Seeking Help from Photo Collectors

[Michael B]

I posted my original reply while I was at work. Now that I am at home I have checked my archives. Without doing too much searching I came up with two photos dated the same day that give a pretty good idea of how early glossy photos were reproduced.

The first one is from Gilliams News Syndicate and has a dated caption sheet attached to the back of June 17, 1908. This is Bill Horr, 1908 Olympic medal winner and College Football Hall of Famer.

The second one has a George Grantham Bain backstamp and a date stamp of June 17, 1908. I also have an original studio print of the second one with no stamping that has a matte finish. Bain probably did not take the original as he scratched an id on his negative and the original has no such markings. This is Lloyd Jones, graduated from Penn in 1907 with a degree in engineering. 1908 Olympian.

I have other photos that are absolutely dateable to 1900 and 1903 that have a non-glossy/matte finish. Several others that may fall between 1903 and 1908 that are also non-glossy/matte. I hope this is what you are looking for.

[Runscott]

I have glossy albumens from the late 1800's. Most are mat finish, but some are glossy - the glossy ones don't look as nice in my opinion.

[prewarsports]

In general...

Get the photo wet in a small spot and as it dries if the "gloss" gets sticky to the touch then you have a gelatin photo which means that it is at least somewhat old. It at least helps eliminate the photo from being of modern production. If you tilt it to the light and the black portions of the photo have a super shiny (silvery look) that will also help determine its age as well. Otherwise its almost impossible unless you have it in hand for evaluation.

Sam West Photo looks like a restrike (from a copy negative) made later by a collector seeking autographs.

[varsitycollectibles]

Prewar, does this water test have a negative effect on the photo?

Thanks again for the information and discussion.

[thecatspajamas]

One way that I have found to easily identify resin-coated papers (which were introduced in 1968) is to run the back of your fingernail along the back of the photo (think of it as a light scrape) and then look at the test area in reflected light. If it's RC paper, you can typically see a difference in the reflectivity of the "scrape" line vs the area around it. (I know I know, but it sounds a lot more destructive than it actually is). If it's not resin-coated (in other words, the back is just uncoated paper), you won't see any difference in reflectivity (unless you have greasy fingernails I guess).

Vince, I might also add that if the photo is in any way not what you expected, you may certainly return it for a full refund. In looking back at my description (which was written quite some time ago), I see a few details that I would have stated differently to avoid any confusion if I were writing up the same photo today. I'm just not in the habit of revisiting every item I have listed each time I tweak my typical auction write-ups

[prewarsports]

No, a tiny bit of water will be fine. just lick your finger or put less than a drop on it, wipe it pretty much immediately off and see if the spot is sticky or not.

[drcy]

If the original post is about the eBay snapshot, a 1940 photo can definitely have a glossy front. Glossy fronts go a lot further earlier than that. The back of would be matte, like regular paper.