Brooklyn CDV

[Saco River Auction]

Hello all, its been awhile. As you may know we recently sold all those Old Judge Cabinets in August 2012 including King Kelly in street clothes.

Well we have some amazing news that should rock the industry. We have been commissioned to sell The Brooklyn Atlantics 1865 CDV that generated these posts and was found in Maine. This card is the rarest of the rare.

We have sent the card to SGC and they determined that the card is 100% Authentic. This card is the only example to ever come to market and the only other example is locked away in the Library of Congress.

I will be doing a formal post on Friday December 20th 2012 and I will include photos of the card encapsulated. The auction is planned for February 6, 2013.

[barrysloate]

That CdV is a great pickup. It's going to garner a lot of attention and a huge bid. Congratulations to you!

[Saco River Auction]

Thank you very much Barry we are excited!!!

[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.

[GaryPassamonte]

Jay- What was it a laser copy of? Where is the original? A copy of the LOC example?

[bcbgcbrcb]

If that is the question, it should not be too hard to tell if you have the actual piece in hand and can look at the photo under magnification. I would think that SGC would have done that so it most likely is good but can't tell from where I'm sitting........

[oldjudge]

Agreed Phil. But then would an established auction house reject it? They are not in the business of refusing good (and potentially valuable) consignments.

[bcbgcbrcb]

I wonder if the fact that it was rejected by Leland's was brought to SGC's attention upon submission? My guess is that it was not.

That being said, I feel confident that SGC would be able to identify a fraudulant card as they are experts in the field, especially when reviewing one as rare and potentially valuable as this one.

"Established Auction Houses" have taken consignments which I have deemed to be fake and still continued to run the auctions even after this info was disclosed to them.

[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.

[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

[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.