1927 or far later photograph of the WANER BROTHERS?

[sporteq]

OKay, we have here 1927 Waner Brothers photograph vintage TYPE 1 maybe OR not? Snow white borders and backside.. the paper stock seems to be heavier with rigid corners. We all know the stamps are very modern that is NOT even a question. It has paper notation dated (doesn't mean it's the day it was printed) NO real source from who made this photo. In addition NO file number no anything.

To me, it looks to be a more very very later later like 1950 reprint.

Whatcha think??????

Albert

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=251467349059

[prewarsports]

Looks like they took the paper tag from an older print and reattached it (they being SPORT magazine in this instance). I have some photos that are similar to this. Innocent I am sure from whoever the seller was but you are correct that this is not from 1927.

[Runscott]

Albert, this might help you: http://sports.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleN...No=82458#Photo

There was nothing about this photo to indicate that it was not 1927, including paper stock or image quality, other than having only a more modern stamp. It was also posted here in the forum where I asked if anyone knew the photographer, and in my store where a few forum members sent me comments. Didn't hear anything then, and I still haven't heard anything that would make me believe that Heritage was wrong in their original description of the photo.

Oh, and an ebayer who sent a few very rude emails demanding that I describe the item according to his specifications. Someone named Albert...I guess that was you?

Rhys, thanks for your comments.

[sporteq]

Scott- I had sent you a message saying that, I didn't believe this was a original 1927 photograph. Looking at the characteristics of your scanned photo, it appeared to me it was a later restrike. I also told you, don't believe auction house titans that give out wrong info. I had seen this photo at Ha.com and knew right away it was not vintage original. In your message to me, you said, its 100% 1927 vintage original. Anyhow, I'm not going to go back and forth with you on this. Let the forum speak on this photo.

Prewar- I to had some restrike photos like this. I was able to get refunds from ha and legendary auctions.

Albert

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by sporteq

Scott- I had sent you a message saying that, I didn't believe this was a original 1927 photograph. Looking at the characteristics of your scanned photo, it appeared to me it was a later restrike. I also told you, don't believe auction house titans that give out wrong info. I had seen this photo at Ha.com and knew right away it was not vintage original. In your message to me, you said, its 100% 1927 vintage original. Anyhow, I'm not going to go back and forth with you on this. Let the forum speak on this photo.

Prewar- I to had some restrike photos like this. I was able to get refunds from ha and legendary auctions.

Albert

I'm quite aware of the plethora of messages that you sent me - the ones that were readable in no way inspired me to bend to your demands. I'm glad to see that you are presenting your arguments to this forum in a very, very different manner and tone.

I'm also glad to hear that you were able to get refunds for all the reprint photos that you have been buying from Heritage and Legendary . I'm also glad that the rest of us were able to avoid these mysterious photos that duped you, and that now you have become an expert in determining the age, thickness and feel of prints based on a scan. Those must be very handy skills.

I very much respect Rhys' opinion, and while I doubt that Sport Magazine or anyone else was creating prints from negatives and pulling the original 1927 slug from an older print and then putting it on the new one, it's also possible that Rhys knows something I don't about this photo - he handles tons of photos and also - I definitely make mistakes.

And while it would admittedly be quite irksome to admit that someone as unpleasant as yourself is correct about this, and I am wrong, I will have no problem doing so if people on this forum who I respect agree with you.

[D. Bergin]

It would be highly unusual for the original tag to follow a re-strike IMO, and that appears to be an original c. 1927 era tag to me.

I've seen plenty of vintage press photos with original tags and missing stamps. Plenty of vintage press photos with stamps and missing tags. I've seen tags placed on the backs of plenty of Type III style photos (usually sound or Tele photos).

Don't recall ever seeing an old tag on a new photo before. It's obvious this photo has been passed down for several uses through the years

Also, no way you could tell that was a re-strike from the photo up on Heritage, unless you were taking the description of the stamps on the back from the text of the listing and jumping to assumptions.

Not having it in hand to see the texture of the photo itself, I'd trust Scott on this one.

[sporteq]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I'm also glad to hear that you were able to get refunds for all the reprint photos that you have been buying from Heritage and Legendary . I'm also glad that the rest of us were able to avoid these mysterious photos that duped you, and that now you have become an expert in determining the age, thickness and feel of prints based on a scan. Those must be very handy skills.

Oh Scott- enough with the twisted circus exaggerated comments. We all know net54 is your playground hence the 6k posts. Let me clear up the facts here. All the refunds? It was on two photos that look exactly like the 1927 Waner brothers photo you bought and sold. I wasn't duped.. I got A refund. An "EXPERT" no comment LMFAO

AGAIN, this is about the "PHOTO" not an attack on you, Scott. If your taking this personal, that's your problem not mine. This discussion is not me vs you (Scott) It's a simple discussion on a photo.

[Runscott]

If anyone else wants to discuss this further, please feel free to send a PM or email, but the thread has degenerated to "Hey look at me, I'm Albert, I was right", and anything useful regarding these photos has either already been posted, or is being discussed offline. So, adios.

[sporteq]

Lance post was info I never heard before.. thanks for posting it.


Scott, you've been rude to me, don't you recall this post you made about me on this forum.. "Albert doesn't know his Type I's from a hole in the ground."

Then you go and post this dumb meme pic or whatever its called. This one.





I never called you a bad name or posted anything wrong about you. It may be possible just because you have 6,000 post you can't be wrong, I'm not really sure. You called me out and I answered with a thread. It's really that simple. But then again, not really with all your frivolous comments.

I knew it was a reprint from handling a 5/600 hundred photos.. so it was thru my experience, that I knew it was a re-strike. I know you won't accept that answer, there's nothing I can do about that.


I'm getting messages that you won't stop.. you'll be ignored from this point.

[Runscott]

...enough...

[Runscott]

...