Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper
Same photo. The bottom one has simply been pressed flat through a process or carefully placed under a scanner lid that pressed it down. The top one has some turned edges, which catch the glare and give an appearance of being more rounded than they are. You can see some matching markers around the edges of both photos in the top and bottom right corners. not sure if the white flecks on the left edge are in the photo or damage, but they match as well. There also appears to be an identical thumb mark to the upper left of Walcott's head. If that is not enough, the crease in the area of Walcott's left knee is identical.
Hard to believe an eBay seller would describe something as "NM" that wasn't. But apparently, the whole theory is based on that presumption. 
This is what happens when someone is so eager to trumpet the next "screw-up." They rush, don't take their time and mistakes are made.  |
It's NOT the same photo in my opinion, the one photo has rounded edges, duh! Look at that top right corner, and put it in a photo viewer program and blow it up. does it look sharp, no it does not.
the ebay seller says that their are NO creases on the photo, the corners are sharp. the seller was asked if there were creases because the prospective buyer wanted to know exactly the condition the photo was in.
you can see crazing and creases on the american memorabilia version. is that not clear?
the reason the picture looks identical to you is that one or both are most likely copies! I didn't say I knew which one or which company is at fault or how they did it. I don't have the photos, but to say the american memorabilia copy has sharp corners is way out there.
i see the LOA from jsa lists it as a knockout of ezzard charles, duh! it's walcott, they can't even get the players right, what the odds the authentication is any better??????
again, you cant tell me with a straight face that the top right corner on the american memorabilia photo is a square corner. its ragged and rounded.
the reason there are identical flecks on both photos along the edges is that one was probably scanned and printed COMPLETELY on another photo, including the white border, so all flecks transferred is my guess.
I don't say I know which company is guilty, but these are not the same photo so is it one or both that is wrong?
american memorabilia lists it in ex cond. ebay seller in nm, and ebay seller was contacted personally and he said NO creases whatsoever, perfect condtion, no restoration and no built up corners, perfect shape and never been tampered with.
there are obvious creases in the american memorabilia photo so your wild theory is disproved.
A photo doesn't show up in creased condition at one place and perfect in another. do you think the ebay seller would say NO creases, sell it for 2200 dollars only to get it back for a refund because he misrepresented it?
of course the crease in walcott leg is the same, when photos get copied, creases copy too. if the ebay seller said no crease, then the crease in walcott's leg is IN the photo, which means it was probably copied from another creased photo at one point.