Honest seller or not?

[mckinneyj]

Compare the pupils/eyes on the card with the photo, then the mouths... methinks they differ.

[philliesphan]

I can see a tooth and a slightly open mouth in the picture, but not in the card.

[SMPEP]

I noticed that too originally, but I think that the eyes and mouth are just detail that got lost in the colorization process. (like the pin stripes, some of the creases on the jersey, etc.). But the photo is too exact for it to be a completely different photo that is just close. Even if you said hold that pose to the player ... you'd still expect to see more difference between two photos take a minute apart (assuming the photographer moved back).

My theory still is ... this is a smaller cropped verision of the original negative (and thus the "true" "original" wire photo would be one that reflects the full picture), and that Topps used a larger cropped version when creating the card.

Still would love to hear opinions on my original question though.

Was the seller honest in saying this is the original wire photo?

And does the fact that he showed the original card mitigate any potential dishonesty?

And if the seller was notifiedm and did not inform the buyer ... does that "unmitigate" showing the Topps card?

Cheers,
Patrick

[HRBAKER]

I see no transgression here.

[laughlinfan]

It does seem that the negative that was used to create the photo that Topps used was the same negative that was used to create this wire photo. I guess that's all anyone who is buying this (or something similar) would think anyways, right? Same with the case where a wire photo that shows more detail than the card, I would think. They are not claiming that this particular wire photo was in Topps possession and was used when they made the card, just that the same instant in time shot (negative) was the ultimate source for both the card and this photo, perhaps. At any rate, this is not like a unique Topps production photo or negative, just a nice companion piece to the card. Right?

[cammb]

Though I think this is the original wire photo, the letter "P" in his hat has been straightened at bottom. This leads me to believe that Topps took certain liberties in enhancing this photo.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by cammb

Though I think this is the original wire photo, the letter "P" in his hat has been straightened at bottom. This leads me to believe that Topps took certain liberties in enhancing this photo.

Exactly.

I took both the card, and the photo, and looked at them in Photoshop. I superimposed the card on top of the photo, adjusted the size and perspective until they were identical. Amazing how close you can get them if you know what you are doing.

The photo was used for the card, and Topps adjusted the jersey and the top of the bat. Everything else is a spot on match.

[pepis]

Originally Posted by SMPEP

I

Was the seller honest in saying this is the original wire photo?

And does the fact that he showed the original card mitigate any potential dishonesty?

And if the seller was notifiedm and did not inform the buyer ... does that "unmitigate" showing the Topps card?

Cheers,
Patrick

the seller didn't say this is the original wire photo,, here is his exact quote:

Topps used this image for baseball card #47 in their 1952 standard issue.

[SMPEP]

Thanks all!

Guess I should have bid. Oh well.

Cheers,
Patrick

[Volod]

What is an "original wire photo" for that matter? A full-size negative photofax? Or, could a developed photo cropped from that image be legitimately described as such? Depends on who is describing it, and for what purpose, I guess.