1927 or far later photograph of the WANER BROTHERS?

[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.

[Duluth Eskimo]

I am not a photo guy, but often read these posts to learn about items. To clarify one thing, the was a Sport magazine in late 1920's. In fact I believe it is 1927 that I have an issue of with Babe Ruth. I do not believe it is an way affiliated with the Sport magazine that started publishing in 1946. Maybe this is well known, but I though I would throw it out there. Jason

[Runscott]

Jason, I don't know all the details, but I think there is probably some documentation somewhere indicating that the modern 'Sport Magazine' got hold of a bunch of negatives or prints, as well as slugs, and, if it was negatives, in the 1950's began making high-quality prints, and created new back-dated slugs (if they weren't using old ones) to put on them, then WWP got hold of them and added their stamps. I would bet a round of beers that old slugs were not removed from old prints and then glued to new ones, and I also doubt that 'Sport Magazine' obtained a pile of negatives and a pile of old slugs that happened to match the negatives. It would be more likely that 'Sport' actually acquired a pile of original prints along with their slugs, then the WWP stamp was added. No one has suggested that up to now, but it would help explain why there is only one copy of this print. I don't know about the other prints that have been referenced - were there multiples of some of them?

This is all information that I'm gleaning from emails, phone conversations, PM's and Rhys' comments. I had no knowledge of any of this until recently, but I also have no reason to doubt it. It doesn't change my thinking about this particular print, but if there are a bunch of them out there with the same quality paper, image and slugs, and they are definitely 1950's prints, then it makes sense that this one is as well, despite how it looked and felt when I handled it.

One thing that would help would be if someone could show one of these newer prints with its slug, alongside the original print and its slug. As I mentioned earlier, I haven't even seen this Waner brothers image before, in any form. You would think that there would be multiple copies of each of these images, if they were made from the original negatives.

[sporteq]

This is an actual sample I handled. It was sold as, "Vintage Original." The paper weight is slightly more thicker and more rigid. Also, the color scale is black to white. Normally, not always, you see other color hues in vintage original photographs.

Sorry about the washed out image.

Albert