1927 or far later photograph of the WANER BROTHERS?

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

If anything, since all of these types of photos that I have handled actually came from Sport Magazine's archives, I would think that it would be WWP that created reprints in the 1950's, added the slugs, then sent them off to Sport who added their stamp and eventually filed them in Sport's archives. For any reprints to have originated with Sport and wound up with WWP seems backward to me, given where they wound up.

Yup, that is what I was going to assume myself. SPORT magazine stamps were added OVER the WWP stamps.

It's also not out of the realm to assume that WWP had acquired both original prints AND negatives during their reign. I've seen too many originals passed down and stamped by various news archives through the years, to think otherwise. Sometimes 3-4 different organizations on popular shots.

[sporteq]

Scott- I do believe your correct. The rights to these images were purchased.. then reproduced. I don't know when they were produced, maybe in the 50's but they're certainly not period photograph as advertised by top auction houses.


Albert

[thecatspajamas]

Okay, so after much speculation (including my own), here's the inside scoop from Henry:

These photos are simply 1950's restrikes off of Associated Press original negatives. AP and Wide World Photos were 1 and the same company by then (operated as separate arms, but were the same company, as AP had purchased WWP from The New York Times in 1941). The captions look old, but are consistent with what they used in the 1950's. They are backdated, as the clerk simply typed the info that was on the original negative's sleeve onto a then-new caption slip, including date of the original shot (NOT the issuing date), and affixed that to the back of the photo. They are Type II 1950's-60's restrikes, and the ones that are post-1955 will fluoresce under a black light.

The biggest kicker for me ["me" being Lance] is that the big, fat, red SPORT stamps on the backs were placed there later, when the archives were sold, to identify the photos as once being the property of Sport, NOT something applied earlier to indicate Sport had issued the photo. This is not speculation, and he has seen the actual SPORT stamp used.

In summary, though there is clearly a lot of confusion out there regarding these, they are definitely Type II restrikes produced years later, and are worth a fraction of what their Type I counterparts would be (if you could find a Type I counterpart for a given image, that is, though there are surely instances where no Type I's are known and the Type II is all that remains today, as seems to be the case with the Waners photo that started this whole discussion).

I personally doubt that most auction houses representing them as Original/Type I's are doing so maliciously, but would have to take that on a case-by-case basis, knowing that not everyone comes to the auction block armed with the same information.

[Runscott]

EDITED

I don't normally like to edit one of my own controversial responses, but in this case I think it is warranted, so here's a re-write:

I just spoke to a very trusted hobby buddy, and also have exchanged emails with another trusted hobby buddy. Based on those conversations and Lance's post, this must be a 1950's print made from the original negative. I don't know all the research that was done that negates the possibility of it being an original print that was acquired along with negatives, but I'm told it's not possible.

My apologies to Henry or anyone else who my responses might have irritated or offended. It bugs me somewhat that I could be fooled by a print that's 23 years newer than I thought, but I'll chalk it up as an education experience.

[sporteq]

Glad to here the final conclusion that this is in fact a 1950s re-strike, which I have been saying all along. I'm sure it won't end here, but I'm satisfied with the outcome. This was very educational discussion.

Albert

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by sporteq

Glad to here the final conclusion that this is in fact a 1950s re-strike, which I have been saying all along. I'm sure it won't end here, but I'm satisfied with the outcome. This was very educational discussion.

Albert

So, you knew all this stuff that Lance said, so that's why you were correct? Or did you get burned and found out they were fakes when you sent them in to PSA?

Seriously, you suggested that I bend the photo to see if it cracked or creased, and that would dictate whether or not it was real. Guess what? It would have cracked or creased.

You claim to have seen the photo in HA (front image only), and it looked so much like your blatantly fake 1960's print, that you KNEW it was fake automatically? Guess what - no one on this board would have known that it was a 1950's WWP based on the image shown in HA. You saw my back-scan on ebay, compared it to yours, and made a blanket assessment that because the stamps were the same, that it had the same problems as yours, and that it was printed at the same time, ignoring the obvious difference in frontal characteristics; i.e-lacking the skills to do anything other than ignore them. The Waner print front scan looked NOTHING at all like the ones you received. In summary, you were accidentally correct and now you want to gloat about how brilliant you are.

Gloat away. Basically, you learned nothing, but the rest of us did, so thanks for starting the thread. I'm not going to call you an idiot, because I don't call people names on the internet, but if I were going to label someone with that name it would certainly be you.

[sporteq]

Scott, I find it comical that you are questioning my "brilliance", considering that you view the accuracy of a point I have been specifically arguing as "accidental". Clearly you are not capable of being a gracious in accepting the fact you were simply wrong and I will not discuss the matter further. The verdict is final.