Old Judge Proofs?

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

I've talked to Julie a good number of times and I've long known that Julie is no dummy and does her homework. I also know she owns her own super power microscope that she was used to examine her MastroNet winnings.

The albumen process was used to make almost all 19th century paper baseball photograhs, from the 1869 Cincinnati Reds trade card to Old Judges to Four Base Hits to that 1870 CDV of a kid holding a baseball. One of the keys (I said one) to authenticating 19th century albumen photographs is by examining the photographic image under a strong microscope (prefer 100x power or more, but 50x may do. I think Julie has a 600x power microscope!). Under a microscope, you can see the paper fibers in the albumen image. Looks like hay or little worms ... If you put your N173 or N172 under the microscope, you will be able to see the paper fibers.

This may seem dumb and obvious at first, but with 99.9 percent of 20th century photographs-- from that original 1910 Ty Cobb to the Kodak snapshot of you at 5-- you cannot see paper fibers, even under highest magnification. This is because most 20th century paper photographs put a thin clear substance (for example, the gelatin in gelatin-silver photos) on the photograhic paper. This substance was used both to hold the photograhpic chemicals to the paper and for its chemical properties (gelatin allowed for better development that earlier substances). Though transparent and not effecting the image from normal view, these substances make it impossible to viewe the paper fibers. They prevent your microscope from focusing on the fibers below.

These microscopic details have been well documented and known for years in academic circles. They were discussed in the standard academic book, "Care and Identification of 19th Century Photographic Pritns," Published by Eastman Kodak Company and written by James Reilley, Professor and Director of the Image Permanence Institute at Rochester Institute of Technology.

Using other techniques including general obvservation, the key is that one can look look through the microscope at a questioned photograph and and say, This is a legitmate 1880s photograph. Or, there's no way this photograph was made in the 1860s.

This technique takes some practice, but it is something that the average collector can do. A handheld microscope of power is 100x power is surprisingly inexensive (We're talking $15) and it often takes 20 seconds to look for paper fibers. When someone has me look at their 15x15" 1880s baseball photo, I take out my trusty little microscope and give the quick look over. "I see the paper fibers. Looks good. Nice photo."

Duly note that this is one technique, and there are a vareity of other microscopic things to look for on albumen prints.

Personally, I would love it if collectors bought my book on early baseball photographs, the above mentioned Reilly book if second opinion is needed, bought a handheld microscope that costs the price of a bottle of hair conditioner and learned how to make knowledgeable and intelligent opinions on the authenticity of these very OJ Proofs. I seriously would love it ... To me, the ultimate in any hobby is when a normal collector, like a retired 60 something baseball card collector and the only female board member named Julie V., takes the time and effort so she can make her own judgements about the stuff she collects. Tell me that isn't cool ... But the vast majority of collectors (and people viewing this thread) won't buy my book and a miscroscope. There's nothing I can do about this, other than to roll my eyes whenever some of these very people offer their exotic theories.

One thing this thread has shown me is that many feel people they don't have to be know about a subject in order to argue about it, and that most people don't know about this subject. Considering that perhaps 5 people on this board have ever used a microscope to look for paper fibers on an 1800s cabinet card, and perhaps 8 even own a good microscope, I rest my case.