Honest seller or not?
 

So a seller on Ebay sold the wire photo below as the "original" used for the 1952 Topps Willie Jones card. And even provided the picture of the Topps card.

Upon first glance ... yes this does look like the original photo. But look closer. In the card, the top of his bat is showing. In the picture, it's not.

So this clearly isn't the original photo. Close, but no cigar.

I contacted the seller to inform him of this (because it could have been an honest mistake) and never got a response.

So what does everyone think?

Was the seller honest in selling this as the original wire photo given how close the image is?

Does it change your opinion since he included the Topps card too and therefore the buyer had the opportunity to see for himself that this was not the exact wire photo?

Oh, and here is the completed listing (NOTE: I did not bid on or win this - as I do not view this as the real wire photo used for the 1952 Topps card).


http://www.ebay.com/itm/121060080517...84.m1423.l2649

It is clear that when Topps did their "coloring" on this card they removed some portions of the original image (no pinstirpes on card as in the photo, bat label info removed on card), so it is very possible that Topps may have also taken the artistic liberty to add the top part of the bat, and the light stand as neither were completely shown in the "original" photo.

It is probably even simpler than that. It could just be a cropping difference in the photos. When you print a photo from the original negative, you don't have to use the entire photo. You can blow up the photo, crop it different side to side, or top to bottom. In my opinion it appears to be the same photo.

Not sure I can fully agree with that theory.

I have seen about 20 original wire photos for the 1952 set, and in every case the Topps card was cropped down from the original picture.

Also, how would they do this? Topps used the photo negatives to transfer onto glass printing plates. So it's not like they could have drawn up an artistic version add added a top to the card.

Also why would they do that? There are many other cards in the set that don't show the full tower or full bat. Why would they go to the trouble to do that on this card.

They did remove the detail of the photo (the pinstripes, even his teeth disappear), but it is obviously the same photo. if you look carefully in the background you can even see the baseline by his elbow.

My theory (and I have no idea if this is true or not!) is that this wire photo was cropped from the original negative, and Topps used the original negative.

But as I mentioned above, every other photo is a larger picture than the Topps card, and thus I suspect this photo was cropped to a greater degree than Topps did with the original negative.

Cheers,
Patrick

Looks to me like the differences are related to topps touch-ups in creating the card. That bat looks really short to be real. I think they rounded off the end and colored out the label on the bat so it wouldn't look weird.

Compare the pupils/eyes on the card with the photo, then the mouths... methinks they differ.

Agreed
 

I can see a tooth and a slightly open mouth in the picture, but not in the card.

I noticed that too originally, but I think that the eyes and mouth are just detail that got lost in the colorization process. (like the pin stripes, some of the creases on the jersey, etc.). But the photo is too exact for it to be a completely different photo that is just close. Even if you said hold that pose to the player ... you'd still expect to see more difference between two photos take a minute apart (assuming the photographer moved back).

My theory still is ... this is a smaller cropped verision of the original negative (and thus the "true" "original" wire photo would be one that reflects the full picture), and that Topps used a larger cropped version when creating the card.

Still would love to hear opinions on my original question though.

Was the seller honest in saying this is the original wire photo?

And does the fact that he showed the original card mitigate any potential dishonesty?

And if the seller was notifiedm and did not inform the buyer ... does that "unmitigate" showing the Topps card?

Cheers,
Patrick

I see no transgression here.

It does seem that the negative that was used to create the photo that Topps used was the same negative that was used to create this wire photo. I guess that's all anyone who is buying this (or something similar) would think anyways, right? Same with the case where a wire photo that shows more detail than the card, I would think. They are not claiming that this particular wire photo was in Topps possession and was used when they made the card, just that the same instant in time shot (negative) was the ultimate source for both the card and this photo, perhaps. At any rate, this is not like a unique Topps production photo or negative, just a nice companion piece to the card. Right? :)

the seller didn't say this is the original wire photo,, here is his exact quote:

Topps used this image for baseball card #47 in their 1952 standard issue.

Thanks all!

Guess I should have bid. Oh well.

Cheers,
Patrick

What is an "original wire photo" for that matter? A full-size negative photofax? Or, could a developed photo cropped from that image be legitimately described as such? Depends on who is describing it, and for what purpose, I guess.

Though I think this is the original wire photo, the letter "P" in his hat has been straightened at bottom. This leads me to believe that Topps took certain liberties in enhancing this photo.

Exactly.

I took both the card, and the photo, and looked at them in Photoshop. I superimposed the card on top of the photo, adjusted the size and perspective until they were identical. Amazing how close you can get them if you know what you are doing.

The photo was used for the card, and Topps adjusted the jersey and the top of the bat. Everything else is a spot on match.