[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

In the authentication of rare photographs, provenance is considered evidence (ala, it came from a magazine's editor, from the estate, etc), often imporant evidence. But it is only one piece in the authentication puzzle, along with physical examination of the photo, etc. It is also known that not all 'provenance' is reliable or sometimes the reliable provenance is used to make hasty conclusions (Someone being given a Mike Schimdt photo from Mike Schmidt and incorrectly assuming the photo is an original. Schmidt can own reprints of himself just like anyone else). For every forged Babe Ruth baseball there is a made up story where it came from. In some cases, physical examination of a photo will prove the provenance bogus. In many cases, physical examination of the photo and the reliable provenance will support each other-- which is the best.

There was an interesting case where on eBay where the style of photo itself strongly supported the seller's big claim of famous ownership. There was an 1880s Cincinnati Reds team photo that the seller claimed actually personally belonged to star pitcher Tony Mullane. The seller was no expert on photos, and may have admited as such in the sale description. The photo was an unusually large Joseph Hall cabinet-style photo of the Reds. The photo was like 3 times bigger than the regular cabinets. Back in the old days, these large size photos were difficult and expensive to make. They were ordinarilly made only for VIPs, like the team manager or star players or to be displayed in the team clubhouse or town hall. In short, the mere size of the photo was good evidence that the photo did indeed belong to Mullane.

A common worry of collectors of expensive modern photos by famous photographers like Phillipe Halsman or Annie Lebovitz is whether or not the photo is legitimate. Photos not made by or with the authorization of the copyrights owner (photographer, magazine that hired the photograher, etc)are worthless and are, infact, often illegal to sell. Besides, a collector doesn't want to spend $1,000 on David Baily photo that someone eBay seller made 10,000 copies of in his Milwaukee basement. Provenance will help support the legitimacy or 'officialness' of the photo. If a collector knows the photo came from a magazine editor or the photographer's estate or the auction of a newspaper's archives, he can be confident that the photo is legitimate. Stamping on a photo also helps prove the legitmacy. The stamp or paper tag of the photographer, news service or Sports Illustrated shows that the photo was made with propor authorization, and the collector should feel comfortable buying.

As far as the Ichiro bat goes, I think the folks who examined the bat and MastroNet made a dumb error, but we all make dumb errors and it's no longer a big deal for me.<br />