Mark, so nice to see you post. Your GQ advertisement from the 1887 City Argus is among my favorite advertising pieces. Let me know if you ever locate a second one.
Manny, I'm following your responses with interest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SetBuilder
They're just guessing. Everything is an albumen print until proven otherwise too at the LOC. They're not going to pay for lab testing to find out.
There is very little visual difference between a salt print with gelatin and an albumen print. You can sometimes, however, pick out subtle differences.
Do you see a difference in sharpness and quality between the OJ cabinets and the OJ cards? I'm sure most people will, because the OJ cabinets were made with higher quality materials, and cheap giveaway OJs were made with the cheapest.
What about differences in quality between a stereoview card and an OJ? Stereoview cards were albumen. Why? Because they were sold to people. Quality mattered. OJ cards? Not so much. They were given away, for free.
|
Do you know how much it costs to analyze a card and is it destructive in any way? Jay, myself, and others have noted a decline in quality for the 1890 OJs vs earlier years. It would be interesting to have a couple cards from each year tested. The earlier cards, especially the 1887 Brooklyn players, have held up well over the years. In 1889, many of the cards have varying levels of pink tinting. It would be interesting to verify salt vs albumen print. It would surprise a lot of people if some of our 19th century photographic cards were found to be salt prints.
06-24-2018, 03:57 PM
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode