Are these Conlon photos?

[repsher]

When I purchased these 2 photo they were not touted as Charles Conlon photos. Can anyone help verify that they are?

The first is the Ed Walsh Sr. and Jr. photo. Conlon is clearly written on the back and circled.

The second is the Whitesox 1922 rookie hurlers photo. "Conlon Photo" is written and circled on back, but the back also has an Underwood and Underwood copyright stamp. The newspaper clipping also has and Underwood and Underwood credit.

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

[Scott Garner]

I won't comment on whether these photos are Charles Conlon, although I'm quite sure the guy sitting at the extreme right is no other than perfect game pitcher Charles "Charlie" Robertson. Robertson pitched one of the very 1st perfect games on 4/30/22.

Good luck with nailing down your photographer!

[jerseygary]

I don't think Conlon traveled outside New York to take his photographs; it looks like the White Sox players are in their home white uniforms in your photos.

[drc]

Unless they're forged, those are Conlon's signatures on the back.

[horzverti]

Great topic.
Let's take a look.
Conlon marked his work 'Conlon' and 'Conlon Photo'. Sometimes, but not always circled...we know this.
Conlon most often, but not always, signed in bottom right corner of verso.
It is very odd to see a Conlon sig accompanied by a different copyright stamp.
Take a look at the first 'o' in the name Conlon on both signatures. The 'o' is not even slightly enclosed in the capital 'C'. Charles almost always bunched the first 'o' inside the capital 'C'. It sometimes is so pronounced that looks as if Conlon circled the first 'o' with the 'C'.
Regarding the early 20s White Sox unis; tough to accurately tell, but the do seem like the home whites and not the traveling greys. Conlon took the great majority of his photos on the east coast more specifically in New York. If the Sox were in NY to play the Yankees, they would be in their grey uniforms.
At first glance the sigs look ok, but they just seem to be a little off.
In the second picture the word 'Photo' actually looks more true to Conlon's hand than the last name.
Another thing I noticed is the location of the sigs in relation to the other writing. They seem to be too conveniently placed in open spots between the written areas.
One thing that you can be sure of is that they originally came from the John Rogers Archive (hologram). The Rogers archive is the source of almost all of the Conlon items in our hobby. My opinion: These were purchased through one of Rogers' sales outlets on eBay without the Conlon sigs, the sigs were added and then they were resold with the sigs.
The sigs just seem a little off.
Just curious, who did you get these from?

[sphere and ash]

I do not believe these are Conlon images. Conlon did travel outside of New York to photograph baseball, including trips to Philadelphia in 1905 and 1910 for the World Series, Washington in 1912 for Opening Day and spring training in 1914. There seems little reason, however, for him to visit Chicago at the time these photographs were taken. Furthermore, in my opinion, the composition of these photographs is not consistent with Conlon's aesthetic.

The Rogers Archive is quite large, but it is certainly not the only, or even the largest, source of Conlon images; Christie's Baseball Magazine archive sale in 1996 was a major source and that added to an already large supply.

[horzverti]

Conlon or not, still very nice looking photos.

[drc]

All the stamping etc looks legit, especially on the second one. The only question is the Conlon signatures.

[Forever Young]

I am currently on a Conlon kick. In my search for Charles Conlon threads/photos, I stumbled on this one. I then noticed the item below currently on ebay. Pay particular attention to the answer at the bottom of the listing. VERY interesting... thoughts?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1922-Charles...item2319428cde

[batsballsbases]

After looking at the photos I would have to say no. Not conlon in my opinion.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by batsballsbases

After looking at the photos I would have to say no. Not conlon in my opinion.

Al, I agree. Did you look at the link I put up? It appears that they most likely:

a) originated from the same place
b) not original conlon signatures.

[Runscott]

Neither looks like a 'normal' Conlon signature. Also, to me the photos don't look like Conlon's work.

But I could certainly be wrong. After examining a piece, if there is a question like this, the next thing I ask is "does it make sense for someone to falsify the item?". In this case, the answer is "no", since they were not sold to you as Conlons; however, if you were provided with back scans, the seller may have been trying to plant that seed, even though he knew they weren't Conlons.

Your best bet is to just study a bunch of Conlon signatures and make up your own mind. I just took a quick look at these, but when I have time I'll compare to other Conlons that I'm sure are correct and post again.

[prewarsports]

I have bought maybe 1000 photos from the Sporting News archives and there were probably 25-30 that had "Conlon" circled on the back. I dont think save a few that the "Conlon" was written by Charles Conlon but I do know for a fact that at least the ones I have came that way direct from the Sporting News. I have no comment about the ones being talked about in this thread or the seller being mentioned, but I do know that a lot were marked Conlon that were not marked by him and as a result there were errors I am sure. Just my thoughts.