Old Judge Orotone Photo/Studio Proof "Jumbo" Davis **UPDATED**

[GoCubsGo32]

I wanted to share my recent pick up of what appears to be an original Old Judge "Goodwin&Co NY" Orotone studio/proof of Kansas City's "Jumbo" Davis. The pose is unknown/unused ( that we know of --new discovery to the hobby) for any Old Judge series. The pose is very similar to the 119-6.

When you look at the photo, it has a gold-ish foil to it that makes it very hard to takes pictures. I had never seen that before with any studio proof/photo. I was concern it may be a modern reprint of some kind.I was later informed by an awesome boardie, that gold-foil effect might be glass photo backed in genuine gold-- giving the distinct golden tone.

The photo is snug in the custom frame holder pretty good. I'm afraid to remove the photo out of the frame to confirm this.

Size ~3 x 3.25

[autograf]

Cool piece. I would be wary of the authenticity of it but still cool piece. Have never seen an OJ piece like that and the cropping to put it in a gutta percha tintype case like that is odd. Haven't seen many photos from that era cropped to that type of deal. I did have an orotone piece of a BB player in a similar case like that from the late 1860's/early 1870's that I sold years ago. Maybe someone more knowledgable than myself could chime in like Gary Passamonte (photos) or Jay Miller (OJ's). Still a neat piece..............

[ramram]

Definitely not original to the case as the case would date to the 1860's. I would also have some doubts about the image, however, it would be interesting that it were a new pose.

Rob M

[GoCubsGo32]

I have talked to Joe G. and Jay (Old Judge) about the pose. They both agreed it is "Jumbo" Davis and the pose is new/unknown/unused. They both mention it's very similar to the 119-6.

However it looks like I have to remove it from the case to learn the truth about the photo. Welcome to more advice.

[prewarsports]

I echo what others have said about authenticity concerns. There would be no reason whatsoever to take an 1880's photograph, cut it down, then stick it in a case that would have been obsolete for two decades and was designed to protect more fragile forms of photography.

It would be like buying a brand new iPhone 6 and jamming it in a Walkman case from the 1980's. If things don't make sense, it usually points to someone trying to pass something off as being older than it is.

[GoCubsGo32]

I'm going to remove the photo out of the frame carefully to examine it more. Does any one know which area is best to remove the photo out?

Green arrow (remove the tan part out) vs Red arrow (removing gold frame). It's pretty snug in there....

[ramram]

Typically, if its not overly snug, you hold the edges and hold it upside down and gently tap it down into your other open hand underneath it and the brass trim and image should come out. the felt trim should stay within the case. Kinda hard to explain in words.

[1880nonsports]

if it doesn't easily "tap out" would be to apply a suction cup to the front glass. If that doesn't work - CAREFULLY use a thin blade in the area you marked with the R E D arrow. NO pressure as you don't really want to damage the rails of the albeit generic and inexpensive paper case.
My guess would have been that it's an N173 cut down (real or photocopy) but the guys you mentioned are more knowledgeable (and maybe smarter) than I. It's not a fantasy item and appears too wide to be an OJ insert.

[oldjudge]

The pose is not a known one. However, to be period it would have to be an albumen print. The fact that it is not leads me to believe that it was made later, possibly from then existing genuine glass plate negatives. It could be Vermont Find related, or just some other later construct.

[GoCubsGo32]

I used the "suction cup" ( not wet ) method to the front glass. It worked after a few attempts. I carefully peeled back the foil like frame on the back. It had a black piece of cloth and when you left it up, you can see the gold backing. Thoughts? Appears to be real gold.

[slidekellyslide]

Probably copper.

[drcy]

If it's a pane of glass with the back painted in gold, that's what is an orotone. I don't have the item in hand, but that's what the back of an orotone looks like.

The below is a video of orotones being taken out of their frames and the backs shown.

[drcy]

I add that in the old days, tintypes, daguerreotypes and ambrotypes often had their cases and frames switched. Someone way back when might have thought a family tintype would look nicer in a different case and frame, or the original case was damaged or worn, so switched it. Just like someone today reframing a photo or print. So that a case is from a different era than the photo doesn't prove a photo fake and is not a rare occurrence.

In fact, beginning collectors are taught not to date tintypes, dags and ambrotypes just by the case and frame, because switching was common.

[ramram]

Originally Posted by drcy

I add that in the old days, tintypes, daguerreotypes and ambrotypes often had their cases and frames switched. Someone way back when might have thought a family tintype would look nicer in a different case and frame, or the original case was damaged or worn, so switched it. Just like someone today reframing a photo or print. So that a case is from a different era than the photo doesn't prove a photo fake and is not a rare occurrence.

In fact, beginning collectors are taught not to date tintypes, dags and ambrotypes just by the case and frame, because switching was common.

