Charles Conlon photos with Underwood & Underwood stamp

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Actually, I do not believe this to be entirely true. Conlon DID lend out original photos and negatives to Underwood and Underwood. He had a working relationship with U AND U and was a freelance photographer as mentioned below by Hank.
Now... because of this, U AND U could certainly have printed off the original neg, then returned neg, and produced another neg later because they wanted additional/differnt images(which I have seen and have given an example below). BUT.. just because it has U AND U stamps does not mean it is not a TYPE 1 PHOTO off the orig Conlon neg (cuz of the numbers). In fact, numbers inside of a box suggests the exact opposite. Also, Conlon could have sent them originals unstamped and then UandU used their stamps.

Haha. I will further muddy the waters by repeating your first sentence, but this time regarding what you stated below it

The first thing I thought when reading this thread was...my understanding was that freelancers like Conlon ONLY sold original prints to U&U,etc., and that U&U could then add their own stamp to the back. I can't imagine Conlon sending an original negative to anyone, so this would be news to me, but I'm always glad to learn something new.

If I saw a nice clear photo with a Conlon stamp AND a U&U stamp, I would assume it was an original print from the original negative.

When determining if a photo is original, I always look at physical photo evidence first (not the stamping): clarity of image, type of paper, aging. Then I look at the stamp. If the stamp indicates it is original, but it failed the other tests, then it's not original. Basically, you could make a print from a negative on day 1, then make a print from that print on day 2 and give it a stamp. It wouldn't be original. Anyone who is making decisions entirely based on a back-stamping is setting themselves up.

[horzverti]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Haha. I will further muddy the waters by repeating your first sentence, but this time regarding what you stated below it

The first thing I thought when reading this thread was...my understanding was that freelancers like Conlon ONLY sold original prints to U&U,etc., and that U&U could then add their own stamp to the back. I can't imagine Conlon sending an original negative to anyone, so this would be news to me, but I'm always glad to learn something new.

If I saw a nice clear photo with a Conlon stamp AND a U&U stamp, I would assume it was an original print from the original negative.

When determining if a photo is original, I always look at physical photo evidence first (not the stamping): clarity of image, type of paper, aging. Then I look at the stamp. If the stamp indicates it is original, but it failed the other tests, then it's not original. Basically, you could make a print from a negative on day 1, then make a print from that print on day 2 and give it a stamp. It wouldn't be original. Anyone who is making decisions entirely based on a back-stamping is setting themselves up.

Yes I agree Runscott, it is a given in our hobby that Conlon did indeed share/distribute his original prints. Seems factual, and we all seem to agree on this point.

I also agree that Conlon didn't share his negatives. Why would he risk destruction of his work by passing the fragile glass negs through other peoples' hands when all he had to do is produce another print for his customers? Especially the original negs of the superstars like...say, Babe Ruth!

I'd also like to comment on a post from yesterday regarding how Underwood & Underwood's catalog numbers came to be embedded into Conlon images...but first I want to get this straight to make sure I understand what was written. Ben, you believe that Conlon lended or sold his original negatives to U & U...then U & U placed "another piece of glass" bearing their catalog number on top of the original neg and created their own prints which had the catalog number embedded into them. Do I have this correct so far? I continue...then U & U either returned or sold Conlon's original neg back to him? Seems like a lot of work by U & U to merely create an image with their catalog number embedded in it. It seems much more logical that U & U obtained an original Conlon print, added their catalog number and took another photo of the original photo. What about the U & U prints of Conlon images on which you cannot see the shape of the said "another piece of glass" bearing the number? The number must have been written on the original print and then a photo was taken to create an image with embedded number, right?

I am always seeking more info on everything Conlon (Charlie, not Jocko )...so please share.

[Ulidia]

I cannot add any information to the debate.

However, I am interested in it as own some U&U photos from Conlon that clearly have U&U reference numbers stamped on them, stamped U&U on the back and have been certified by PSA as "type 1".

I've come across some photos in my small collection that are PSA-certified as Type 1 which clearly aren't (for example, a John McGraw photos labelled as from the 1920s which was actually printed in the late 1940s) so interested to understand more.

Should add also that, without any equivocation, I am a bidder in the current Henry Yee auction. In fact, any price I was going to pay on the items I am interested in has increased due to frustrations over this past weekend .... i.e. I flew in from London to NYC on Saturday to see the Yankees vs Blue Jays game on Sunday that was rained off.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Ulidia

...and have been certified by PSA as "type 1".

I think PSA is an expert at grading cards, and they should stick to that.

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I think PSA is an expert at grading cards, and they should stick to that.

On that we can agree.