What do you photo guys make of this?

[SAllen2556]

I was intrigued by this photo purported to be an original from 1915. But it just looks weird. The stamp on the back is in black ink, which I've never seen from a Detroit News photo - they're always blue, and the photo itself just looks too pristine. The guys is selling it as an original for the meager sum of $999. Any thoughts? Restrike with a fake stamp? Are fake stamps starting to occur on a regular basis?

This is what he wrote to me when I asked:
Original photos bearing the photographers stamp are not always date stamped. In fact they usually were only dated when they were used by a photo service for insertion in the newspaper or other publication and would then usually bear the photo service or wire service's stamps also. Original photos would also often also bear the names of those pictured hand written or sometimes typed depending on the photographer. This is an original photo and the image was taken in 1915 as I have also seen this image as a used wirephoto bearing the photo service's paper caption with date taken and description.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1915-BABE-RU...item35e3867fce

[bcbgcbrcb]

Definitely does not look like a type I photo to me........

[Shoeless Moe]

I'm always wary buying a $1000 photo that is hanging on someones fridge, but what do I know.

[SAllen2556]

Yes, I'm naive, but if the scams on eBay are a snapshot of our society - well, it's just a bit depressing sometimes.

[drcy]

Not original.

Duly note that I've seen Detroit News photos that were legitimate and came from the newspaper, but made years after the image was shot. That a photo isn't original, doesn't automatically mean it's a forgery. Though the later made Detroit News photos I've seen had a different image tone and a drystamp (embossment)

I don't have a specific opinion on the photo (beyond that it isn't original), but noted news photographers did sometimes reuse old images. Including George Dorrill, George Burke, Brace and Conlon.

[prewarsports]

Agreed

Second generation photograph with staff photographer stamp on the back from much later, probably the 1950's. Hard to tell from the scan but it does not appear to be from the original negative either. It is a nice restrike and definitely has some value, just not $1000. BTW, if this photo WAS original, I think there are about 80 of us that would have pulled that trigger on the first day it was listed!

Rhys

[Michael B]

It is also a matter of size. Many of the early press photos were 4½x6½ (Bain, Thompson), 5x7 or 6x8 (Acme, Pacific & Atlantic, Underwood & Underwood, International Film Service, International Newsreel). 8x10 was not regularly used until the 1930’s and 6x8 was still a common size even into the 1940’s. It raises a red flag when I see a photo that is 8x10 that claims to be very early. I have hundreds of pre-WWII press photos in my archives/collection and there may be a few late 1930's that are that big, but not many. It became such a common size to print for 35mm film (though incorrect in ratio) that it is accepted as the standard size.

David and Rhys may agree or disagree with me. I would welcome their thoughts on this.