Brooklyn CDV

[Matthew H]

Originally Posted by Saco River Auction

On January 7 2013 Paul Messier Conservator of Boston inspected the card and his findings are in the detailed report which I am including.

A Quick summary of his findings are as follows.

This is a 19th century Albumen Print, and was not created with a laser, inket, or any other kind of modern photography process.

We have spent the time to be certain and to make all of you certain that this is an authentic 19th century albumen print. We have provided conclusive evidence from SGC and Paul Messier.

It is now time to move forward and sell this card. We have scheduled the sale for February 6 2013@5PM at our auction hall in Biddeford Maine.

I am currently registering phone bidders and absentee bidders, internet bidding will begin later this week.


If you would like to schedule a phone bid or have any questions please call Troy 207-650-5677

Such a beautiful item... Best of luck to you.

[Saco River Auction]

http://www.sacoriverauction.com/wp-c..._atlantics.pdf

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Saco River Auction

On January 7 2013 Paul Messier Conservator of Boston inspected the card and his findings are in the detailed report which I am including.

A Quick summary of his findings are as follows.

This is a 19th century Albumen Print, and was not created with a laser, inket, or any other kind of modern photography process.

We have spent the time to be certain and to make all of you certain that this is an authentic 19th century albumen print. We have provided conclusive evidence from SGC and Paul Messier.

It is now time to move forward and sell this card. We have scheduled the sale for February 6 2013@5PM at our auction hall in Biddeford Maine.

I am currently registering phone bidders and absentee bidders, internet bidding will begin later this week.

If you would like to schedule a phone bid or have any questions please call Troy 207-650-5677

Hi Troy. Messier's report does not say that it IS a 19th century albumen print - it says "the photograph is consistent with a 19th century albumen print." There is a huge difference. My concern, and that of several others, was that this might be a 20th century albumen created by a forger who took the time to learn the process described in Jay's earlier post - I think the additional testing described at the end of Messier's report is what it would take to dispel that concern: "Additional work to confirm the process could include identification of the final image material, an assessment of paper fibers and an analysis of the binder."

Just my opinion. I think it's great that you took the item to Messier and I hope that whoever wins it doesn't have a bad 'gut feel' when they finally have it in hand, and end up having to send it off for the testing of the actual image.

[yanks12025]

Originally Posted by Saco River Auction

On January 7 2013 Paul Messier Conservator of Boston inspected the card and his findings are in the detailed report which I am including.

A Quick summary of his findings are as follows.

This is a 19th century Albumen Print, and was not created with a laser, inket, or any other kind of modern photography process.

We have spent the time to be certain and to make all of you certain that this is an authentic 19th century albumen print. We have provided conclusive evidence from SGC and Paul Messier.

It is now time to move forward and sell this card. We have scheduled the sale for February 6 2013@5PM at our auction hall in Biddeford Maine.

I am currently registering phone bidders and absentee bidders, internet bidding will begin later this week.

If you would like to schedule a phone bid or have any questions please call Troy 207-650-5677

What happened to the Boston pic in your last auction? I couldn't find it.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by yanks12025

What happened to the Boston pic in your last auction? I couldn't find it.

If I am not mistaking it was counterfeit and got pulled.

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Hi Troy. Messier's report does not say that it IS a 19th century albumen print - it says "the photograph is consistent with a 19th century albumen print." There is a huge difference.

This is just the common wording for any COA, LOA or legal opinion. If you read a PSA/DNA LOA it states, "The signature(s) is/are consistent considering slant, flow, pen pressure, letter size and other characteristics [...]" It never says, "This IS an authentic signature." It's simply an opinion of an expert.

Kudos to the seller for getting multiple opinions. Personally, I'm surprised the pitchforks are still out. It is a beautiful piece and anyone who is still questioning it needs to send me whatever they're smoking.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

This is just the common wording for any COA, LOA or legal opinion. If you read a PSA/DNA LOA it states, "The signature(s) is/are consistent considering slant, flow, pen pressure, letter size and other characteristics [...]" It never says, "This IS an authentic signature." It's simply an opinion of an expert.

Kudos to the seller for getting multiple opinions. Personally, I'm surprised the pitchforks are still out. It is a beautiful piece and anyone who is still questioning it needs to send me whatever they're smoking.

I speak and read the English for what it states in English. If he had wanted to, he could have said that his opinion is that it IS a 19th century albumen print.

