Unless that text under the photo is actually typed on the photo itself (look for indentations), I would say that it is a period reproduction, probably done by Seidman himself. Unless I'm mistaken (and I may be, someone please correct me if I'm wrong), the only way to get that text in the actual image would have been to make a print of the photo from the original negative, lay out the text underneath it either by pasting or typing directly on the original print, and then re-shoot the whole layout to produce a new negative from which prints could then be produced which would have the text as part of the actual image rather than having to re-apply it to every print individually.
I hope that makes sense. Assuming all of that is correct, it would be termed a "Type 3" photo which is a 2nd Generation photo produced in the same time period as the original shot was taken. Similar classification to a Wire Photo, though this one looks to have better quality (and the Wire Photo process hadn't been invented in 1915).
It looks like it is still a good quality photo (which isn't surprising considering if the shot was lousy, Seidman probably would have gone through the process again until he had a good print for distribution). If the text on the front IS typed directly on the print, then most likely it is a Type 1 that Seibert would have used in the same manner for reproduction. I have had a few George Burke prints that were similar in that they had lettering applied directly to the print, and I was able to match them up with other Burke photos which had the same lettering, only in the actual image, with both photos having Burke's stamping on the back.
That's my 2 cents on it. Anyone feel free to correct me though.
Lance
|