Posted By:
petecldNick,
I didn't mean to imply it is a modern print, I don't know. It may very well be a 19th century print but certainly not a proof.
The seller starts his description off with "Here is a nice proof photo by Goodwin Co. NY". Not a glaring statement but the "it's a proof" implication is certainly there. When you make a paper photo(print) from an original negative (or any negative) you are not making proofs, you are making prints. For production purposes a paper photo or print is made and is used "as a proof" or for proofing purposes for checking quality or a clients approval but these are always marked as such in some way because signatures are required. If that same negative is used to produce 10, 100 or 1000 photos(prints) you don't have 10, 100 or 1000 proofs, you have prints. Even paper prints made from the original glass plate negatives aren't proofs, they are 1st generation prints.
Granted we are looking at a low res image but notice the Goodwin 1888, etc. lettering in the one pcture. Notice how some letters are starting to disappear? That's due to poor developing or mayeb a bad negative but I doubt it. This print looks over exposed to me. Over exposed images are rejected and trashed. This one was kept and saved obviously.
If Rob Lifson did hypothesize that the item like this may have come from a failed joint venture between A&G and Goodwin to produce cards together he was probably just trying hyping a marginal peice to generate bids. That label clearly has Allen & Ginter in large copy and no mention of Goodwin at all. That makes no sense at all for a cross promotion. Believe me, I've done cross promotional material and corporations are fanatics about getting equal billing. Also, why would two companies who sell the same product advertise with/for each other? Even if it was a case of both companies being owned by the same larger corporation sales aren't "one for all & all for one".
Like you said Nick. Not really worth the price.