Scott <=== consistent in facial structure with Mel Gibson

[Donscards]

Come on Guys---I would say we all know this is a outstanding piece and find---Saco River has done everything you have asked of them---the cdv is graded by SGC (to me the best for pre 1900) and now Paul Messier has certified it. I know alot of collectors would want this and with the skepticism shown on the board-are a few people trying to keep the price down----I was at the last Saco River auction were King Kelly went for $70,000---there was a phonebank of like 10 phones plus the pc's---so I think u will see the same thing here. Good Luck to the bidders on this board---The Brooklyn Team CDV will go high----Don

[asoriano]

I agree, Don. Awesome piece and best of luck to the auction house.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Donscards

Come on Guys---I would say we all know this is a outstanding piece and find---Saco River has done everything you have asked of them---the cdv is graded by SGC (to me the best for pre 1900) and now Paul Messier has certified it.

Don, have you read the posts that you are rebutting? As an albumen collector, I clearly and respectfully stated my opinion (on a discussion forum where we talk about such things - I am guessing that you are glad we do so, as otherwise collectors would be getting screwed right and left. Am I correct?). The additional tests that Messier mentioned are available for a reason, and if a cdv that you think is worth $70K does not warrant such tests, please tell me what cdv would?

Originally Posted by Donscards

I know alot of collectors would want this and with the skepticism shown on the board-are a few people trying to keep the price down

Absolute rubbish. I have no reason to want to "keep the price down", as I will not be bidding on it and have no idea who will be. In addition, I've spoken with Troy several times and he's a very likable guy. I would like the price to be very high if it's legit, and be pulled if it's not. Sound fair?

Originally Posted by Donscards

----I was at the last Saco River auction were King Kelly went for $70,000---there was a phonebank of like 10 phones plus the pc's

So what?

[Saco River Auction]

We at SRA have satisfied our obligations and have done our due diligence in assuring members of this forum and potential bidders that this is the genuine item that we all know it is. I have listened to the conspiracy theories and skeptics and have gone above and beyond to alleviate any fears. The time is at hand for individuals who are going to be players on this item, to line up and get your chance at one of the best, most historic finds to arrive on the market in years. We will not be performing any further forensic testing as we are convinced as to what this item is. Make no mistake, the evidence is clear, this is a 19th century Albumen print made in the 1860's by CH Williamson, and was not made by anyone else at any other time. I know that it is great fodder for forums like this in which rumor and innuendo sometimes supercede facts, for the sake of conversation. If this were a legal trial we would have proven our case "beyond a resonable doubt". I like that we as a forum are excited about this item, and no talk is bad talk, but let's focus on the excitement the sale of this item is going to create for my industry and your hobby.

Troy

[GaryPassamonte]

Troy,
Forgive us for being skeptical about the CdV, but that trait comes with the territory. Many of us have been stung before and we want to be positive about authenticity. The " beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is not 100%. The onus of proving absolute authenticity and instilling confidence in buyers rests with the seller and with the auction house. That said, I believe you have done everything possible to authenticate the CdV. As I've said before, we all want this to be real. I would still recommend an in person inspection of the CdV prior to bidding.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by GaryPassamonte

Troy,
Forgive us for being skeptical about the CdV, but that trait comes with the territory. Many of us have been stung before and we want to be positive about authenticity. The " beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is not 100%. The onus of proving absolute authenticity and instilling confidence in buyers rests with the seller and with the auction house. That said, I believe you have done everything possible to authenticate the CdV. As I've said before, we all want this to be real. I would still recommend an in person inspection of the CdV prior to bidding.

According to the report they did a lot, but certainly not everything possible.

"Additional work to confirm the process could include identification of the final image material, an assessment of paper fibers and an analysis of the binder. "




.

[GaryPassamonte]

Agreed, Leon. Everything was too strong a word.

[Saco River Auction]

I also would recommend and would invite any potential bidder to make the trip to Maine prior to the sale date to inspect the CDV themselves in order to formulate their own opinion prior to bidding. We are open by appointment Monday-Friday from 8-4 or other times by appointment. As I have stated in my prior post we will not be doing anymore testing, but I do encourage anyone to view the item in person.

