Legendary Winners - Part I

[Runscott]

I hesitate to comment on items while the auction is still live, but I'll do so now. I see a problem with the Walter Johnson Conlon glass negative. The negative is clearly cropped on the right side, compared to the print, and represents the publication cover, meaning that the negative was created from a print. You would have to be blind to miss it, but it should have been disclosed.

Given the price it went for, I'm thinking a couple of people thought it was an original Conlon glass negative: http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...ntoryid=151896

[drc]

True, the negative is from later on.

But $200 for the entire lot isn't unreasonable, as the photograph is nice and does match interestingly with negative.

[Jlighter]

Originally Posted by drc

True, the negative is from later on.

But $200 for the entire lot isn't unreasonable, as the photograph is nice and does match interestingly with negative.

It went for 500, that was just the min. bid.

[margoaepi]

And a few more from tonight. Sort of wish I had a bit more focus, but the shotgun approach seems to be working for the time being . . .

[drc]

Okay, $500 is up there.

Many of the 8x10 negatives with the faux signatures like that were made around the 1950s. Sold via magazine ads.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by drc

Okay, $500 is up there.

Many of negatives with the faux signatures like that were made around the 1950s. Sold via magazine ads.

I just realized it's not glass - doh.

[drc]

I do think it's interesting that the three images match up like that. That's unusual. As it is, it's an interesting matching trio, except, as Scott noted, the negative was misdescribed.