PSA photo authentication - a suggestion

[thecatspajamas]

So do you think they were produced as "Cabinets" by Conlon and then used for publication, or were they mounted for some reason in the process of being used for publication? (My guess would be the former, given the stamping is on the back of the mount, not on a photo that was then mounted, but not having handled very many cabinets, thought I would throw the question out there).

Also interesting (to me at least) is that this particular image does not appear to be represented among the Conlon Archive negatives that The Sporting News purchased from Conlon. At least, it's not among those presented on the website that Rogers had made for the collection (and being that there are personal shots of unknown relatives of Conlon presented there, I kind of doubt they would have held back an image of a known player). Makes me wonder how many of Conlon's negatives were lost, stolen, sold, given away, or otherwise removed from the archive over the years before Rogers bought them.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

So do you think they were produced as "Cabinets" by Conlon and then used for publication, or were they mounted for some reason in the process of being used for publication? (My guess would be the former, given the stamping is on the back of the mount, not on a photo that was then mounted, but not having handled very many cabinets, thought I would throw the question out there).

I don't know - the Conlon stamp on the back initially confused me, because I wouldn't expect him to glue a print to a mount.

One of many possible scenarios: Conlon stamped the original print (or wrote his notes and name on it) and then sent the photo to a news agency. The news agency mounted it for ease of marking up, covering the original Conlon stamp (or notes), then returned to Conlon. Conlon put his stamp on the back and it later ended up with 'the Sporting News'.

[drcy]

I've seen old cardboard mounted news photos before. Rare and not sure why they did it, but I've seen them before. If Conlon's stamp is on back, I assume he did it.

[billyb]

An auction house told me of coming across photos that have a tissue attached to the top of the photo, and drapes over the photo for protection?? It seems to me the tissue is in the way, even if it is rolled back, it still may be in the way when framing said photo.
Have you come across any photos with the attached tissue, if so how did you handle them? At any time, do you decide to remove the tissue??? I guess we can call this the tissue issue.
sorry to jump in so late, but this kind of like the editors marks, to remove or not to remove. A residue of old glue will be at top front border if removed. So should that be mentioned or noted when selling that photo.

[drcy]

I've come across photos with tissue over the fronts. They were often glued on the back then draped/folded over the front. So on those you don't even have to remove the tissue paper on those to display or frame the photo. Just fold the tissue the back.

The tissue was put there strictly to protect the image from scratches and similar surface damage during mailing, handling, sale, storage, etc, not unlike putting a photo in a plastic holder before shipping or putting a baseball card in a penny sleeve for storage. It was strictly for practical utilitarian purposes, not put there to be a part of the 'integral aesthetic design' of the photo. If you have to remove the tissue paper to display the photo, you have to remove the tissue paper. As at paper is translucent not transparent, it would silly to display the photo on a wall with the tissue paper covering the image.

But, as I said, with a lot to most of them--- and perhaps even all (including the ones glued to the front)--, you can simply fold the tissue paper back and removal isn't required. Even with the ones glued to the front, they will only be glued to one far edge, so you can still fold them back. Think of them as blinds over a window. You raise and lower the blinds attached above the window, you don't remove the blinds to to look out the window.

And, anyway, it's just a plain piece of tissue paper over the front of the photo. Removing it wouldn't be a moral sin. And, since it's thin delicate tissue paper, removal would be easy. Simply pull it off. There will be a couple of glue dot remnants left behind but you won't damage the photo.

Though "Comes with the original studio envelope" or "Comes with the original tissue paper still attached" enhances the value at sales time. So I'd only remove it you have to.

So you know, the Carl Horner photos were originally sold in glassine envelopes, and on rare occasion you'll see one of his photos with the original envelope. Most of the time the envelopes are long gone, probably thrown away like packaging material by the original buyers. After all, how often do people keep the envelopes things come in? The presence of the original envelope will add a few buck the final auction price of a Horner photo.

One of the neatest things I've seen was an 1800s cabinet card of Jules Verne by the famous French photographer Nadar with the original sales tag sticker on back. From a 19th century gallery in Philadelphia. That was definitely not a 'foreign object' you'd want to remove from the photo.

[billyb]

drcy,
Thank you, when I was told that about the photos with tissue, the auction house made it seem like it was not that uncommon. I always wondered if it posed any kind of a problem. Thanks for the expertise.

[Runscott]

Here's one from Japan: