and you seem like a decent guy, however I am not sure which one of your personalities I was speaking to at the time. This is counter productive as most of the negative comments have been in this forum.

To all prospective bidders who have an interest in this card, talk to me personally. I have supplied my personal cell phone number for you all and I encourage you to take advantage of it. I do not want unsure bidders. I want bidders who know that this is amazing opportunity to buy a piece of history. I feel that through dealing directly with me and ignoring these ridiculous comments, I can get your questions answered and your confidence level where it needs to be to purchase an item such as this.

Troy

"...and would love to see this whole thing turn into a bad deal for the auction house and the consignor." Where do you come up with this stuff?

You need to hope that your present consignors (and prospective future ones) aren't reading your comments here. The best thing that could happen for you is that you sprain your index finger.

Troy--if someone purchases the CdV and goes through the additional testing and the result is that it is not period, does that person have the right to get a full refund?

Thanks---Jay

I appreciate an auction house willing to come on here and thoroughly discuss an item they will be listing. I wish more would be willing to do so, although the way this thread has gone recently, I can't blame them for not wanting to.

I don't read Scott's posts as accusing anyone of dishonesty. I read him as simply making the point that the expert identified additional tests that could be done to provide a more definitive opinion on authenticity, that those tests have not been done and will not be done before the auction, and that therefore some question by definition remains.

I agree with Peter. After spending a considerable amount of time responding to what Scott did not say, hopefully Troy will spend just a bit of time responding to what Jay (oldjudge) did say.

+1. Jay's question needs a response.

There is nothing inappropriate about prospective bidders in a respectful manner asking an auction house penetrating questions about an item for which it is soliciting six-figure bids, especially when legitimate red flags have been raised and especially in a hobby riddled with high price forgeries. Saco River Auctions to its credit took the item to Paul Messier for examination. Clearly what the hobby was waiting to hear from Mr. Messier was his opinion whether the item was real, not some meaningless statement that the item is consistent with 19th century albumen photos. I can tomorrow create a CdV of the 1865 Atlantics, present it to Mr. Messier, and get an identical statement from him. Mr. Messier all but invites that additional testing be done. The consigner declines, not wanting to risk damage to the CdV. Fine, that is his decision to make, though if he is that certain the item is real, given the thinness of the market at that price level and the significant impact the addition of just one well-heeled bidder can make to the realized price, I'm not certain he is making the correct decision. I can also understand the auction house's reluctance to allow prospective bidders to inundate Mr. Messier with calls, though I still don't see why a one-time call-in period moderated by Troy, when he can filter calls from people he does not feel are legitimate bidders, is not a workable idea. So then I respectfully ask the following of Saco River Auctions. Could you please ask Mr. Messier to answer the following question, and relay his answer to the Board: "In your opinion was the Atlantics CdV printed in the 19th century?" When answering he is to choose one of the following answers: A. EXTREMELY LIKELY, B. LIKELY, C. POSSIBLY, D. UNLIKELY, E. EXTREMELY UNLIKELY.

I have little doubt Mr. Messier, having had the item in hand, has an opinion as to whether it is real and I believe prospective bidders have a right to know what that opinion is. On a personal level I would love it if he opined it is real, but I need to hear that from him.

The question I would ask is if the auction house would, at the instruction of the winning bidder, send the CdV to Mr. Messier for the additional testing before payment is tendered? I think it would be a smart business decision to make, as it might induce people to bid who otherwise would be reluctant due to concerns about the authenticity of the item and the risk that the refund might not be readily forthcoming.

Response to jay and Corey
 

Hello guys I was a little delayed on this because I was away from the pc for a while. First to jay. I will be calling you with follow up info regarding the official policy on this card. For all of you i am going to post sra's policy on this sale as well as any guarantees that my experts are willing to make. We will be crafting a joint policy on this matter which will clearly define the terms of the sale prior to the bidding beginning on this item.
To Corey. I will be contacting mr. Messier on Monday and I will pose that question to him and get you all an appropriate answer. I will also try to formulate a plan for bidders who are signed up for this sale to be authorized to speak with him if he is willing and has the time.
Troy

Thank you Troy. I very much appreciate your responsiveness to my post.

