1927 or far later photograph of the WANER BROTHERS?

[Runscott]

Albert, this might help you: http://sports.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleN...No=82458#Photo

There was nothing about this photo to indicate that it was not 1927, including paper stock or image quality, other than having only a more modern stamp. It was also posted here in the forum where I asked if anyone knew the photographer, and in my store where a few forum members sent me comments. Didn't hear anything then, and I still haven't heard anything that would make me believe that Heritage was wrong in their original description of the photo.

Oh, and an ebayer who sent a few very rude emails demanding that I describe the item according to his specifications. Someone named Albert...I guess that was you?

Rhys, thanks for your comments.

[sporteq]

Scott- I had sent you a message saying that, I didn't believe this was a original 1927 photograph. Looking at the characteristics of your scanned photo, it appeared to me it was a later restrike. I also told you, don't believe auction house titans that give out wrong info. I had seen this photo at Ha.com and knew right away it was not vintage original. In your message to me, you said, its 100% 1927 vintage original. Anyhow, I'm not going to go back and forth with you on this. Let the forum speak on this photo.

Prewar- I to had some restrike photos like this. I was able to get refunds from ha and legendary auctions.

Albert

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by sporteq

Scott- I had sent you a message saying that, I didn't believe this was a original 1927 photograph. Looking at the characteristics of your scanned photo, it appeared to me it was a later restrike. I also told you, don't believe auction house titans that give out wrong info. I had seen this photo at Ha.com and knew right away it was not vintage original. In your message to me, you said, its 100% 1927 vintage original. Anyhow, I'm not going to go back and forth with you on this. Let the forum speak on this photo.

Prewar- I to had some restrike photos like this. I was able to get refunds from ha and legendary auctions.

Albert

I'm quite aware of the plethora of messages that you sent me - the ones that were readable in no way inspired me to bend to your demands. I'm glad to see that you are presenting your arguments to this forum in a very, very different manner and tone.

I'm also glad to hear that you were able to get refunds for all the reprint photos that you have been buying from Heritage and Legendary . I'm also glad that the rest of us were able to avoid these mysterious photos that duped you, and that now you have become an expert in determining the age, thickness and feel of prints based on a scan. Those must be very handy skills.

I very much respect Rhys' opinion, and while I doubt that Sport Magazine or anyone else was creating prints from negatives and pulling the original 1927 slug from an older print and then putting it on the new one, it's also possible that Rhys knows something I don't about this photo - he handles tons of photos and also - I definitely make mistakes.

And while it would admittedly be quite irksome to admit that someone as unpleasant as yourself is correct about this, and I am wrong, I will have no problem doing so if people on this forum who I respect agree with you.

[D. Bergin]

It would be highly unusual for the original tag to follow a re-strike IMO, and that appears to be an original c. 1927 era tag to me.

I've seen plenty of vintage press photos with original tags and missing stamps. Plenty of vintage press photos with stamps and missing tags. I've seen tags placed on the backs of plenty of Type III style photos (usually sound or Tele photos).

Don't recall ever seeing an old tag on a new photo before. It's obvious this photo has been passed down for several uses through the years

Also, no way you could tell that was a re-strike from the photo up on Heritage, unless you were taking the description of the stamps on the back from the text of the listing and jumping to assumptions.

Not having it in hand to see the texture of the photo itself, I'd trust Scott on this one.

[drcy]

I can't tell you anything definitive from a posted scan, but it is possible for an original photo to have an original tag and a later stamp (and no other noticeable stamps), and I've seen it a few times. For example, when UPI acquired the International News photo archives, they sometimes added their modern stamp to old International News photos.

A few times I have seen original paper tags on modern reprints (meaning, legitimate reprints made by news services not fakes), but it was more than obvious they had been removed and reattached. Sometimes scotch taped on. The old paper tags are delicate and originally glued to the photos, and it would be hard to remove and reattach one without messing it up. If you pull off an old tag, usually part of the tag will remain attached to the photo. That's why you see brown paper remnants on the backs of many old news photos.

[sporteq]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I'm also glad to hear that you were able to get refunds for all the reprint photos that you have been buying from Heritage and Legendary . I'm also glad that the rest of us were able to avoid these mysterious photos that duped you, and that now you have become an expert in determining the age, thickness and feel of prints based on a scan. Those must be very handy skills.

Oh Scott- enough with the twisted circus exaggerated comments. We all know net54 is your playground hence the 6k posts. Let me clear up the facts here. All the refunds? It was on two photos that look exactly like the 1927 Waner brothers photo you bought and sold. I wasn't duped.. I got A refund. An "EXPERT" no comment LMFAO

AGAIN, this is about the "PHOTO" not an attack on you, Scott. If your taking this personal, that's your problem not mine. This discussion is not me vs you (Scott) It's a simple discussion on a photo.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by sporteq

Oh Scott- enough with the twisted circus exaggerated comments. We all know net54 is your playground hence the 6k posts. Let me clear up the facts here. All the refunds? It was on two photos that look exactly like the 1927 Waner brothers photo you bought and sold. I wasn't duped.. I got A refund. An "EXPERT" no comment LMFAO

AGAIN, this is about the "PHOTO" not an attack on you, Scott. If your taking this personal, that's your problem not mine. This discussion is not me vs you (Scott) It's a simple discussion on a photo.

Do you really want me to post the 'age criteria' that you sent me via ebay? Or the comment that referred to what I paid for it and what I was charging;i.e - perhaps a hint of jealousy that I had gotten a good buy and, as dealers do, was going to make a profit?

When you got foolish via ebay, I basically ignored you and you kept coming at me, so if it wasn't personal at that point, I don't know what your definition of "personal" is. When you suggested that to test to see if my photo was vintage, I should bend it and see if it cracked or 'greased' (I assume you meant 'creased'), I wrote you off as a loony and moved on. Good luck bending all of your photos - I hope they all crack so you can be sure you made a smart purchase.

In any case, I have no more time for your nonsense. If we ever meet, show me your i.d. to prove you are over 21 and I'll buy you a beer.

Edited to add: I could very well be wrong about this, and you might be right, but.... "Sometimes... it's just the way you say things, Travis. That's all. I swear to God." - Jim Bowie from 'The Alamo' 2004

Myguyty: I took this to heart, but it took a while for it to stick. I'm trying, I promise

[prewarsports]

I want to ad that it is IMPOSSIBLE to tell without seeing the photo in person, but it looks more modern from a scan alone. Newspapers used to do this all the time by taking a paper caption from an older photo and adding it to a newer example. IF that is the case, I am sure it was done decades ago.

ALSO, that might be the best Waner brothers photo ever taken!

[sporteq]

Here's my copy of a 1927 Waner brothers.. from Henry Yee about 5 years ago on ebay. It originally came from 1996 Christies photo archives auction.

Albert






Scott copy

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

ALSO, that might be the best Waner brothers photo ever taken!

Rhys - I thought so as well. I haven't seen any other copies of that image, or any images of them together that really approached the composition or image clarity of this one.