Brooklyn CDV

[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.

[Saco River Auction]

The staff at Saco River Auction have been hearing speculation and discussion in this forum and others regarding the authenticity of this card. I felt it was important to share all the information known on this card and its origin so that all of you can make an informed decision on the validity of this rare and unique card.

This card was found in Washington County Maine by a guy that buys used stuff. He was picking through a wood shed that held old furniture and coke bottles and a cardboard box on the floor caught his attention. In the box was some books and papers and a photo album. He bought a few chairs, the coke bottles and the box full of papers and the photo album. The guy brought the photo album home and cleaned all the mold off it and began to inspect the photos. He found a tin type from the civil war that showed Alcatraz Prison which he sold on ebay, and numerous other photos from the 1860's that were also sold on ebay. In the album was a curious cdv of a baseball team. He did minimal research and listed it on ebay. He was bombarded with emails and offers and decided to pull it down.

He then decided to sell the card to a gentlemen who he picks with, that guy then sent the card to Lelands for possible consignment. Lelands kept the card for two months and then mailed it back(no other communication like a courtesy call) was made and the card was mailed back stating that it was fake, made by an inkjet printer. The "expert" at Leland's claimed that the period mount it is attached and claimed the dot pattern of the mount is indicative of a inkjet printer and no mention of the actual image was made.

We were aware of this info and determined that the card needed to be examined by the best grading/authentication company around for 19th century sports items and images. We submitted the card for examination by SGC and they spent the better part of 4 days researching and examining this card. They are the experts and in speaking to the head examiner he is 100% sure that this is a authentic 19th century Albumen Process CDV depicting the 1865 Brooklyn Atlantics Team. SGC stands by their expertise and take pride in their work. They told me that they always approach a rare item with a large amount of skeptism until the evidence removes any doubt in their mind.

We intend to proceed without doubt or reservation in the sale of this rare and unique item as the evidence of its authenticity is not in question in our minds. We have also had what we consider an expert in 19th century photography, examine the card prior to sending it out and he is convinced that the item is right as rain.
Please keep in mind that Leland's is an excellent auction company with world class knowledge and experience, however no one in any auction house is an absolute expert in every catagory of items that they sell. That is why we defer to experts like SGC and PSA and JSA to assist us in verifying the items that we sell. It is obvious to us that this one slipped by the staff at Lelands and it is unfortunate for them as they lost a large potential commission, but this does not detract from the validity of The Saco River Auction Company or our upcoming sale. We are an established auction house in all phases of items and although we are not in a big city and have not been around for 50 years, we known how to manage and handle valuable items, and we get great prices for our consignors.

Thank You For Your Time and Interest
Troy Thibodeau
Manager/Auctioneer
Saco River Auction

[oldjudge]

I spoke to someone in your shop today and suggested that you get an opinion from Paul Messier, a Boston conservator who is an expert on albumen photographs. Will you be doing that? One other question-- the right side of the CdV looks like there is an area to the right of the photograph that once had something attached to it( looks like a glue line parallel to the edge of the current photograph). Do you know if Leland's thought that there was originally a larger photograph attached to the mount and then that photograph was removed and replaced by the current one? Looking at a scan is certainly a tough way to evaluate a piece, which is why I am asking how this area to the right of the photograph looks in person. Thanks for your help!

[oldjudge]

Gary--sorry I missed your post before. I don't know. I guess that you could print a copy from the LOC image. In my mind the real question is if someone could download a copy of the LOC image and print something like an albumen print from it. I find it hard to believe that SGC would think a laser copy is an albumen print. I would feel a lot better if there was some feature in this photo that, due to cropping differences, is not in the LOC photo. However, I can't find anything. Can you?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Saco River Auction

Lelands kept the card for two months and then mailed it back(no other communication like a courtesy call) was made and the card was mailed back stating that it was fake, made by an inkjet printer. The "expert" at Leland's claimed that the period mount it is attached and claimed the dot pattern of the mount is indicative of a inkjet printer and no mention of the actual image was made.


Thank You For Your Time and Interest
Troy Thibodeau
Manager/Auctioneer
Saco River Auction

Troy, the above comment is in poor taste, and doesn't ring true based on my dealings with Lelands. I hear the 'inkjet printer' comment often when people are describing fakes, but it's generally from ebayers or people who know very little about 1800's photography. In actuality, it wouldn't take someone who is even a half-blind albumen collector two minutes to identify a photograph as having been created by an inkjet printer.

I sincerely hope your comment was an error, and that if someone at Leland's actually used the term 'inkjet' to refer to this photo, that it was either in jest, or your comment about SGC saying it's legit, was a mistake on your part.

There's something very fishy about your story.

[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

[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.