Troy

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Saco River Auction

We at SRA have satisfied our obligations and have done our due diligence in assuring members of this forum and potential bidders that this is the genuine item that we all know it is. I have listened to the conspiracy theories and skeptics and have gone above and beyond to alleviate any fears. The time is at hand for individuals who are going to be players on this item, to line up and get your chance at one of the best, most historic finds to arrive on the market in years. We will not be performing any further forensic testing as we are convinced as to what this item is. Make no mistake, the evidence is clear, this is a 19th century Albumen print made in the 1860's by CH Williamson, and was not made by anyone else at any other time. I know that it is great fodder for forums like this in which rumor and innuendo sometimes supercede facts, for the sake of conversation. If this were a legal trial we would have proven our case "beyond a resonable doubt". I like that we as a forum are excited about this item, and no talk is bad talk, but let's focus on the excitement the sale of this item is going to create for my industry and your hobby.

Troy

Troy, echoing what Gary said, this is a vintage baseball forum and so we discuss vintage baseball stuff - the very expensive rare items are going to be the spotlight of our discussions.

We have shown you the utmost respect and nothing in this thread has had the slightest resemblance to a "conspiracy theory". Nor were there any "rumors", "innuendos" or anything else that "superceded facts". This was just an honest discussion based on cdv traits that were in line with problems we have seen in the past.

I do realize that auction houses would prefer that all discussions about their items be positive. There have been many high-dollar items discussed here that have received nothing but praise, with no questions regarding their authenticity. You have been very forthright in your responses and a real pleasure to talk with, so there really is no reason for anyone to question your cdv, other than that it begs questioning.

[Saco River Auction]

The additional tests that Messier mentions are tests that I decided not to have completed due to two major factors. 1st each test takes a sample of the material from the image and card itself. This is a forensic test that removes a physical sample of the card and a machine determines the chemical makeup of the image and the card. I am not about to have part of the treasure snipped or extracted from the original......probably will hurt the value....don't you think. Secondly, this round of additional testing is very expensive and is not something I decided(along with the seller) made much sense.

Troy

[yanks12025]

Did it have to get reslabbed after?

[Saco River Auction]

It has been reglued back to its original form. Scott at SGC said that anyone who buys it can have it reslabbed by him or we may send it to him prior to sale to have it done.

[barrysloate]

I would have it reslabbed Troy. Regluing a holder that has been taken apart doesn't sound like a good plan moving forward. It's worth the extra fifty bucks, or whatever they charge.

[bigfish]

Kudos to Troy and Saco River for getting two opinions. Folks that are skeptical shouldn't bid. I am sure there won't be a shortage of people wanting this item. Best of luck.

[oldjudge]

Toby-I think you are right that a lot of people will want the item. However, I'm not sure that there are many people, if any, who will want to pay a significant price. I don't know anyone who will go crazy for this item. Do you?

[bigfish]

Hi Jay, hard to predict where this item will go pricewise. A rare item will bring serious interest. I guess we will see once the auction ends. I wouldn't be surprised if the price is strong.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by bigfish

Kudos to Troy and Saco River for getting two opinions. Folks that are skeptical shouldn't bid. I am sure there won't be a shortage of people wanting this item. Best of luck.

If I'm ever selling anything that you are skeptical about, please feel free to ask questions. Troy doesn't mind either. The only people that seemed to mind are forum members, which really surprises me - this is a discussion forum and we're talking about a $50,000 collectible.

[Old Hoss]

Originally Posted by Saco River Auction

The additional tests that Messier mentions are tests that I decided not to have completed due to two major factors. 1st each test takes a sample of the material from the image and card itself. This is a forensic test that removes a physical sample of the card and a machine determines the chemical makeup of the image and the card. I am not about to have part of the treasure snipped or extracted from the original......probably will hurt the value....don't you think. Secondly, this round of additional testing is very expensive and is not something I decided(along with the seller) made much sense.

Troy

In my past exposure to people working with items worth much more than this cdv (fine art prints and photographs), samples can be taken that probably do not diminish the value of the items and are probably not visible to the naked eye.

If you never asked, or were never told, how large of a sample would be taken, or where on the item it would be taken from, it is impossible to know if it would be detrimental to the item.

Just thought I'd share my thoughts. This has been really interesting to read, and I wish you good luck with your auction.

Charles

[Matthew H]

Just looking at pages 5 - 11 in Messier's report... If it's fake, that's scary.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I am hearing that the CdV was rejected by Leland's as being a laser copy on a period mount. After that it was deemed authentic by SGC. If all that is true, then it seems like a photographic expert needs to cast the deciding vote.

