Posted By:
Joe D.The seller mentions in the Question and Answer portion that it is NOT an acutal signature (but rather part of the negative).
I am no photo expert... and it might be a bad scan....
but this does not look like a first generation item.
Photo quality is not that nice at all.
Again in the Question and Answer - someone dated the picture taking to 1917.... and the seller mentions 1928 as a date of the piece.
I watched the item... but based on my thinking it is not a first generation photo....
I would not have come close to that amount of $... and I personally think it is worth only a fraction of what it went for.