EDITED
I don't normally like to edit one of my own controversial responses, but in this case I think it is warranted, so here's a re-write:
I just spoke to a very trusted hobby buddy, and also have exchanged emails with another trusted hobby buddy. Based on those conversations and Lance's post, this must be a 1950's print made from the original negative. I don't know all the research that was done that negates the possibility of it being an original print that was acquired along with negatives, but I'm told it's not possible.
My apologies to Henry or anyone else who my responses might have irritated or offended. It bugs me somewhat that I could be fooled by a print that's 23 years newer than I thought, but I'll chalk it up as an education experience.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+
Last edited by Runscott; 05-21-2014 at 06:21 PM.
|