I know nothing about these CDV's to have any opinion, but I thought this ^^ was the main reason some were skeptical on the board. It was suggested to add faith for the potential bidders and to the claims of it being a laser/inkjet copy that the CDV be sent to Messier to clear this up. And, to his credit, he (Troy) went the extra mile and did as suggested.

Believe me, I am a skeptical person myself in general, but you guys still aren't satisfied with the effort and results? I'm definatley not knocking anyone for being skeptical, as I like that collectors are-but I thought the issue was with Lelands and the inkjet rejection. I'm just trying to figure out how now it's moving to processing fibers? Please educate me- thanks.

Sincerely, Clayton

[Matthew H]

Clayton, I think people are interested in the card and want to know everything they can.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

I know nothing about these CDV's to have any opinion, but I thought this ^^ was the main reason some were skeptical on the board. It was suggested to add faith for the potential bidders and to the claims of it being a laser/inkjet copy that the CDV be sent to Messier to clear this up. And, to his credit, he (Troy) went the extra mile and did as suggested.

Believe me, I am a skeptical person myself in general, but you guys still aren't satisfied with the effort and results? I'm definatley not knocking anyone for being skeptical, as I like that collectors are-but I thought the issue was with Lelands and the inkjet rejection. I'm just trying to figure out how now it's moving to processing fibers? Please educate me- thanks.

Sincerely, Clayton

Clayton,

Forensic testing is a negative process, which means it does not say what something is but rather what something is not. So if the testing shows an item contains substances that were not in existence at the time the item was to have been created, then it must be a fake. But that is quite different from saying it is real. How do we know a skilled forger, knowledgeable in how items were made, could not have recreated the process in current times using materials that were commercially available in the period when the item was to have originated? In the case at hand, Mr. Messier says the photo is consistent with a 19th century albumen photo. That certainly is nice to know because had he said it is inconsistent, then case closed, the item must be a fake. But to me that says little because I never thought the image was not albumen. Any forger with half a brain would know for a fake to pass muster, it had to be an albumen photo. Why? Because, as Mr. Messier has shown, to a person with knowledge of 19th photography, determining the type of photo is not difficult. But why couldn't a forger take a genuine Williamson mount, create an albumen copy of the LOC image, and adhere it to the mount? If that was to be done then presto, you will have created a CdV in the same fashion that Willimason did in his studio. Far fetched you say? Well given the simplicity of doing it and the tremendous payoff if it passes muster, why is this possibility not plausible? This hobby has seen fakes of so many kinds. Why then not fake CdVs?

The reason for my concern is because not only has a genuine CdV of this image never before been seen (the LOC version is not techically a CdV because of the size of its mount), but of much more serious concern is that this image reflects a degradation in resolution that IMO raises the most serious questions whether it was printed from the same negative as produced the LOC image. Resolution is different from contrast. Prints generated from the same negative can and do vary widely in contrast. Think of N172s, say. A card of a particular player can come with crisp contrast or instead appear very light. But that has nothing to do with resolution, or the detail that can be seen in the image. If on a scale of 1 to 10 the LOC image is a 10 in terms of resolution, I would call the Saco River image a 5. That to me is an enormous difference, and not only have I never before seen such a difference in images generated from the same negative, I don't understand how the printing process could cause such a precipitous drop. Troy offers as an explanation that perhaps the vignette process used by the studio caused resolution degradation that reached into player images themselves. To this point all I can say is that I would want someone knowledgeable in vignette photography to corroborate that as a reasonable explaination. In the absence of such an explanation, there certainly is reasonable doubt the image is real, and the additional tests Mr. Messier describes should be undertaken.

To anticipate a question, why must these additional tests be conclusive if forensic testing is, as I have said, a negative proces? The answer is that they are not conclusive, but they would substantially reduce the chances the image is not real because the more layers of testing one does, the greater the difficulty for a forger to be so skilled as to create something that passes all known forensic testing, and too the greater the attendant expense. Is it theoretically possible, yes, but as a practical matter, in most cases unlikely.

