Brooklyn CDV

[Runscott]

edited after speaking with Troy

Thanks for the discussion!

[benjulmag]

While I recognize I am comparing only scans, the scans posted by the auction house do not differ in any significant way from the initial scan of the image. They exhibit a degradation in resolution (in ways having nothing to do with contrast) compared to the LOC copy that make me struggle to understand how they can be printed from the same negative. I have never before seen such differences in identical albumen photos where each are genuine. While I'm interested to hear what Mr. Messier has to say, unless he can establish that one cannot in the 21st century create an albumen photo that is chemically indistinguishable from one printed in the 19th century, I would regard his results as inconclusive.

[Saco River Auction]

There are going to be distinct differences in this Cdv and the loc one because this one is a vignette process albumen whereas the loc version is a full view non vignette version of the same pose. If you look at the photographers branding label on the rear of our Cdv it says vignette specialty.

[Saco River Auction]

The vignette process has clearly been mistaken for photo degradation. Vignette was used to make the center pieces of the pose, In this case the team, stand out, rather than the back ground. It was a very common practice in the mid 19th century especially by this photographer. Mr. Messier will be the deciding factor on this because as a scientific expert on 19th century photography there is no way to rule his results(good or bad) as inconclusive. His findings either combined with sgc or aside from sgc will be the final verdict on this card.
Troy

[GaryPassamonte]

Corey- The 1875 Hartfords CdV comes with both the actual background visible or obscured. Could this CdV have been produced in a similar manner? Also, some images from the same photo shoot are slightly different such as the those of the 1874 Red Stockings. The placement of the equipment is different in the few copies known suggesting multiple negatives. Could the Atlantics CdV be from a different negative from the same shoot? I realize there appear to be no differences between the LOC copy and the CdV, but isn't it possible they may actually be from different negatives?

[benjulmag]

Troy,

The differences in resolution pertain to the players themselves. Perhaps the vignette process caused this. If so. then I will have learned something. In addition, I will point out that the printing in the verso (where the vignette process is identified) has been mentioned as the aspect of this CdV that caused Lelands to reject it. Accordingly I would hope that as part of Mr Messier's analysis he examine the verso. Finally I must respectfully disagree with your view as to the capabilities of forensic testing. It is a negative process which tells one what something is not, as opposed to what something is. If an item flunks forensic testing, then we know it is a fake. It it passes then we can say it is consistent with authentic items but that doesn't mean it MUST be authentic. It raises then the feasibility of whether a forger could recreate the process in current times.

In saying all this I am not saying the CdV has to be a fake. Rather I am simply noting aspects of it that trouble me in the hope they will be directly addressed by Mr. Messier. I should also reiterate that while we may disagree about certain aspects about this item, I do appreciate your openness about this item and responsiveness to expressed concerns.

[benjulmag]

Gary,

The difference in background in the 1875 Hartford CdV was created by the studio applying white paint to the background in the mammoth plate from which the CdV was made. I say this because I have seen the mammoth plate. Also, there are multiple copies known of each version of that CdV thus giving reassurance as to the legitimacy of the difference.

[barrysloate]

I owned the mammoth plate at one time and you could easily see the gobs of white paint (it looked like white out) that was applied to the background.