American Memorabilia Auction

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

An old topic but one that probably deserves to be revisited. I just received my latest edition of SCD today and inside was the catalog for American Memorabilia's (AM) latest auction. In this auction are four featured lots of Goodwin & Co "proofs". I'm surprised that after all the research done by Rob Lifson that these folks still claim that these items are vintage. They have brought in an authenticator from a place called "100% Authentic" who claims that these pieces are, in fact, period. Does anyone know who this fellow (Mike Peterson) is? Interestingly enough SCD has also chosen to put a full page picture of one of the proofs on its front cover. Since bidders had an opportunity to bid on similar items in REA and, for the most part, chose not to I'm also wondering how board members think these pieces will be received in the AM auction.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

For the sake of the thread can you, or someone else, give us the readers digest version of the already surmised notion? I remember it was fiercely debated.. thanks

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

The readers digest version is that the photos are not vintage to the 1800s. If you exclude the people who didn't know what they were talking about, there never was a debate about this.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Do we know when they are dated to? Approx.?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Rob Lifson did some extensive research and ballparked them in the 1910-1920 range. I agree with David. The smart money says that they were made after the fact from period glass plate negatives. The ones that say Gypsy Queen or Mayo are another story, I believe. I would guess that they never had anything to do with these brands. However, that is solely my opinion.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Just interested, did anyone on the board bid on the "proofs" in AM's last auction?

[Archive]

Posted By: david

i saw this auction last week and wanted to start a discussion about the items but was not sure if i should start it up again. american memorabilia goes on about how they are real and it is sour grapes and jealously that are to blame for the proofs not being called real. these newer items from what i can tell from the pictures are not even backed on heavy cardboard and just seem to be the photographic portion on the card. additionally, since duffy is the only none portrait pose in the mayo set i wonder why there is a proof of a player holding a bat, additionally i believe the mayos are infact drawings and not actual photos like the oj . i thought the re auction would put this all to rest, especially given the final selling prices. however, american memorabilia insists on decieving the public and it really is starting to irk me and i am sure other collectors

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

As of this morning there were no bids for these items. What has continued to confuse me is who were the aggressive bidders on similar items in the first AM auction. Also, given the work that Rob Lifson put in dating these items, why does SCD insist on putting a full page picture of one of the images on its cover. By doing so, I believe, they are indirectly making a statement as to the item's authenticity which, while it may benefit an advertiser, does not, I believe, benefit the reader.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

description in the REA auction catalogue, you can get the whole picture. I think PART of the problem is that the "proofs" (NOT) ARE "vintage," just not "period." This leave a place for the uhscrupulous to
claim they are "original." They were made from the original glass-plate negatives. at a later date.

The "David" who is signing just plain "david" in black is not David Rudd (Cycleback).

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I see no issue with this thread whatsoever. Personally I don't know about these so called "proofs" but others obviously do. I am going to ask whomever posts in this thread, if you are not well known (by ME), to put your first and last name by the post. If you do not then it will be deleted. Thanks for understanding......moderator dude

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan Long

People will bid on these, but if I have learned anything since reading this forum and dealing with several members if you do not have the backing of the people that belong here you lose money. I also got my catalog and saw the listing and knew at some point this topic would come up again on the forum. I find it odd that they say that jealousy is a reason why these items are claimed to be not "period." I think that jealousy is the last thing to blame this on as if a few chosen individuals wanted the items - they could easily pay for them. You gotta admit though - they are nice reprint photos.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom Boblitt

ones that I've seen other places, I still think they are 1910's/1920's copies. I'm with Jay that I think the Gypsy Queen ones are highly suspect. The others, I've seen Terry Knouse with and other people and if they are similar they kind of have more a sheen to them like the 1920's photos, not the 1880's photos. Just my observation....

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

I know what vintage means to card collectors, but within photograph collecting (particularly in the fine arts), the term 'vintage' means that the photograph was made soon after the image was shot. A photograph shot in 1910 and printed from the original negative in 1940 would not be considered vintage, even though it is old. It's comparable to wine, where a "vintage 1975" label is supposed to mean the wine in the bottle is from 1975.

I also understand that many casual photo collectors and eBay attic sellers use 'vintage' in the 'if it's old, then it's vintage' way. But you will increasingly find that most advanced photo sellers, including many big sports auction houses, use the photograhic term as described in the first paragraph.

"Standard photo terms used by sellers and their meanings"
http://cycleback.com/photoguide/four.htm

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

As far as the photos go, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that no one, or nearly no one, seriously beleives they are from the 1800s. Honesty and sincerity are not the priority for all people, especially when a sale is to be made.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

David--You are an expert in this area. Have you ever heard of AM's authenticator-Mike Peterson or, pertaining to photos, his company 100% Authentic?

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

I beleive that 100% Authentic is, or was, American Memorabilia's in house authentication unit. I know that 100% Authentic has used, for example, Lou Lampson, who is a well known and respected expert on game used football jerseys. I do not know Mr. Peterson beyond that is listed as a photo expert at the auction house, and have nothing ill to say about him personally.

I do not wish to make things personal or snipe about this or that authentication service or the color of their serial numbered holograms. That type of stuff doesn't appeal to me. Most people familiar with these photos understand today that they were made later, and that's all that matters to me. Even Rob Lifson and Josh Evans have publicly stated that the photos were made after the 1800s, so I don't think is any more serious debate.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

Sorry. I meant, from the original negative.

I've seen only a few of these photos, and they were very beautiful--but a little too beautiful to have been made at the time of the negative.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Julie--I have to disagree with you. I have seen and owned these items and they are nowhere near as nice as say a normal Old Judge cabinet photo.

Interesting that no one from the board has come forward to say that they bid on these items in AM's prior auction. This board represents a large portion of vintage collectors. I wonder where those bidders came from.

[Archive]

Posted By: Douglas Dreier

We do have a set of the "proofs" here in our collection, although we had them prior to the A.M. auction. Certainly found it interesting that they were billed as "one-of-a-kind." I do not know who ended up with them after the auction.

Doug

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

Doubt thast anyone on the board bid on them...

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Weisner

Gotta agree with Jules......

David and Jay's word is good enough for me, so I doubt anybody on the board bid. If it were really a "FIND" Mastro, Lifson, and the gang would have been all over it. Be well Brian

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

For those new to the subject, it should be noted that there are genuine Old Judge proofs, and you will see them for sale on occasion, even on eBay. They look just like the regular N173 cabinets (same mount shape and style), except the bottom panel will have the name of a private photography studio instead of the Old Judge ad. They often also have a Goodwin & Co. embossed stamp on the image. The images for the Old Judge cards were shot by private studios in various cities. I'm sure members of this board own examples.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Excellent point Dave. Examples include Gilbert & Bacon for Philadelphia players and Stevens for Chicago players.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

I see that someone/someones have opened each of the Goodwin print lots. Dave--that isn't you secretly bidding on these little pieces of pyrite is it?