Posted By:
hankronHere is a short list of issues for consideration. Not complete
1) Some are on 'extra thick proof paper.' That in an of itself is bogus. The genuine Old Judges were made on albumen paper, which was a special kind of handmade and chemically treated paper needed by the photographers. Photography is a chemical process, and the photographer could not used typing or writing paper from the local store ... The crux is that all albumen paper was one and only one thickness: that of a gnat's hide. There was no such thing as 'extra plus alumen paper'-- never existed. I've always condidered the 'extra thick paper' proofs to automatically be a joke ... One thing I teach beginning 19th centurty photo collectors to do is to see if the photo print on the cabinet card is super thin-- as albumen paper was always super thin, while later paper was thicker. Thickness is quality even casual collectors can look for.
2) Many genuine Old Judge cards have the white in the image writing: 'Goodwinn & Co." or the player's name or whatever. As I'm sure many OJers have figured out, the Goodwin worker wrote on the glass negative and this writing appeared on the card as part of the actual photographic image ... This type of 'in the image wring' could not be done on a tintype. A tintype is a primitive and completely different process than with the Old Judge paper photos. There is no glass negative involved and you can't put writing into the image-- unless you're photographing a book or such. Technically impossible.
3) It makes no sense that Goodwin & Co. would make a proof tintype or any sort of tintype. The tintype process could only produce one photo. Making a tintype proof is on the order of the them hiring a painter to make a oil painting proof-- makes no sense.
4) The 'cabinets' I examined were not on albumen paper, which was the paper Goodwin would have used. Along with an number of microscopic qualities I won't divulge, the paper was too thick. Albumen paper was made by only a handful of factories in the entire world (I'm talking like 3 not 30), and were made to exacting specifications. Again, this photo paper was used for a delicate chemical process (named photography) and the factories had to be exact in the manufacture. 1800s albumen paper has a unique combination of qualities that can be identified.
5) The black mounts on the cabinets are not period. Those types of mounts may have been used in 1910 or 1920, but not in the 1880s. As with photographric paper, cabinet mounts were usually made by factories and there were commercial standards. Just like with an car, a photograph historian can judge the age of a photo by the color, shape, size and style. In 1930 could they have made an automobile that looked like a 1990s Mazda Miata? Perhaps, but they didn't. And I doubt that anyone here is going to buy into the argument that that Miata in the parking lot was made in 1930. Simularly, you're not going to convince an expert on early cabinets that those mounts are from the 1880s.
6) One of the proofs on the back had the stamp 'Proof.' To me, this is a joke. With these items, proof is a term we modern day collectors use retroactively. The photo might as well have a stamp that says 'hoochie mama' or 'Don't go there, girfriend'
7) Some guy was selling a framed behind glass "complete set of three" for a player. How could anyone on this earth say that this is a complete set at three? Unless he's making it up.
8) Some guy was selling a framed set of three "in the original glass and frame" This is stupid. Goodwin wouldn't frame sets of proofs behind glass. They didn't have a deal with Shop at Home to offer Chistmas display pieces.
9) One Goodwin proof had a sticker advertising Allen & Ginter cigarettes on back. Goodwin and Allen and Ginter were competeing companies! Please someone explain to me why Goodwin would make a cabinet card to promote their competitor's product?
10) That's the end of the shortlist. I'm now going to walk to the supermarket and buy some gum.