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Clayton,

Forensic testing is a negative process, which means it does not say what something is but rather what something is not. So if the testing shows an item contains substances that were not in existence at the time the item was to have been created, then it must be a fake. But that is quite different from saying it is real. How do we know a skilled forger, knowledgeable in how items were made, could not have recreated the process in current times using materials that were commercially available in the period when the item was to have originated? In the case at hand, Mr. Messier says the photo is consistent with a 19th century albumen photo. That certainly is nice to know because had he said it is inconsistent, then case closed, the item must be a fake. But to me that says little because I never thought the image was not albumen. Any forger with half a brain would know for a fake to pass muster, it had to be an albumen photo. Why? Because, as Mr. Messier has shown, to a person with knowledge of 19th photography, determining the type of photo is not difficult. But why couldn't a forger didn't take a genuine Williamson mount, create an albumen copy of the LOC image, and adhere it to the mount? If that was to be done then presto, you will have created a CdV in the same fashion that Willimason did in his studio. Far fetched you say? Well given the simplicity of doing it and the tremendous payoff if it passes muster, why is this possibility not plausible? This hobby has seen fakes of so many kinds. Why then not fake CdVs?

The reason for my concern is not only has a genuine CdV of this image never before been seen (the LOC version is not techically a CdV because of the size of its mount), but of much more serious concern is that this image reflects a degradation in resolution that IMO raises the most serious questions whether it was printed from the same negative as produced the LOC image. Resolution is different from contrast. Prints generated from the same negative can and do vary widely in contrast. Think of N172s, say. A card of a particular player can come with crisp contrast or instead appear very light. But that has nothing to do with resolution, or the detail that can be seen in the image. If on a scale of 1 to 10 the LOC image is a 10 in terms of resolution, I would call the Saco River image a 5. That to me is an enormous difference, and not only have I never before seen such a difference in images generated from the same negative, I don't understand how the printing process could cause such a preciptous drop. Troy suggests that perhaps the vignette process used by the studio caused resolution degradation that reached into player images themselves to explain this descrepancy. To this point all I can is that I would want someone knowledgeable in vignette photography to corroborate that as a reasonable explaination. In the absence of such an explanation, there certainly is reasonable doubt the image is real, and the additional tests Mr. Messier describes should be undertaken.

To anticipate a question, why must these additional tests be conclusive if a forensic testing is, as I have said, a negative proces? The answer is that they are not conclusive, but they would substantially reduce the chances the image is not real because the more layers of testing one does, the greater the diffficulty for a forger to be so skilled as to create something that passes all known forensic testing. Is it theoretically possible, yes, but as a practical matter, very unlikely.

+1

Not saying the CdV isn't good, as it may be fine. But the Messier report doesn't prove it's real either. Corey is merely trying to explain what these reports actually tell us.

[yanks12025]

Say it was fake, how would he have printed the image if he doesn't have the negative. And remember the site white Betsy, they showed some items that a forger would do every little detail.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by yanks12025

Say it was fake, how would he have printed the image if he doesn't have the negative. And remember the site white Betsy, they showed some items that a forger would do every little detail.

The process of taking a photo of the LOC image would create a new (2nd generation) negative, and he would make a print from this negative. This process would cause a degradation in resolution, in much the same way that xeroxing a document would create a copy of lesser resolution.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Clayton,

Forensic testing is a negative process, which means it does not say what something is but rather what something is not. So if the testing shows an item contains substances that were not in existence at the time the item was to have been created, then it must be a fake. But that is quite different from saying it is real. How do we know a skilled forger, knowledgeable in how items were made, could not have recreated the process in current times using materials that were commercially available in the period when the item was to have originated? In the case at hand, Mr. Messier says the photo is consistent with a 19th century albumen photo. That certainly is nice to know because had he said it is inconsistent, then case closed, the item must be a fake. But to me that says little because I never thought the image was not albumen. Any forger with half a brain would know for a fake to pass muster, it had to be an albumen photo. Why? Because, as Mr. Messier has shown, to a person with knowledge of 19th photography, determining the type of photo is not difficult. But why couldn't a forger take a genuine Williamson mount, create an albumen copy of the LOC image, and adhere it to the mount? If that was to be done then presto, you will have created a CdV in the same fashion that Willimason did in his studio. Far fetched you say? Well given the simplicity of doing it and the tremendous payoff if it passes muster, why is this possibility not plausible? This hobby has seen fakes of so many kinds. Why then not fake CdVs?