Thanks Troy. Mine was a simple question and I would hope that when you post you cold post a simple answer to it. There is no need to call.

nm

Do we really think REA/Legendary/etc... would do a destructive analysis if they were selling it? Would they be making dozens of posts jumping through hoops for anyone asking to do so on a public message board? Of course not.

I think I'd be saying if you aren't comfortable, please don't bid at this point if I was the AH.

The AH's responsibility is to get the highest bid for its consignor. If it sees there are significant questions from potential bidders in what is likely a very thinly traded market, it certainly should address them, as Saco River appears to be doing.

You guys act like they have to cut the card in two to do tests on it. It's already beat up around the edges, so I'm sure a fiber can be taken without hurting it.

Troy-Answering Jay with a simple yes or no on this thread would go a long way to resolving this. If you are certain the CdV is genuine, the answer is easy.

Response
 

It is not easy as yes or no. I am not the owner of the company I simply run the show. This is not my decision to make and I need to get the final word from the ownership. When I am able to meet with the ownership after the weekend I will get you all the answer to jays question.
Troy

Fair enough, Troy. I hope you're getting paid overtime on this project.

Brooklyn CDV
 

Troy you get one of the finest pieces the hobby has seen in years and yet you are going through all of this----You are a good man and I do feel for you. I think you are doing a wonderful job with this CDV. Needless to say, there will be intense bidding on this card and everyone will do well. I will see you at the auction. Good Luck, Don

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.

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)

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.

LOL, Don the consignor couldn't have said it better himself. Just interested, even if it is period, why do you think it is the best card to hit the hobby in years? You can probably count the people on one hand who collect this type of stuff. Rarity doesn't make a great card; it is rarity and demand.

Brooklyn CDV
 

Jay you answered my earlier message---it is rarity and demand---The Brooklyn piece is the 2nd to be found---it is rare and one of the first cards made. I would say there will be a few bidders from this forum alone that will want this card. By the time the auction comes around and everyone is satisfied as to this being authentic---it will go for big money---I also believe some of the big boys will step in with their (big pockets)---I feel the CDV will go for big money and if the buyer wants to resell in a year or so, he then can make a tidy profit. It will be a interesting auction to watch. Don

No way this is a 100K card, even under the best of circumstances. Before this CdV became big news, how many people had even heard of the Brooklyn Atlantics?

I believe the highest price ever paid for a Baseball CdV was in $40-50K range and the team was the circa 1864 Brooklyn Resolutes. Henry Chadwick is in the image to boot. The image is much sharper than the Atlantics CdV. I believe there are only two copies of this CdV, also. This price was attained in 2007 and I don't believe the baseball CdV market has changed that much in the past 5 or 6 years.

Scott F,
 

You are some confident poster, not many would stand up and post what they feel for fear of backlash. I salute you sir . A true protector of the hobby

Nutshell
 

I think it boils down to this ......if they are so certain its real then the answer should be a resounding YES we Will refund price if it's found to be fake...

And answer of NO REFUNDS may keep the big bidders away.

Barry is exactly right. This reminds me of the way that Memory Lane hyped the Cincinnati Peck & Snyder that was found several years ago by some elderly woman. Some rube actually stepped up and paid a big price for it but I'm sure that bidder sorely regrets that move today.
Also, we are far from being under the best of circumstances. The glue residue to the right of the photo still makes it look to me like the photo is not original to the mount. Is it a later made albumen image? Is it a period photo from another source that was attached to this mount at a later point? I don't know these answers and my guess is that Troy doesn't know either. That is why the lot needs a guarantee that if any part of it is not period it can be returned for a full refund. Otherwise, a bidder might as well go to a casino and put his money on red. At least at the casino you get free drinks.

One other question, if this is an 1865 CdV why is there no revenue stamp on the back of the mount? To finance the Civil War, between August, 1864 and August, 1866 photographs were taxed, requiring a revenue stamp to be attached and cancelled on the back of the photograph.

Could you find a Williamson mount and glue a photo to it?

Williamson was a very popular photographer at the time. The answer is yes.

That was addressed in post #213, and possibly earlier posts.

