1914 Babe Ruth M. Lantern Slide ?

[TUM301]

Now that the EBAY auction has ended, and knowing the "54" is loaded with many very knowledgeable Ruth collectors, was wondering what you guys thought of the enclosed listing below. The seller sold a M Lantern slide the week before, had seen the 1915 Boston team shot and postcard, but this 1914 was a mystery to me. He mentions in the description that it`s from Babe`s Boston debut, July 11`th 1914. Again the image looks like one I`ve seen before but would like some input/education from you guys. Thanks and looking forward to any responses, GO SOX !!
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1914-Babe-R...orig_cvip=true

[oldjudge]

It is my opinion that every Old Judge-like piece is not good. I would want to look at this item in person but I am very skeptical about it.

[Tom S.]

That picture of Ruth on the lantern slide was taken in Comiskey Park with its unmistakable arched openings behind the lower level seating.

According to Baseball-Reference.com, Boston's game on July 11, 1914 was against Cleveland at Fenway Park.

Definitely doesn't add up if you ask me...

[drcy]

Skeptical

[Fred]

Here's part of the item description:

"Other RARE BABE RUTH Red Sox Magic Lantern pieces to come....please watch my listings."

Those things are pretty hard to create find.

[TUM301]

Thanks for the responses so far guys, much appreciated. Something this unusual always makes me skeptical too and did do some of the basic research. Good feedback, he had sold the 1915 Boston team lantern the previous week, and upon request did furnish photos of other sports related M L slides. Again, thanx for your input and the continued sharing of "54" knowledge, invaluable ! Will continue to poke around but like you guys, remain skeptical.

[steve B]

I guess the question now is if it's a real lantern slide that's not attributed right, or entirely fake.

[Lorewalker]

I saw the seller's 1915 team slide from last week and while not an expert on these it did not seem as clear as I am used to seeing lantern slides. For instance compare his 1915 to the one that sold in Love of the Game...http://loveofthegameauctions.com/191...-LOT17698.aspx.

[steve B]

Interesting, there's some stuff I like about the 1915, and some stuff I really don't like.

[packs]

Image is really fuzzy. Definitely not an original print.

[TUM301]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

I saw the seller's 1915 team slide from last week and while not an expert on these it did not seem as clear as I am used to seeing lantern slides. For instance compare his 1915 to the one that sold in Love of the Game...http://loveofthegameauctions.com/191...-LOT17698.aspx.

I hear you Chase, I also thought his 1915 slide looked less clear than the L O T G slide. The other area that turned me off with the 1914 "offering" was the hand written annotation and not the usual type on other M Lantern Slides. Would really like to add an early Ruth image, 1914-1919, but man the prices for these pieces are just going up up and away from many collectors, like me. On a side note, although far from exact science, will be on the lookout for feedback from the 1915 slide buyer. GO SOX !!

[The Owner 3]

Seinfeld reference. Well, in person it looks great. It's hard to capture a glass lantern slide in a photo, and the seller didn't have the greatest photos of it.

I realize the caption is mistaken, but it may have just been a reference to Babe's first game, but with a later photo of him in a Red Sox uniform. I don't think it was meant to deceive anyone, but just a reference to his first game for when it was projected.

But who knows for sure? I'm no expert on glass lantern slides, but I took a gamble. I knew I didn't have much time before the auction got out of hand, so I made a deal. I'll try to get a better photo of it and post it.

[TUM301]

Thanks for the update, looking forward to hear/seeing more of this item. Welcome to the "54", Murph

[The Owner 3]

I used a 40x zoom magnifying glass to see if there was halftoning in the image that would be present if it were a copied print. In other words, varying sizes of ink dots in a pattern. I didn’t see halftoning, but something closer to film grain, which isn’t in a pattern.

I’ve used this on other black and white photos that are reproduced prints and you can easily see halftoning in them. I’ve used it on other black and white prints that I know are type 1 from the original negative and see only film grain and no halftoning.

If you ever want to have the time of your life, get yourself a 40x zoom magnifying glass. They’re like $5 on Amazon, but they’ll change your life.

Anyway, I was glad to see there were no pattern dots or halftoning in the magic lantern slide.

[GKreindler]

The original 4" x 5" glass plate negative of this Ruth image resides in the collection of the Chicago History Museum. If I remember correctly, it's from 1917. You'll notice the same markings on the top of the image.



I can't speak towards the legitimacy of the slides as originals, but I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable labeling them as such.

Graig

[The Owner 3]

Thanks GK. Yeah, I saw that one too and I did see that it's from 1917. Trust me, I'm not labeling this as anything until I know for sure what it is exactly. Don't worry, this is not going back on eBay. If it's researched and found to be from the era, I'm keeping it. If it's researched and found to be completely fake and made in a basement, I'm keeping it. It's in good hands as far as not trying to pull one over on anyone.

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by GKreindler

The original 4" x 5" glass plate negative of this Ruth image resides in the collection of the Chicago History Museum. If I remember correctly, it's from 1917. You'll notice the same markings on the top of the image.