I agree with David. However, I find it interesting that the "orotone" is a perfect fit into a sixth plate case. Did orotones happen to fall into the same sizing as the older dags, ambros and tintypes - i.e. did they come in 1/9th, 1/6th, 1/4, 1/2 and full plate sizes?

Rob M.

[drcy]

Orotones are usually large. However, there were a lot of cases around and it's a matter of finding one that fits.

[drcy]

The Old Judge text in the image is very curious, but the photo itself looks like an orotone. Definitely looks like gold on the back (gold doesn't tarnish with age, which is one reason why it's so prized). I was the one who suggested he take it out and look at the back. I recall seeing two other baseball orotones.

[GoCubsGo32]

I've been searching for the other baseball "orotones" and here's the ones I could find. I found only two in baseball uniform. One is a smaller size the other I couldn't find much since the auction page was taken down from Memory Lane(?).

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/lot-9145.aspx

http://www.psacard.com/Articles/Arti...emory-lane-inc

LOT #961
http://www.memorylaneinc.com/sept07.html

I could take the picture out of the antique gold frame around it but,not sure if that's necessary or might have difficulties putting it back.

[ramram]

Originally Posted by drcy

Orotones are usually large. However, there were a lot of cases around and it's a matter of finding one that fits.

That, to me, makes it even stranger that it would precisely fit into an 1860's sixth plate case. Another oddity is the subject of the image being larger than the boundaries of the photo. You would RARELY ever see that back then. With this in mind, the thought might be that it were cut down, however, its made of glass so rule that one out.

My gut tells me that its possibly an early 1900's reprint of an Old Judge into Orotone format or its just another of the multitude of recent fakes.

Rob M.

[GoCubsGo32]

I was able to carefully remove the glass photo out of the frame and put it back in with no issues. I don't know if these photos out of the frame help out but thought it was worth the investigation to maybe help the issue(s).

[drcy]

One more. I know of no others.

http://www.lelands.com/Auction/Aucti...graph-on-Metal

Duly note that, despite what the description may imply, I don't work for Lelands. I merely emailed them to tell them what they had.

[1880nonsports]

but why would you think it couldn't have been cut down from a larger image? These blank plates were sold to the photographer in a much larger size - the evidence of some cutting is naturally noticeable in the images provided on more than one side. The balance and proportions of the non-image area are off as well.
I would not think it to be a modern copy as the price of gold is now and in the recent past many times what it would have been whether original to 1887/88 shoot OR a subsequent re-issue at the turn of the century. Mostly I just can't see the incentive to produce with ill intent......
Interesting item.

[ramram]

Originally Posted by 1880nonsports

but why would you think it couldn't have been cut down from a larger image? These blank plates were sold to the photographer in a much larger size - the evidence of some cutting is naturally noticeable in the images provided on more than one side. The balance and proportions of the non-image area are off as well.
I would not think it to be a modern copy as the price of gold is now and in the recent past many times what it would have been whether original to 1887/88 shoot OR a subsequent re-issue at the turn of the century. Mostly I just can't see the incentive to produce with ill intent......
Interesting item.

I should correct my earlier statement - It probably is not a current fake due to the difficulty of producing it versus the return. It is more likely that it is an orotone produced in the early 1900's possibly from one of the glass plate negatives that we have seen showing up in the last few years. Much like the Omaha Old Judges that were believed to have been produced from them after the turn of the century. However, I would still doubt it was ever cut down. That would be difficult for the average person to do considering that it is glass and what purpose would it really serve? Certainly not just for the purpose of putting it in an old case.

Rob M.

[drcy]

I don't see it being a modern fake, in that it's an obscure process that few baseball collectors are familiar with. You generally don't forge items the potential buyers are ignorant about. Note that even Lelands didn't realize what they had. Plus most forgeries are something simple to make (ala, all those digital baseball card reprints). The orotone process is expensive and difficult. It's not something the normal person could make.

There are modern made orotones, including of Edward Curtis's famous images of American Indians, but the modern versions themselves are expensive, due to the laborious process and gold. The modern made Curtis orotones often sell for over $1,000.

Before he took it apart, I said that if it was a fake, it would most probably have a reproduction image of the player on a piece of paper placed behind the glass. But he took it apart and the back was gold as with a genuine orotone.

[BTFalls]

That's Myron Allen. OJ pose 4-3.

He and Jumbo were teammates and there is a resemblance.

Very cool piece!

[BTFalls]

Here's an image.

[GoCubsGo32]

That's really cool! Shame it's not a new/unknown pose, but very cool to see it's been correctly ID and that the card does exist.

Thank you!

[drcy]

One thing, perhaps only of interest to me, is that orotones had the photographic image printed from a negative onto the glass, which is unlike daguerreotypes, ambrotypes and tintypes. Those last three are essentially negatives (the images made to look positive by a backing). This should explain how everything, including any text, will appear normal on the orotone-- where everything is reverse in the other photos.