The reason for my concern is because not only has a genuine CdV of this image never before been seen (the LOC version is not techically a CdV because of the size of its mount), but of much more serious concern is that this image reflects a degradation in resolution that IMO raises the most serious questions whether it was printed from the same negative as produced the LOC image. Resolution is different from contrast. Prints generated from the same negative can and do vary widely in contrast. Think of N172s, say. A card of a particular player can come with crisp contrast or instead appear very light. But that has nothing to do with resolution, or the detail that can be seen in the image. If on a scale of 1 to 10 the LOC image is a 10 in terms of resolution, I would call the Saco River image a 5. That to me is an enormous difference, and not only have I never before seen such a difference in images generated from the same negative, I don't understand how the printing process could cause such a precipitous drop. Troy offers as an explanation that perhaps the vignette process used by the studio caused resolution degradation that reached into player images themselves. To this point all I can say is that I would want someone knowledgeable in vignette photography to corroborate that as a reasonable explaination. In the absence of such an explanation, there certainly is reasonable doubt the image is real, and the additional tests Mr. Messier describes should be undertaken.

To anticipate a question, why must these additional tests be conclusive if forensic testing is, as I have said, a negative proces? The answer is that they are not conclusive, but they would substantially reduce the chances the image is not real because the more layers of testing one does, the greater the difficulty for a forger to be so skilled as to create something that passes all known forensic testing, and too the greater the attendant expense. Is it theoretically possible, yes, but as a practical matter, in most cases unlikely.

Thank you Corey, that was an excellent explanation, exactly what I was looking for. And, I also understand that when someone is considering spending the type of money something like this would go for, they would want to have zero doubts.

I appreciate you taking the time to educate me on this, I learned alot from your post, as well as the whole thread. Very interesting. You guys know your stuff !!! Thanks again for the detailed response.

Sincerely, Clayton

[Peter_Spaeth]

To my eye, the examples the expert report used as comparisons all seem to have significantly clearer images.

[ctownboy]

I am not going to be bidding on this item (because I don't have nearly enough money to buy it if it is real) so I am not posting to try and bring the price down. Nor am I posting because I have anything against the auction house.

My main concern would be how the CDV smells.

The story, as I understand it, is that someone was going through a barn or out building and found an old trunk filled with stuff. One piece of this stuff was an old photo album that was musty and moldy. Inside this album were CDV's.

Now, if the album was musty and moldy then shouldn't some (or all) of the cards inside be musty and moldy? Shouldn't some (or all) SMELL musty and moldy if not also looking musty and moldy?

My thinking is, if a photo album has mold growing on it then it must have been around a source of water. If it had been around water long enough to have mold growing on it then the contents must also have some sort of mold residue on them.

But that is just me.....

David

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

-but I thought the issue was with Lelands and the inkjet rejection. I'm just trying to figure out how now it's moving to processing fibers? Please educate me- thanks.

Sincerely, Clayton

Clayton, good question. Mr. Messier is an expert in this field and he states that the image is an albumen. Cory explained the need for 'processing fibers', etc, but Lelands' opinion is still a mystery and I hope we will get more detail.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by yanks12025

Say it was fake, how would he have printed the image if he doesn't have the negative. And remember the site white Betsy, they showed some items that a forger would do every little detail.

One can simply download the medium res scan from the LoC site and there are computer tools available to produce a negative directly from that. If one wanted very high res, a better scan can be ordered for about $75.

It's possible that a forger might want to then deliberately reduce resolution enough to obscure any small flaws or characteristics that might be attributable to the LoC item.

[sb1]

The CDV and auction just got a plug on Fox Business News

[benjulmag]

For those reading all the posts in this thread you know I have been expressing great skepticism as to the authenticity of the Saco River image due to the degradation in resolution compared to the LOC copy. That concern still exists. However, to be entirely fair I feel that should information come to my attention that would argue in favor of the item being authentic, I have a responsibility to present it.

Below is an image of the 1865 Atlantics mammoth plate (photographed from Stephen Wong's book "Smithsonian Baseball"). That photo resides in my collection and is a salt print. It first surfaced in the summer of 1991 when it was sold by the Connecticut auction house Nadeau's. The sister image that accompanied it in the sale was a mammoth plate composite of the 1873 Baltimores (consisting of CdVs of each player with a calligraphed overlay). Both photos were housed in identical period frames and both exhibited considerable aging. I have no doubt as to the authenticity of each image. When I asked the auctioneer where he got them, he responded he recently bought the entire contents of a local estate sale and those two images were part of that estate. The auctioneer claimed they were literally thrown into the deal for little or no consideration.

