Quote:
Originally Posted by sporteq
Scott- I had sent you a message saying that, I didn't believe this was a original 1927 photograph. Looking at the characteristics of your scanned photo, it appeared to me it was a later restrike. I also told you, don't believe auction house titans that give out wrong info. I had seen this photo at Ha.com and knew right away it was not vintage original. In your message to me, you said, its 100% 1927 vintage original. Anyhow, I'm not going to go back and forth with you on this. Let the forum speak on this photo.
Prewar- I to had some restrike photos like this. I was able to get refunds from ha and legendary auctions.
Albert
|
I'm quite aware of the plethora of messages that you sent me - the ones that were readable in no way inspired me to bend to your demands. I'm glad to see that you are presenting your arguments to this forum in a very, very different manner and tone.
I'm also glad to hear that you were able to get refunds for all the reprint photos that you have been buying from Heritage and Legendary
. I'm also glad that the rest of us were able to avoid these mysterious photos that duped you, and that now you have become an expert in determining the age, thickness and feel of prints based on a scan. Those must be very handy skills.
I very much respect Rhys' opinion, and while I doubt that Sport Magazine or anyone else was creating prints from negatives and pulling the original 1927 slug from an older print and then putting it on the new one, it's also possible that Rhys knows something I don't about this photo - he handles tons of photos and also -
I definitely make mistakes.
And while it would admittedly be quite irksome to admit that someone as unpleasant as yourself is correct about this, and I am wrong, I will have no problem doing so if people on this forum who I respect agree with you.