opinions on this Ruth photo

[thecatspajamas]

I wouldn't pay $350 for it.

[drcy]

I cheated and read the eBay description. The seller says it's on thin cardstock, which seems highly unlikely. News photos weren't on card stock. They were on thin paper. He says it's 8x10, which is not an impossible size, but is unusual for the time. The photo has little wear which is unusual (though not impossible). And the masking tape strikes me as odd. My thought was masking tape is the one modern tape a reprinter could use that looks old.

[thecatspajamas]

I could be wrong, but isn't that a second generation photo as well? I can't recall ever seeing an original news photo from that period with a black border around the obverse image, which I assume is why the seller alludes to it being a "proof". At first, I thought the black border in the first image was the scanner background, but then looking at the second scan, you can see the scanner background is white. I think the first image is just cropped closely to the edges of the photo.

Other than that meager observation, I'll defer to drc's expertise.