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.

Corey- We can never be certain of the date of issue. There is a reasonable chance many pieces were made later than the date the photograph was taken.

Corey- I'm assuming if the same negative keeps getting used, the photograph will lose some clarity. That may not be correct, that is my assumption.

We've noted that the photo resolution on the Cincinnati Peck and Snyders with a red mount are not as strong as those on the black mounts, and have surmised that the red mounts were a later issue. I'm using the same principle with the Atlantics CdV.

Since there are many many more Red Stockings CdVs/trade cards that have survived, we can surmise they were printed in much greater quantity, thus likely causing degradation to the negative. Given the extraordinary rarity of the 1865 Atlantics CdV image, likely much less were printed leading to the question whether the quantity printed was enough to cause discernable degradation to the negative.

Does anybody know if the NBL mammoth plate is an albumen print or a salt print?

I have a hi-res scan from them, but I don't know the process.

Try contacting HoF archivists PatK.elly or JohnH.orne

David (Cycleback) could answer this question - I have sent him a link to this thread.

Regardless of technical issue with re-using negatives, I believe the image degradation on this photo was done intentionally (real or not real).

Why would the studio want to intentionally degrade the quality of the image?

If it was not intentional, then we're left with it being some sort of test piece [edited to add: or a photo of a photo]. Perhaps someone at the studio was practicing his vignette skills and this print was the result. Still playing around, he glued it to an existing mount. He was, of course, surprised that his measurements were incorrect when he cut the photo, so he gave up and didn't create any more. Googling 'Williamson Brooklyn cdv', I have been unable to find any examples where the image does not fit the mount, which goes along with the possibility that it was a test piece.

Since 'vignettes' were a Williamson specialty, it should not be too difficult to find an example somewhere...

...Hey, I found one! You can see how Williamson 'faded out' the photograph at the top, being careful to preserve the integrity (and definition) of the little girl's image:

http://www.brownspath.com/antique/im...08OCT29_10.JPG

Here's another (the Williamson markings are only on the reverse) Interestingly, despite all the 'white space' in the image, Williamson still created an albumen that fit the mount. This cdv was created by taking a photograph of a drawing. Certainly, with the Brooklyn Atlantics cdv, Williamson's studio could have taken a photograph of a photograph, which would account for loss of definition.

http://www.jcosmas.com/cdvimages/cdv-63.jpg

I wouldn't say that Williamson was well known for his Frame/crop work in regards to his CDVs.... Some are pretty sloppy.

Actually, those look pretty good, and he uses the entire available mount on both. That one on the left is a great example of his vignettes, and a very clear image.