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>.

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