Brooklyn CDV

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

John-I have signed up to bid but...

Then you are not "irrelevant".

[GaryPassamonte]

Jay- I have a couple CdVs from the 1864-66 period without revenue stamps on the reverse. Whether the stamps were removed or not, I can't tell. This Atlantics CdV may have been made after 1866, also. The fact that the image is of the 1865 team doesn't necessarily date the CdV to 1865. The presentation pieces using this image were obviously made 1870 or later as referenced on the mount. We all know that dating these early pieces is an inexact science.

[barrysloate]

If Williamson reissued the image after 1866, it would help explain the photo's poor resolution. A reissue is not impossible, as the Atlantics were very popular in their day. The photo quality clearly isn't as rich or clear as one would hope, so our speculation and concerns center around that issue.

And a fair market value for this item is 30-40K. Anything above that is the hype factor.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

If Williamson reissued the image after 1866, it would help explain the photo's poor resolution. A reissue is not impossible, as the Atlantics were very popular in their day. The photo quality clearly isn't as rich or clear as one would hope, so our speculation and concerns center around that issue.

And a fair market value for this item is 30-40K. Anything above that is the hype factor.

If the reissue was made from the original negative, why would the resolution be poorer?

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

If the reissue was made from the original negative, why would the resolution be poorer?

Corey- I'm assuming if the same negative keeps getting used, the photograph will lose some clarity. That may not be correct, that is my assumption.

We've noted that the photo resolution on the Cincinnati Peck and Snyders with a red mount are not as strong as those on the black mounts, and have surmised that the red mounts were a later issue. I'm using the same principle with the Atlantics CdV.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Corey- I'm assuming if the same negative keeps getting used, the photograph will lose some clarity. That may not be correct, that is my assumption.

We've noted that the photo resolution on the Cincinnati Peck and Snyders with a red mount are not as strong as those on the black mounts, and have surmised that the red mounts were a later issue. I'm using the same principle with the Atlantics CdV.

Since there are many many more Red Stockings CdVs/trade cards that have survived, we can surmise they were printed in much greater quantity, thus likely causing degradation to the negative. Given the extraordinary rarity of the 1865 Atlantics CdV image, likely much less were printed leading to the question whether the quantity printed was enough to cause discernable degradation to the negative.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Since there are many many more Red Stockings CdVs/trade cards that have survived, we can surmise they were printed in much greater quantity, thus likely causing degradation to the negative. Given the extraordinary rarity of the 1865 Atlantics CdV image, likely much less were printed leading to the question whether the quantity printed was enough to cause discernable degradation to the negative.

David (Cycleback) could answer this question - I have sent him a link to this thread.

Regardless of technical issue with re-using negatives, I believe the image degradation on this photo was done intentionally (real or not real).

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by GaryPassamonte

Jay- I have a couple CdVs from the 1864-66 period without revenue stamps on the reverse. Whether the stamps were removed or not, I can't tell. This Atlantics CdV may have been made after 1866, also. The fact that the image is of the 1865 team doesn't necessarily date the CdV to 1865. The presentation pieces using this image were obviously made 1870 or later as referenced on the mount. We all know that dating these early pieces is an inexact science.

The presentation pieces to my knowledge were not made from this image. They were made from the same sitting, but a different shoot. The one in the NBL was obviously made post-1865, as you point out. The other, the salt print, was almost certainly made in 1865.

[GaryPassamonte]

Corey- We can never be certain of the date of issue. There is a reasonable chance many pieces were made later than the date the photograph was taken.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by GaryPassamonte

Corey- We can never be certain of the date of issue. There is a reasonable chance many pieces were made later than the date the photograph was taken.

Does anybody know if the NBL mammoth plate is an albumen print or a salt print?

[bmarlowe1]

I have a hi-res scan from them, but I don't know the process.

Try contacting HoF archivists PatK.elly or JohnH.orne

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Why would the studio want to intentionally degrade the quality of the image?

If it was not intentional, then we're left with it being some sort of test piece [edited to add: or a photo of a photo]. Perhaps someone at the studio was practicing his vignette skills and this print was the result. Still playing around, he glued it to an existing mount. He was, of course, surprised that his measurements were incorrect when he cut the photo, so he gave up and didn't create any more. Googling 'Williamson Brooklyn cdv', I have been unable to find any examples where the image does not fit the mount, which goes along with the possibility that it was a test piece.

Since 'vignettes' were a Williamson specialty, it should not be too difficult to find an example somewhere...

...Hey, I found one! You can see how Williamson 'faded out' the photograph at the top, being careful to preserve the integrity (and definition) of the little girl's image:



Here's another (the Williamson markings are only on the reverse) Interestingly, despite all the 'white space' in the image, Williamson still created an albumen that fit the mount. This cdv was created by taking a photograph of a drawing. Certainly, with the Brooklyn Atlantics cdv, Williamson's studio could have taken a photograph of a photograph, which would account for loss of definition.

[smokelessjoe]

I wouldn't say that Williamson was well known for his Frame/crop work in regards to his CDVs.... Some are pretty sloppy.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by smokelessjoe

I wouldn't say that Williamson was well known for his Frame/crop work in regards to his CDVs.... Some are pretty sloppy.

Actually, those look pretty good, and he uses the entire available mount on both. That one on the left is a great example of his vignettes, and a very clear image.

[drc]

I haven't followed the details of this thread or looked closely at the images, but having handled countless 'mass produced' 1860s CDVs of famous people and situations I can say that the image quality can legitimately vary in quality and clarity between CDVs of the same subject. These were often produced as commercial items, not original works of art, and the image quality can vary for a variety of reasons, including aging and time changes to the negative or print, who made them, perhaps the some were made form a copy images, etc. It's possible to find one lighter and/or clearer than another and they were made in the same year. Perhaps they weren't made in the same way or by the same printer (helping to explain the difference), but they can be from the same time period.

With civil war era photo of US generals, presidents and other famous people, some of the images are clearly first generation (images are as sharp and detailed as a modern photo) while others are copy images, copy negatives and even reproductions of engravings and paintings. The latter don't qualify as 'Type I' but do date to Civil War.