Why is this relevant? Examination of the background of the 1865 mammoth plate shows it to be essentially identical to the background of the Saco River image, and at variance with the background of the LOC image. So it would seem Williamson did use a vignette process to highlight the players. This match between backgrounds I regard as significant, though not dispositve because a forger could have used the mammoth plate to create his background. In addition, the fact remains that the resolution of the Saco River image is below what one would expect from an original CdV and signficantly less than that of the LOC copy made from the same negative. And I remain perplexed how that can be.

Taking all this into account in my view increases the possibility the Saco River image is genuine. I still feel further testing is warranted and that without it the leap of faith required to be comfortable it is real is more than I would be comfortable taking.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by sb1

The CDV and auction just got a plug on Fox Business News

A writer from the Associated Press (AP) registered for our board earlier today. They will probably be doing a story on it too.

[yanks12025]

I just read a article about it and someone said it will go six figures.

[oldjudge]

LOL, does that count the numbers to the right of the decimal point?

[teetwoohsix]

Link to Fox Sports (AP) write up: http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/1...auction-010913

Sincerely, Clayton

[oldjudge]

To me it's amazing how the press picks up a number that an auction house throws out and makes it seem like it is the gospel. If Troy had said a million they would be printing that too. What we have here is an old scarce photograph which, if Corey is right, could be a reproduction of the LOC original, or, if Peter Nash is right, could have come from the NYPL collection( if you get Peter's Halls of Shame email it is in today's edition). I have no idea how valid these concerns are, but that is a lot of questions for a little piece of cardboard to bear and still be advertised in the press as a six figure item. That said, for the sake of SRAs, the consignor, and to add some buzz to the hobby I hope it goes for a gazillion dollars.

[insidethewrapper]

This is really an interesting thread. I don't know much about early photography , but learning on this forum. One question: Have all these early baseball cards and photos etc been donated to the Library of Congress by individuals ? Thanks

[Runscott]

But Jay - haven't you heard? There is a conspiracy theory that skeptics are trying to reduce the value of the card by expressing their concerns about a piece of vintage cardboard, in a vintage cardboard discussion forum

I personally think that the attention that these skeptics have drawn to the card could actually INCREASE the final bid. The original estimate when it was first mentioned here, was around $50,000 I believe. The consignor recently stated that the value had increased to $100,000. Shouldn't the skeptic advertising team get a cut of the difference?

[yanks12025]

"Collectors have also commented that scans of the CDV appear to suggest that the albumen photograph may not have been original to the Williamson Studios mount. Messier’s report did not address this issue and what appears to have been a possible removal of a prior image close to the gilded Williamson identification. Messier removed the card from its SGC-graded holder for his examination and would have been able to determine if the albumen photograph was original to the mount if asked to do so. Messier declined comment on that issue stating he was not authorized by his client to speak beyond what is contained in his written report."

That section is from the haul of shame article. I don't understand why he can't comment on it more besides what's in the report. I know if I was going to be bidding 50-100k I should be able to ask him whatever I want about it after he looked at it. I bet after it sells in feb, it won't be the end up us hearing about it.

[Runscott]

Brock, the people who have the resources and willingness to bid on this are certainly going to try to find out as much as they possibly can about it. This board and the various articles are only some of the resources they have available.

Multiple photography experts are consulted by potential bidders ANY time an item like this becomes available, and discussions abound...behind the scenes. Our board is just a discussion forum and free advertising - nobody will be bidding on this without having done their research, and nothing that we have discussed here has not been discussed ten times as much in private.

If the winning bidder is present at the auction, then the show will be over. On the other hand, if he is not (which would be ridiculous, as the price of a plane ticket is minimal compared to the price of the cdv), then future episodes will hinge on his thoughts when he opens the package. I wish it were going to be me.

[oldjudge]

Brock-Paul was hired by Troy. He performed his analysis based upon what Troy requested (and paid for). If Troy had paid for additional services then they would have been performed and commented on in Paul's report. I don't know what the terms and conditions that SRAs operate under, but I would hope that a winning bidder, if he or she made arrangements in advance, would have the opportunity to return the CdV if it later proved to be a fake.

[wonkaticket]

Maybe it came from Peter Nash himself.