I was thinking about testing fibers- and I'm not a forensic examiner or anything- but I think this can be done without damaging the piece. I don't know what it costs, but when I look at my cards under a loupe, the corners have little strands that you can't really see to well with the naked eye. In fact, some of the fibers strands break off on their own, and will be loose in the TPG holder.

This piece is older than a T206, so I thought maybe it would be similar? You may be able to test the fibers without damaging the piece if this is the case. Unless you need a whole bunch, that is. If you only need a couple of small fibers, I don't see it doing much damage.

Sincerely, Clayton

Sorry missed that post.

Troy would you be willing to let a psychic see the item? :)

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Q4Lad1YhnzQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

If the psychic knows somthing about the binders used in 1865 that would be welcome.

John-I assume from your comment that you are not a potential bidder

Jay, very neat item just no not my cup of tea no bidding from me. Besides its going to be like 100k right? :D

My comment wasn't a comment on the item just more making light of another test we can add to the mix. :p

I do think many good questions have been raised. If I was a serious bidder on this I would have my discussion with Troy or his bosses offline as to what I would need to feel comfortable at this point. If he gave me any more reasons to doubt the item beyond what was discussed here I would pass and not bid. I may share that here as we'll.

I can only assume from you and Corey's doubts/concerns you guys aren't keen or going to be bidding on this item right?

Cheers,

John

P.S. The psychic wont know anything either. LOL

John-I have signed up to bid but if my concerns are not satisfied I may cancel that. If I knew enough to examine the card and make an intelligent deduction about whether it is period I would. However, beyond being able to tell if the photo is albumen I bring nothing to the table. However, I and, from what I hear on the board, others have some genuine concerns about the card which have not yet been addressed. For virtually every card in the hobby, what we are asking is way over the top. However, for this card I don't believe it is. This card is merely a photo glued to a Williamson mount. Williamson mounts from is period are common. So really, to make this card all you need is an albumen photo of the team. How can you get one of those? Well you can have a modern photographer create a negative from the LOC image, fade out part of the background, print the photo using the albumen process and then attach this photo to the mount and presto, you have a CdV like this. The photo would be albumen so it would pass muster with Paul Messier, and SGC would have no reason to suspect anything(is SGC really expert on photographic images from this period?).
There is a second way to create the card. Suppose someone "comes upon" some rare period team photographs glued to scorebook or scrapbook pages. We see things like this in the NYPL and the HOF, photographs off their mounts just attached side by side to pages. Then, all one would have to do is soak the photo off the page and attach it to the aforementioned easily found Williamson mount and voila you have a card like this. Since in either case the photograph would have been attached in recent times there is a chance that a binder was used that was not available in 1865. That is why I would like to see the binder analyzed. This would not hurt the card if done by a professional.
We have all seen that forgers can do some amazing things. There are few people in the world more knowledgeable about memorabilia items from this period than Corey. There are also few people more thorough than Corey. Despite this, for a long time he was fooled by trophy balls from this era. I maintain that it was more difficult to create the phony trophy balls than it would be to create a phony CdV. I'm in no way saying this CdV is not everything it is claimed to be. I have no way of knowing and I am just trying to eliminate as much uncertainty as possible.

Jay,

Makes sense. I understand what you are saying and your concerns.

Cheers,

John

Then you are not "irrelevant".

Jay- I have a couple CdVs from the 1864-66 period without revenue stamps on the reverse. Whether the stamps were removed or not, I can't tell. This Atlantics CdV may have been made after 1866, also. The fact that the image is of the 1865 team doesn't necessarily date the CdV to 1865. The presentation pieces using this image were obviously made 1870 or later as referenced on the mount. We all know that dating these early pieces is an inexact science.

If Williamson reissued the image after 1866, it would help explain the photo's poor resolution. A reissue is not impossible, as the Atlantics were very popular in their day. The photo quality clearly isn't as rich or clear as one would hope, so our speculation and concerns center around that issue.

And a fair market value for this item is 30-40K. Anything above that is the hype factor.

If the reissue was made from the original negative, why would the resolution be poorer?

The presentation pieces to my knowledge were not made from this image. They were made from the same sitting, but a different shoot. The one in the NBL was obviously made post-1865, as you point out. The other, the salt print, was almost certainly made in 1865.