Honus Wagner Photo - Help please

[thecatspajamas]

I would suggest not focusing on the studio mount (i.e. card) itself except to compare it to the one on the second link I posted and ask yourself why 2 different studios' mounts would have the same photo affixed. That in itself would make me very very suspicious. Original studio mounts from the period are relatively easy to find, and both the one your uncle has and the one in the second link I posted are likely genuine MOUNTS. The photograph affixed to them is another story. Having only relatively low-quality scans to view in both cases, I would hazard a guess that one, or more likely both, of the photographs themselves are not genuine.

Easiest thing to do first is to look at the photo under magnification and see if the image is composed of lots of little dots (printed image) or is an actual photograph. Beyond that, someone like Scott or David or Rhys who has dealt with more cabinet mounts than I have should be able to tell you what to look for.

I could certainly be wrong, but I don't have a good feeling about this one.

[jrlebert]

OK, totally understand so far.

Calling Scott, David, or Rhys!

Even though I have been on this site for over a year, it is mainly to absorb info and learn from the best, which is exactly why I took this discussion here. Not sure what their usernames are here, but if anyone could alert them and ask their opinion, I would appreciate it.

And Lance F, thank you!

[thecatspajamas]

Actually, now that I think about it, Rhys is probably still wrapped up with finalizing shipping from his recent auction. Also, not saying there aren't others on the board who could help, but those names sprang to mind first (don't want to unintentionally snub anyone ).

I took the liberty of laying each of the three photos out side-by-side, to scale with each other, for easier comparison. The larger one is from Hunt's auction, your uncle's is top right, and the other one I found from the second link (which oddly uses an eBay gallery image for its posted image) is bottom right.



You might also advise your uncle that it is best to scan all photos in color for eBay listing, even if they are black and white, as showing a grayscale scan like he has posted will make anything look like a photocopy, whether real or not.

[jrlebert]

Thanks. I sent him a link to this thread, and he is following along too, I assume.

[1880nonsports]

it is not a terrible marriage of what will turn out to be a copy photo and a random mount. Nothing about it looks right to me from a quick online and not in hand observation. In the late 1990's the market was flooded with many such reproduction images on old mounts. In the past year or two even better copies are making an appearance but on what often appears to not be vintage mounts. The stamp on the back is ridiculous on an image if real produced after the tax act expired and the mount with gold trim and scalloped edges as well doesn't fit. Lance, David, and others here know quite a bit more than I do however I've studied and handled quite a few mounted photographs from all eras. Such supposition that it's not original is bolstered by Lance's link to the Hunt photo which I saw after my immediate reaction. Taking a loupe to it as suggested earlier would be the place to start. It's hard to tell from the eBay scan enough visual information as it appears it was scanned in black/white/greyscale so hard to qualify any depth/contrast in the photo and it's relation to the mount. Just to point out in case my wife hasn't written you - I'm rarely right - if ever

[1880nonsports]

I have to type faster!

[D. Bergin]

Interesting that the Hartford cabinet actually has the largest expanse of image. Meaning the other two images shown, including the Hunt's photo are cropped closer to Honus's body.

Doesn't mean it's not a fantasy piece, but the image is most likely not copied directly from the Hunt's auction piece.

[thecatspajamas]

Dave, I didn't mean to imply that the images for the cabinets came from Hunt's auction, as the resolution on the image Hunt posted online would not be good enough to produce a print that would fool anyone. There was probably a high-res, wider-cropped scan of another posted online at some time or printed elsewhere that simply hasn't turned up in my search. Just throwing out any that I find to show that it is not a unique image of Wagner, though it certainly isn't one of the more-well-known shots of him.


One more, from a 1917 birthday program Mastro auctioned in 2008:

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...ntoryid=89905#

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Dave, I didn't mean to imply that the images for the cabinets came from Hunt's auction, as the resolution on the image Hunt posted online would not be good enough to produce a print that would fool anyone. There was probably a high-res, wider-cropped scan of another posted online at some time or printed elsewhere that simply hasn't turned up in my search. Just throwing out any that I find to show that it is not a unique image of Wagner, though it certainly isn't one of the more-well-known shots of him.


One more, from a 1917 birthday program Mastro auctioned in 2008:

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...ntoryid=89905#

Oh, I know Lance. I was just thinking out loud. It just seems like so many of these type pieces are just copied directly from the most recent auction of that particular item.

I'm not comfortable with it myself. Just wondering where exactly they might have copied the scan from given the cropping shown.

[1880nonsports]

1910's photo. Can happen but unlikely. Also, pirated images - especially after 1900 generally WOULDN'T have the photographers attribution to tie them to it...........

no guarantees whether written or implied

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Dave, I didn't mean to imply that the images for the cabinets came from Hunt's auction, as the resolution on the image Hunt posted online would not be good enough to produce a print that would fool anyone. There was probably a high-res, wider-cropped scan of another posted online at some time or printed elsewhere that simply hasn't turned up in my search.

The image this was created from did not need to be wider-cropped - I suspect that the reason this particular image has been so popular with the forger(s) is that, due to the nature of the margins, they can easily be 'widened' using copy/paste.

But the subject of this thread is a real laugher - black and white with an image of a stamp that was attached to black paper, then cut/pasted to a white mount?

[Jaybird]

Originally Posted by Runscott

The image this was created from did not need to be wider-cropped - I suspect that the reason this particular image has been so popular with the forger(s) is that, due to the nature of the margins, they can easily be 'widened' using copy/paste.

But the subject of this thread is a real laugher - black and white with an image of a stamp that was attached to black paper, then cut/pasted to a white mount?

Based on some of JR's earlier responses, I think the scan was done in B&W but that the mount at least is not White. He mentions gold lettering, etc. So I think the scan was done in B&W instead of color which is also not helping. But all this to say that it doesn't look real to anyone and this appears to be a widely faked image.