Posted By:
hankronFirst, I'm not trying to criticize anyone personally. From what I have seen the parties who disagree with me are making good faith efforts and offering honest opinions. Also, I don't run a boarding house and have not seen each and every of these proofs in person. I haven't even seen images of these SCD proofs. So if auction houses and collectors wish to say my opinions don't apply to their collection because theirs are real, so be it.
In a month or so, I will make an article or list or whatever giving my reasons for my opinion. I have things in the queue that come first (non-baseball). The argument reasons range from techincal to logical to general observations. There are a wide variety of these proofs: tintypes, cabinets, displaye pieces, plain paper photo, perhaps others for all I know. For two of the just mentioned, there are technical imposibilities. Meaning, it would have been impossible for a 19th century photo studio to create a physical quality that appears on two of these proofs types.
A while ago (less than a year), I was asked to examine in person some of these proofs for a big auction house. I examined the three under my trusty microscope (and could tell right now you how the photographic prints were physically made), and recommended that the auctionhouse not include them. The well known person at the auction house was of the same opinion before he sent them, but had promised the consignor he would get a second opinion. The proofs were not included in the auction ... This is why I was suprised to see the issue come up now.
Duly note that auction houses, or normal collectors for that matter, don't always follow with my authenticity-related advice, whether solicited or unsolicited. Some point blank disagree with it. I offer my authenticity views, what others do with it is their concern.
Some vintage baseball collectors might be loathe to take the baseball advice of some guy who collects fashion photos.