Brooklyn CDV

[oldjudge]

Corey or Barry-- you kow this type of material really well. Do ou have a view?

[prewarsports]

A couple of thoughts

First, if someone was going to go to the trouble and fake this, it seems like they would extend the photo past the marks Jay is talking about to hide them if this was a recycled mount, and trim it tighter on the sides. However back in the 1860's most people hand cut these so authentic CDV's do have weird cuts like this one ALL THE TIME. So that is a good thing.

Second, it would be hard if not impossible to fake the tone of the photo with the fading on the item in question from the crystal clear image on the LOC example. SO thats a good thign too.

Third, the line Jay is talking about is troubling because it absolutely looks like something else was once glued there. Anyone that collects CDV photos will know that the photo itself is VERY thin, see through in fact when held to the light, so it would be almost impossible to reback something like this. Only thought I have on that front is perhaps a label was glued there at one point?

From a scan, it looks good and if it is encapsulated by SGC I would find it hard to believe they could make a mistake this big. However, the line Jay mentioned and the rejection from Lelands are both Red Flags.

Rhys

[oldjudge]

Mark--the CdV image and he LOC image shown in this post are the same. The guys at the ends are the same.

[bmarlowe1]

You're right - I confused the HoF and LoC images - fixed above.

[oldjudge]

Rhys--like I said, the easy way to end all questions is to have an albumen photo expert look at it. There is one of the best in the world within a short drive from the auction house. Seems like a no brainer.

[benjulmag]

Jay,

I have the greatest respect for the people at SGC and the work they do, but I am concerned that the task of determining whether an image is a period albumen photo attached to a period mount does not fall squarely within their area of expertise. Certainly there are other people out there who would be better qualified to address this question. In addition, the fact that Lelands, an experienced and well-respected auction house that over the years has handled many CdVs, would not accept the consignment of a CdV that if authentic would be as significant a 19th century image as they have ever offered is very troubling. I'm not saying the item is not authentic, but based on the disclosures made I would feel much more comfortable if the item was examined by a recognized expert in both albumen photographs and CdV mounts. I also believe that the auction house should disclose the identity of the person they said examined the item.

[oldjudge]

Thanks Corey! Like I said above, I would like to see one detail in the CdV that is not in the LOC version. I can find none. The photo in the CdV has more image area on its' right than does the LOC copy. However, the additional area shows nothing, not even a wall board edge.

[bmarlowe1]

For what it's worth, in spite of the fairly large file size, the LoC tiff file for this image is not very sharp. This is the case not just for the photo, but for the lettering around the photo. LoC scans do vary in quality (so they have told me), so the item in hand may be sharper.

I have a hi-res scan of the similar HoF image discussed earlier, and it is sharper than the LoC scan.

[Runscott]

Williamson of Brooklyn was a popular photographer - finding a cdv mount with their logo wouldn't have been out of the question. In addition, the only images I've seen of the new 'find' are faded images - not near as crisp as the loc image. Maybe that was intentional? I have owned plenty of legitimate albumens that were even less well-defined, so if you were going to make a fake based on the loc image, I don't see the problem. Just create a 'faded' albumen.

[GaryPassamonte]

Jay-I have compared the CdV to the LOC image in Mark Rucker's CdV book. To the right of John Chapman's head there is a visible mark. In the example Corey posted on this thread, the mark cannot be seen. This mark is also not visible on the CdV in question. This difference would mean the CdV is not a copy. The only other option is that a forger would have eliminated this mark by creating the vignette style of the CdV.

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Corey or Barry-- you kow this type of material really well. Do ou have a view?

Hi Jay- one rule of thumb is never try to authenticate a piece via a scan. I can offer a few thoughts: when I look at the scan of the LOC piece and see that rich photo quality, and then look at the muddiness of the CdV, it does concern me. Maybe one scan is crystal clear and the other isn't, or maybe there is a real issue. So I would have to have the piece in hand to make any real determination.

I would say based on what has transpired, if I were an interested bidder I would want at least one more photo expert to look at it. There is enough here to warrant it. I respect SGC but this isn't a T206, where they grade a hundred a day. The number of 1860's photographs that cross their desk is small.