Seeking Help from Photo Collectors

[varsitycollectibles]

I picked up an item off eBay that led me to wonder when photos started having a glossy finish. Any feedback or direction is welcomed.

Sam West

[Michael B]

I have photos in my archives from circa 1910 that have a glossy finish. I also have many press photos from the 1920's and 1930's that are glossy. If this photo is from the late 1930's or so as described, it is well into the era of glossy photos.

[varsitycollectibles]

Thanks for the reply Michael B. Very helpful.

How about others? How far back does glossy go?

[thecatspajamas]

Do you mean glossy, as in the front surface is slick and reflects light but the back is plain paper, or resin-coated, as in the whole thing has a slick plastic feel to it (front and back) such as most modern photos?

Not trying to be nit-picky. It's just that I've found the term "glossy" means different things to different people. It's probably easier to show the photo in question, front and back, and go from there.

[varsitycollectibles]

CatsPJS, the item that sparked the question is one that I just purchased from your store. Haha. The link is in my original post.

As you may already know, it's glossy on the front and shows adhesive residue on the back. It's only the second photo I've purchased and it just made me wonder.

Love the item and your shipping was very fast. Much appreciated.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by varsitycollectibles

CatsPJS, the item that sparked the question is one that I just purchased from your store. Haha. The link is in my original post.

As you may already know, it's glossy on the front and shows adhesive residue on the back. It's only the second photo I've purchased and it just made me wonder.

Love the item and your shipping was very fast. Much appreciated.

Ooops, guess I should have checked the link before speaking

So if I may remove my foot from my mouth and answer my own question, it is not a resin-coated print. Like most black-and-white photographs of the era, it is a gelatin silver print, the process for which was invented in the 1870's but not in commercial use in the U.S. until about the mid-1890's (Kodak adopted it in 1900). The "glossy" prints you asked about became popular in about the 1920's (according to Wikipedia), with earlier photo papers having more of a low-gloss and textured appearance.

Hope that helps

I might add that David Cycleback, also here on Net54, is an excellent resource for questions regarding photographic processes and paper types.

[varsitycollectibles]

Haha. I just happened to realize that your user name matched your eBay name.

That's exactly the kind of info I was curious about. Thanks for your replies. Look forward to adding to the collection soon.

[Michael B]

I posted my original reply while I was at work. Now that I am at home I have checked my archives. Without doing too much searching I came up with two photos dated the same day that give a pretty good idea of how early glossy photos were reproduced.

The first one is from Gilliams News Syndicate and has a dated caption sheet attached to the back of June 17, 1908. This is Bill Horr, 1908 Olympic medal winner and College Football Hall of Famer.

The second one has a George Grantham Bain backstamp and a date stamp of June 17, 1908. I also have an original studio print of the second one with no stamping that has a matte finish. Bain probably did not take the original as he scratched an id on his negative and the original has no such markings. This is Lloyd Jones, graduated from Penn in 1907 with a degree in engineering. 1908 Olympian.

I have other photos that are absolutely dateable to 1900 and 1903 that have a non-glossy/matte finish. Several others that may fall between 1903 and 1908 that are also non-glossy/matte. I hope this is what you are looking for.

[Runscott]

I have glossy albumens from the late 1800's. Most are mat finish, but some are glossy - the glossy ones don't look as nice in my opinion.

[prewarsports]

In general...

Get the photo wet in a small spot and as it dries if the "gloss" gets sticky to the touch then you have a gelatin photo which means that it is at least somewhat old. It at least helps eliminate the photo from being of modern production. If you tilt it to the light and the black portions of the photo have a super shiny (silvery look) that will also help determine its age as well. Otherwise its almost impossible unless you have it in hand for evaluation.

Sam West Photo looks like a restrike (from a copy negative) made later by a collector seeking autographs.

[varsitycollectibles]

Prewar, does this water test have a negative effect on the photo?

Thanks again for the information and discussion.

[thecatspajamas]

One way that I have found to easily identify resin-coated papers (which were introduced in 1968) is to run the back of your fingernail along the back of the photo (think of it as a light scrape) and then look at the test area in reflected light. If it's RC paper, you can typically see a difference in the reflectivity of the "scrape" line vs the area around it. (I know I know, but it sounds a lot more destructive than it actually is). If it's not resin-coated (in other words, the back is just uncoated paper), you won't see any difference in reflectivity (unless you have greasy fingernails I guess).

Vince, I might also add that if the photo is in any way not what you expected, you may certainly return it for a full refund. In looking back at my description (which was written quite some time ago), I see a few details that I would have stated differently to avoid any confusion if I were writing up the same photo today. I'm just not in the habit of revisiting every item I have listed each time I tweak my typical auction write-ups

[prewarsports]

No, a tiny bit of water will be fine. just lick your finger or put less than a drop on it, wipe it pretty much immediately off and see if the spot is sticky or not.

[drcy]

If the original post is about the eBay snapshot, a 1940 photo can definitely have a glossy front. Glossy fronts go a lot further earlier than that. The back of would be matte, like regular paper.