Conlon Photo Need Some Help

[btcarfagno]

This was in the Conlon photo lot that I won at the Christie's auction. My question is if the back stampings show this to be a Type 1 or if I will have to have it in hand before I am able to make any sort of determination on it.

Is there a way to determine type simply by these images?





Earliest date stamp on the back is April 1927.

[bobfreedman]

I am no expert but the stamp is usually a very good indication that it is a Type 1, without the stamp, you will need to have it in hand before making a call.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by bobfreedman

I am no expert but the stamp is usually a very good indication that it is a Type 1, without the stamp, you will need to have it in hand before making a call.

Thank you Bob!!

A concern I have is that it could be a vintage 2 or vintage 3. How does one tell the difference? Is it date stamp versus image content?

[bobfreedman]

Yes, based on the date of when the photo was taken and when the photo was produced. You can determine some of this based on the back as well as the content of the photo itself.

For example, you will see "The Babe Bows Out" photo all the time however, a type one is defined as being produced within 2 years of when the actual photo was taken. Several photos of this famous shot were produced afterwards and are a fraction of the price and this is based in part by the date on the reverse and the type of paper used etc. becasue we know exactly when this photo was taken. Others are more difficult of course but what Henry Yee does is amazing. The research etc. are incredible.

There is a great book out that explains a lot of what your concerns are named "A Portrait of Baseball Photography" by Fogel, Yee and Oser. I would get it

[btcarfagno]

I think I will get it. Thanks for the heads up.

I am thinking this may be a vintage 2 or 3 in that case. Earliest back stamp is 1927 but uniform style dictates photo taken between 15-20 years before that.

Conlon handwriting on the back has an encircled 1907, but I wonder if that may just be referencing when the photo was first taken? This is confusing!

[btcarfagno]

There are also Conlon images where he wrote a date that are listed at RMY as type 1 so now I am really really confused. Maybe the photo stock will tell a story?

[Dewey]

Baseball Magazine itself started in 1908. But not sure when the Spalding Guide/Baseball Magazine stamp dates to. It is not cataloged in Yee, Fogel, et al. There have been fakes of that stamp. Though it looks different than the one here: http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=193601)

There was a Baseball Magazine Ty Cobb edition in 1912, I think.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Dewey

Baseball Magazine itself started in 1908. But not sure when the Spalding Guide/Baseball Magazine stamp dates to. It is not cataloged in Yee, Fogel, et al. There have been fakes of that stamp. Though it looks different than the one here: http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=193601)

There was a Baseball Magazine Ty Cobb edition in 1912, I think.

I'm pretty sure the stamp is genuine. It is the brown/red color of the original version of the stamp (as opposed to the blue of the fakes) and the exterior frame of the stamp is different from the fakes.

That said, I.still have about 20 conflicting thoughts about what type this will end up being.

Did Conlon put this stamp on type 2's or 3's?

Is there a date range for when he used this stamp?

Other type 1 photos have newspaper date stamps that are 20 years after the photo was taken, so what is it that makes them type 1's? Is it the material used to make the photo?

[drcy]

I would image that the vast majority of the Conlon photos are originals (type 1s.) I know of some famous photographers who reprinted images (Dorrill, Burke, Brace), but do not know Conlon to be one of them. So if it appears and the image is clear, it's fair to assume it's type I.

[TCMA]

[btcarfagno]

That's the one!!

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Other type 1 photos have newspaper date stamps that are 20 years after the photo was taken, so what is it that makes them type 1's? Is it the material used to make the photo?

Type 1 designation is given to a photo print created within two years of the image being shot. That's really all that makes it a "Type 1."

[lumberjack]

This is a Conlon of Hack Simmons. The print appeared in the McCabe Conlon book, "Baseball's Golden Age." It is on page 196.

[lumberjack]

The Spalding/Reach Guide stamp on the reverse of the Conlon photos dates to the mid 1920s.

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by lumberjack

This is a Conlon of Hack Simmons. The print appeared in the McCabe Conlon book, "Baseball's Golden Age." It is on page 196.

You're absolutely right, it's Hack Simmons. I had posted earlier this morning that I was convinced the photo wasn't Cobb but I deleted it because I wanted to have more info before sticking that. Now I've got it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hack_Simmons

[Bicem]

Think the uniform dates to 1908 and later. There's also the famous Conlon photo of Cobb batting with a similar background that dates to 1910.

I have this similar photo of Bush too...

[TCMA]

Handwritten ID's on the back of press photos are often incorrect. Even when it comes to big name HOFers. For example, a Paul Thompson photo in our archive of Joe Jackson has him identified as "Bill" Jackson on the reverse. Hmm, that's not right.

[btcarfagno]

You're right. Looking closer that's not Cobb. Dammit!!

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

You're right. Looking closer that's not Cobb. Dammit!!

Check out the wikipedia link I posted above .

[Bicem]

This guy made the same mistake Tom...

Cobb

[prewarsports]

Conlon images are tough and for years I have seen some that were clearly done later because of the size identified as "Type 1" but even then you are splitting hairs (1912 photo on smaller sized paper that most likely dates to 1918-1920). I have been working for several years to try and accumulate a database and a more accurate indication of when Conlon made a specific photograph based on paper size and material, but even in those cases he would vary in size from time to time so nothing would ever be absolute. He started small, went BIG to 8x10 around 1908-1915 then went smaller again (rectangular in shape) then more square in the early 1920's. He is also WILDLY inconsistent with his stamping and seemed to use them all over the place. I also believe Conlon would accommodate specific papers and publications and print images for them on different paper if they requested it.

Long story short, Conlon is all over the place and if the image vintage, the stamps are vintage and it bears his markings, its a Type 1 which is absolutely the right thing to do. The 2 year thing is not that important when it comes to Conlon images.

[prewarsports]

In the case of that "Cobb" that is an early 1920's example done by Conlon from his original negative. Not sure how PSA would treat it, but it's clearly a "Type 2".

[TCMA]

Whoops:

https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com...e?itemid=50754


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk