Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Jay Miller</b><p>David--Could I get a little education on something. When an albumen print is made you have said that it needs to be affixed to a mount or it will curl. Does the photo have to dry before it is affixed to the mount? If the photo does have to dry what would happen if, after it was dry, it was placed between the pages of a book or in a heavy folder and left for days/weeks or some period of time. I assume that the photo would remain flat. The reason that I am asking this relates to how Old Judge cabinets were produced. I always thought that Goodwin & Co had a file of photos and when someone sent in for a cabinet of a specific player they slapped the photo on the mount and sent it out. There was no reason to make up cabinets of all the players because there was no assurance that someone would want a cabinet of Rowe-Denver or some other no name player. Why waste the mount if no one ordered the cabinet? Isn't it better to do a Dell like process and build the cabinets to order rather than holding a large inventory? I guess the question also relates to the Flynns but that is not my major concern. I'm more interested in the N173 issue.<br /><br />Much Thanks--Jay

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>hankron</b><p>Acting preemtively, I state that an albumen print is identified by examining the print itself. If mounted or unmounted, mounted to a TV Guide or your neighbor's cat, the print itself is identified by looking at the print with a microscope.<br /><br />***<br />Even the original 1800s photograph studios knew that the albumen prints were so thin and fragile that they had to be, sooner rather than later, mounted. Most albumen prints were mounted on cardboard (ala cabinet cards), sometimes in books (picture books) and, as baseball fans know, sometimes on scorecards. <br /><br />I don't know how Goodwin did it, what time frame existed from making of the print and attaching to mount (10 minutes, 1 hour, 14 days, more?). It is possible they mounted the photos right away. It is possible they had plain albumen prints stored in books and when the time came, they stuck them to the mounts. In other words, it was possible to store albumen prints in books for lenthy periods of time.<br /><br />So your scenario is plausible. And if a genuine unmounted Cap Anson N173 albumen slips the pages of the musty book you pull from the libarary shelf, it could be authenticated as genuine and stuck in auction.

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>hankron</b><p>I should point out that the chances of an unmounted Cap Anson N173 albumen print, or even a Four Base Hits King Kelly, falling from the pages of your dusty library book is about as good as being bit by a shark in Oklahoma ("So David admits in writing there's a chance! We've got him!"). Perhaps worse, not knowing what kind of aquariums Tulsa and Oklahoma City have. And, besides, it would remain public library property (the albumen print not the shark bite).

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>david</b><p>i always was under the impression that these types of albumen prints were made by first adhearing the albumen to the backing and then developing the photo. this seems to like a much better idea then developing the albumen and then adhearing the image to the cardboard. the first scenario would allow for the mass production of individual sheets, or cabinets, that could then be used as needed as opposed to whole sheets of albumen which would have to be used all at once

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Jay Miller</b><p>David--Did you see the lot on ebay of the cabinet size Kelly photo that some guy found in his late grandfathers bible.....just kidding. Thanks for answering my question.

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>hankron</b><p>The norm was that the albumen print was made first, then mounted. To make the image, the photo paper was submerged in liquid chemicals, and they had to dry out the photo before putting it on the mount. As you can imaging, havine the photo paper and cardboard mount (or book pages or scorecard!) dunked in a chemical bath wouldn't work so hot.<br /><br />As some know, the N172s started as one big uncut sheet of many card images-- actually one big composite photo. Goodwin then cut this big photo down into individual cards, not unlike Topps' printers cutting down a 1980 Topps sheet .... Cartes de visitie (mini cabinet cards) also started as one big photo made of smaller individual photos. The big photo was cut down and the individual images pasted to the mounts ... On occasion, you will see CDVs in uncut form.<br />

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Julie</b><p>Yearbooks, and will remain there until someone offers me $25 for it. Is it over yet?<br /><br />LELAND'S said they weren't period? I'd rethink everything David. Leland's thinks Joe Jackson played for Chicago in 1914, and that George Brace took his photograph at that time.

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Tim Mayer</b><p>I know Bob is busy, and David collects other things now..I am glad they still stop in to lend a hand...I'd like to say thanks..and it's ok to disagree...I have my own opinion on these based on everyones input...its good to have all the ideas, thoughts and talent...

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>MW</b><p>With 168 posts, this is now the longest thread on the Network54 VBC forum.

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Gary B.</b><p>a lone warrior took on the rebel forces signle-handed.<br /><br />In a time of superiority,<br />a group of men dared to challenge the authority of the King.<br /><br />In a land ravaged by drought,<br />one woman brought a nation back from the brink of starvation.<br /><br />And in a time of brevity,<br />one thread beat all the odds by refusing to die.<br /><br />This is their story - a warrior, a group of men, a woman and a thread...<br /><br />OLD JUDGE 2 - BURDEN OF PROOF - Rated R

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Julie</b><p>i just got a new catalogue from am, and...

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Eliot</b><p>Unbelievable!!!! Longest thread and MW wasn't involved.

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>Julie</b><p>Adversarial, factual, or counting.

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>john/z28jd</b><p>Since this thread will be talked about in collectors circles for years I figured i'd better get in on it before its too late.<br /><br />The fact that i inspected the items in question a few weeks ago very closely also means i shouldve responded much sooner but i didnt<br /><br />I have nothing pertinent to add tho,so i wont. I do believe that is the first time i typed or wrote the word pertinent AND i actually spelled it right on the first try.I also realized i couldve used the word relevant but i like living on the edge<br><br>this is my signature

Old Judge Proofs?
 

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

Old Judge Proofs?
 

Posted By: <b>john/z28jd</b><p>I have to remember sometime to change my signature too.<br /><br />I dont know if i actually approve of my message or not,who am i to decide what i like.

I was doing a little research into my photo of Abner Boyce and ran across this old thread.

First let me say that I was not one of the bidders in the AM Auction.

Second I've had this piece for years and cannot recall when or where or under what circumstances I acquired it.

Third I can say with certainty that I didn't pay much for it.

Just posting to add to the discussion.

Three scans:
1. The Boyce photo measures 7.5 by 5.5 inches
2. The 1888 Goodwin inscription on the photo. Appears lower left to his right knee
3. Pose 33-3 f the actual Boyce Old Judge card