Quote:
Originally Posted by D. Bergin
It looks like another one of those things that the definition has really been loosened up recently to qualify as a "card".
A Cabinet mount is generally around the 4 1/2" x 6 1/2" size.
I guess it would technically qualify as an Imperial Cabinet.
Still it looks like one of those pieces in which a photograph was attached to a generic "Mount" in order to preserve the photograph.
You could have done that with any photo of the era.
The stamp on the back seems to indicate it was part of Conlon's files. I'd be hard pressed to call it a "Charles Conlon" Cabinet card unless there was a Conlon imprint or raised seal distinctive to the mount itself. Looks more like an ownership stamp, even if it was Conlon himself who took the photo.
Just my two cents and I could very well be wrong.
Still a great piece though, regardless. I didn't mean to downgrade or be dismissive of the item. It's still a wonderful vintage photograph either way.
If it were up to me, it wouldn't make a difference value-wise. I think it's ridiculous sometimes that something is deemed more valuable then something else, just because someone decided whether or not it was technically a "card" or not.
|
Thanks so much for clarifying that for me Dave. Being a photo collector, I wish I would have found it in its original state.
There is no question that Conlon was behind the camera for this shot.
The only cabinet I've owned was Sherry Magee t206 by Horner which was about the same size. The Brown image is 4 x 6 which was a very common size for Conlon at that stage in is career.
So I was thinking... how could the Magee be a cabinet and not the Brown?
That's why I brought it to this side cause I knew you guys could clear it up for me.
Thanks again, Dave.
My best, Jimmy