Real or fake?

[drcy]

Irrelevant to whether or not I think they are fakes, if the seller doesn't know if they're originals and won't take them out of the frames, they're auctions not worthy of bids. I wouldn't bid without being shown the backs of the photos. I like where the seller says "If these don't sell, I'll remove them from the frames to see if they're real." Doesn't exactly instill confidence in the product.

It's hard to tell if the seller is ignorant or BSing (He says he thinks Ty Cobb might be in the photo and he think's it might be the guy to the left of the manager?), but it doesn't matter if you don't bid.

P.s. If you look up close at some of the Cobb images it appears you can see the cross hatch printing pattern which wouldn't appear on a real photo. I didn't look at the other photo.

[GKreindler]

Ed,

I'd agree with David's sentiments. That moiré pattern that he speaks of is a bit more prevalent in the 1911 photo where the seller is showing the Van Oeyen stamp. Chances are, the photo was taken from a book and might have been reproduced again for the sake of enlargement. I'd be pretty darn shocked if it was real.

Regardless, I would LOVE to paint both images. That shot from '39 is particularly special.

Graig

[gnaz01]

I followed the auction but didn't bid, as I was skeptical, but I agree 100% with David here on his opinion.

[steve B]

I think both are fake for the same reasons.

They just don't look like photos. The 39 isn't sharp enough, and the other while it's got good detail the pattern mentioned says it's printed. There are some nice prints available that are being made from images in the library of congress. Good quality and often on heavy acid-free stock. Most are computer printed, so they won't last a century, but they're also inexpensive.

I could see someone maybe not wanting to remove them from the frame if it was a pro framing job with the backer taped on or entirely covered. But it's just some pretty bad cardboard and a few tacks.
Both I think would have sold for a lot more if they were real, enough that the effort of removing them to be sure would be well worth it.

Steve B

[Bocabirdman]

I thought this was going to be a "spot the implants" pictorial.

[edjs]

Originally Posted by Bocabirdman

I thought this was going to be a "spot the implants" pictorial.

Sorry to disappoint.

[drcy]

In general, I wouldn't bid on a framed behind glass photographic print that hasn't been removed by the seller, unless the seller is known to be an expert on photos or is otherwise a reputable/seasoned seller of such items. Beyond authenticity, there's the question of condition.

For a $20,000 photo that can be removed, I don't see a legitimate reason for the seller not to inspect the back. It's borderline insanity to me. Would you sell a baseball card or jersey without looking at both sides? "I am offering what appears to be a game used Brett Favre jersey, but I haven't looked at the back. If it doesn't sell, I will turn it over and take a look."

[edjs]

Thanks guys, I really appreciate your thoughts on these, it is good to know what to look for when going out to buy things.