I can't speak towards the legitimacy of the slides as originals, but I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable labeling them as such.

Graig

I agree with Greig,

Everything about this piece screams “fake” to me. The fact that it looks so amateurishly done, no period label, wrong date to inhance value, and to top it all off they left the photographers notations and writing from the negative on the finished piece. If you were making this to sell or for some other purpose they would have done a good job doing so and nobody would leave the random marks at the top of that photo, those would have been the first things cropped out of that photo.

Regardless of what it looks like under a microscope it doesn’t pass the initial eye test of something done during that period.

[packs]

Every lantern slide I've ever seen is as sharp as you would expect from a negative. You can plainly tell that the slide in question has a grainy, fuzzy image indicative of a copy.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

I agree with Greig,

Everything about this piece screams “fake” to me. The fact that it looks so amateurishly done, no period label, wrong date to inhance value, and to top it all off they left the photographers notations and writing from the negative on the finished piece. If you were making this to sell or for some other purpose they would have done a good job doing so and nobody would leave the random marks at the top of that photo, those would have been the first things cropped out of that photo.

Regardless of what it looks like under a microscope it doesn’t pass the initial eye test of something done during that period.

You haven't seen many lantern slides have you?

They can be totally original and also totally shoddy work.

A lot of what's put there was made by companies like keystone, and they're very professionally done, often for educational use. The rest vary a lot in quality. Everything from nicely produced to just an image taped between glass. I've seen some labeled with nothing more than pencil and some cloth tape. Some not labeled at all. Those were usually done from someone's own photos either to have slides to show, or for a talk about something at a club or church function.


As far as I know they're all copies, though I suppose some amateur ones could be from an original negative reverse processed.

[Michael B]

I picked up a dozen magic lantern slides in September that are all Olympic related. I did not check them all, but the ones I did were produced by E.R. Deats of 10 S. 18th St., Philadelphia. Many of them were done for the Philadelphia Inter-State Dairy Council. These were colorized photos and it appears that they took a photo of a photo as the quality is not the greatest with dust marks and other flaws. These were done in the late 1940's as they show the 1936 and 1948 Olympics. They were most like done for educational displays as mentioned by Steve. With all of the ones I own you can tell that they were professionally created as the black masking holding the negative is neatly done and the labels are period. Those are some of the things I would look for in assessing one.

[The Owner 3]

Thanks all! Here are some pics, and some are taken from taking a picture inside the 40x zoom magnifier. These still don't quite capture it. There seems to be a transparent film within the glass slides, which I've researched was another technique used to make these. The zoom shows the texture of the transparent piece, and you'll notice, no dots in a pattern or halftone dots. It may look a little like it, but that's the texture of the transparency within the glass. It does seem plausible that this is a pic of a pic because it isn't as sharp as an original, but it still may be from the era. Next I'll show what a half tone picture looks like in a 40x zoom lens.

IMG_0102.jpg

IMG_0114.jpg

IMG_0143.jpg

IMG_0145.jpg

IMG_0173.JPG

[The Owner 3]

I printed this from the pic that's been thrown around on this post. If someone was trying to fake the glass lantern, they would have to use the one found on the web. When printed, it would look like this - halftone dots to make up the image. The initial image looks better, but when you zoom in, here's what you see.

IMG_0165.jpg

IMG_0162.jpg

IMG_0163.jpg

IMG_0164.jpg

[Michael B]

I am sorry, but you are making certain incorrect assumptions comparing a print you pulled of the web and your image. The image you printed from the web is a reproduction of the image as it appeared in some publication, thus the 'dots'. A silver halide print or positive transparency from the original glass plate negative would show no such 'dots'. The only comment on your slide is that the horizontal lines appear rather odd. Those would not be there if this was made from the original negative.

[The Owner 3]

I never said anything about it being made from the original negative. I'm saying that if it was made maliciously and for profit from getting an image off the web, that's how the result would look. And it's not like what's on the slide. It was just a comparison. Nothing more.

I'm trying to find out how it was made. I never said that it came from the original negative. Maybe a picture of a picture with film to make a new "not original" negative that is much lesser quality. There were kits made during that time to take a photo and transfer the photo onto a glass slide or transparent film.

I'm just trying to figure it out. And to do that, I'm comparing what the slide image looks like compared to what it might look like if someone was trying to print from a web image. Never said the original negative.

[The Owner 3]

What I was saying is, if the image on the glass slide had the half tone dots, I would chalk it up to having been taken off the web and printed on transparent paper and sandwiched between 2 glass slides (and then it would definitely be fake). I was using that as an example of what a malicious person might do to sell this. And it's most likely that this person wouldn't have access to the original, so they'd have to pull it from the web.

And if it looked like that, you'd never hear from me again because I would know how it was made and I'd move on. The fact that it looks different from that makes me want to look deeper into how and when it was made. Clearly, not from the original negative because of the quality, but by some other means.

Isn't what this is for? For information? For figuring something out? I'm not saying it's real or fake. I'm looking to figure it out.