Quote:
Originally Posted by Forever Young
Correct... the only way that the approach exists is because of Henry's countless hours of research which is always growing(hence the need for a second volume). If fact, there are many so called experts that have adopted his work/classifications who rely on it too(and don't admit it).
The stamps are one variable like you said. Others include: Paper fibers, indicators under a black light, image under a loop, inks, knowledge of other type 1s/data base/exemplars(to name a few).
There are also ways to tell if there have been fake stamps applied(and believe me, there are more forgeries every day). You can imagine that it would be relatively easy for someone to make a rubber stamp to look like one in Henry's book, put the photo on ebay and prey on people who only look for that. It would be PARTICULARLY easy to put a fake date stamp.
I also see a lot of TYPE 1 classifications being thrown around by sellers on ebay as well as other "major" authenticating companies that are just flat out wrong(NOT EVEN CLOSE).
As in...labeling a 1930s image that was produced on a dupe negative in the 70s a TYPE 1. I have one of those "expert's" slabs in hand.
I would say Henry's is good if he says it is. I would take his word for it over a picture of a photo with a date stamp any day of the week.
|
Ben is absolutely correct. This is a constantly evolving segment of the hobby with new information being added virtually every week. Most of this new information regarding stamping varieties, agency variables, individual photographer vagaries and time windows, etc. comes largely from three sources.
First, is the enormous number of vintage photographs now reaching the market from the Roger's acquisitions. Second, the increased interest from collectors regarding this subject matter and their attempts to educate themselves about it. Third, the remarkable body of scientific scrutiny regarding all aspects of photo identification and classification over the last 20 years or so by Henry and his colleagues as well as his auctions which afford collectors the opportunity to see all of the important information that appears on the backs of photos.
As little as 15 years ago virtually every vintage photo was simply described (usually incorrectly) as a "wire" or "press" photo. We have come a long way and, in my opinion, have Henry (and some others) to thank for this new interest and appreciation of vintage sports photography.
Craig