Nice Article in SMR on Photo Collection of Board Member

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

That fake Conlon stamp type of crap is exactly why I started to watermark, including the backs. I don't want someone copying a picture or a stamp to try a reproduce it to fool some one.

Mark, I just noticed your comment above. You and others need to understand that the guy who created/used this stamp, did not do it primarily to make laser copies of photos appear to be originals. He put it on the back of REAL TYPE I CONLON prints that did not have Conlon identification marks on them, to raise the value when he attempted to sell them to people who are focused on backstamps and not on actual images. I am always looking for Conlon prints, and if I had ever seen the stamp on the back of a forgery, it would have rang a bell. Honestly, I've only seen this backstamp on two photos out of all the Conlons I've seen, and both were mounted exactly like mine (the other looks good as well).

So I have a beautiful, real, Type I Conlon print that has this stamp on the back of it.

Just wanted to clear that up, as it resulted in me having to send a print back to a customer who was concerned (at first) that it was a forgery because of Ben's "stay away" comment, and then later, that it was not a photo by Conlon, which is dumbfounding to me, but no matter.

Until Ben posted about this backstamp, I had no idea that it was a bogus stamp.

Okay, carry on.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Mark, I just noticed your comment above. You and others need to understand that the guy who created/used this stamp, did not do it primarily to make laser copies of photos appear to be originals. He put it on the back of REAL TYPE I CONLON prints that did not have Conlon identification marks on them, to raise the value when he attempted to sell them to people who are focused on backstamps and not on actual images. I am always looking for Conlon prints, and if I had ever seen the stamp on the back of a forgery, it would have rang a bell. Honestly, I've only seen this backstamp on two photos out of all the Conlons I've seen, and both were mounted exactly like mine (the other looks good as well).

So I have a beautiful, real, Type I Conlon print that has this stamp on the back of it.

Just wanted to clear that up, as it resulted in me having to send a print back to a customer who was concerned (at first) that it was a forgery because of Ben's "stay away" comment, and then later, that it was not a photo by Conlon, which is dumbfounding to me, but no matter.

Until Ben posted about this backstamp, I had no idea that it was a bogus stamp.

Okay, carry on.

Scott,

My "stay away" comment was regarding the stamp I posted. I have not seen your photo in person nor did I know it was the one your customer was referring to.
The bad stamp was most likely applied to NON-TYPE 1 examples to pass as original Conlons. HOWEVER, I also explained that it is very possible "the stamper" would/could have stamped original copies as well not knowing any better and to raise the value.
I have no idea if yours is original as I have not seen it but it does have many signs pointing to being original based on scans/other example scans/what you told me.
I thought this was all addressed in another thread and put to bed but I guess not. I am sorry this caused you issues with your sale.. it was not intended obviously. I just wanted to make collectors aware of a bad stamp floating around as I do not want people to get taken. The last thing a growing hobby needs is for new buyers(anyone for that matter) to get burned.
If you have any other concerns on this topic, feel free to call or email me.

Thanks

Ben


Ben

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Scott,

My "stay away" comment was regarding the stamp I posted. I have not seen your photo in person nor did I know it was the one your customer was referring to.
The bad stamp was most likely applied to NON-TYPE 1 examples to pass as original Conlons. HOWEVER, I also explained that it is very possible "the stamper" would/could have stamped original copies as well not knowing any better and to raise the value.
I have no idea if yours is original as I have not seen it but it does have many signs pointing to being original based on scans/other example scans/what you told me.
I thought this was all addressed in another thread and put to bed but I guess not. I am sorry this caused you issues with your sale.. it was not intended obviously. I just wanted to make collectors aware of a bad stamp floating around as I do not want people to get taken. The last thing a growing hobby needs is for new buyers(anyone for that matter) to get burned.
If you have any other concerns on this topic, feel free to call or email me.

Thanks

Ben


Ben

Ben, I personally don't have any concerns at all about it. I was just clarifying Mark's comment and the assumptions that were made by my customer as a result of your comment. I have to disagree about the stamp being "most likely applied to NON TYPE I" photos, as I've never seen an example like that. It makes no sense to me that the 'applier' would put the stamp on Type I's with the bogus prints floating around in larger numbers - it would kill the value of his real Conlon Type I prints, which he was also stamping. No brain-surgeon, this guy.

As an aside, I received my mounted Conlon from my customer today, and peeling back the print just a little, I can see pencilled writing on the back (can't read it). Not sure if I'll attempt to remove it completely, but I'm tempted. Probably will see a PSA reject stamp on the back.

I've said this at least two times here, but I'm totally understanding that you didn't say my print was not a type I. Perception is important, and my customer had a perception that was incorrect - that's all.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Ben, I personally don't have any concerns at all about it. I was just clarifying Mark's comment and the assumptions that were made by my customer as a result of your comment. I have to disagree about the stamp being "most likely applied to NON TYPE I" photos, as I've never seen an example like that. It makes no sense to me that the 'applier' would put the stamp on Type I's with the bogus prints floating around in larger numbers - it would kill the value of his real Conlon Type I prints, which he was also stamping. No brain-surgeon, this guy.

As an aside, I received my mounted Conlon from my customer today, and peeling back the print just a little, I can see pencilled writing on the back (can't read it). Not sure if I'll attempt to remove it completely, but I'm tempted. Probably will see a PSA reject stamp on the back.

I've said this at least two times here, but I'm totally understanding that you didn't say my print was not a type I. Perception is important, and my customer had a perception that was incorrect - that's all.

Ok Scott. Everything g I have said is factual and true. You didn't know it was a fake stamp and now you do. Therefore, I will assume that is more valuable to you than getting a photo returned that you are happy to receive back.
As far as fake stamps being applied to non type 1s and not understanding that: I am not sure what else to tell you other than it makes the most sense. A stamp is applied to something worth next to nothing in order to make it worth substantially more/something. There have been many more of these than the two examples shown in these threads. They are the majority.
Again... If you are still unclear, give me a call.
Ps: remove the photo!! I wanna see

[Runscott]

.......

[PhilNap]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Honestly, I've only seen this backstamp on two photos out of all the Conlons I've seen, and both were mounted exactly like mine (the other looks good as well).

There is this one. http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...toryid=167612#

I personally refrained from bidding due to the concerns about this stamp.

[prewarsports]

I don't think the stamp is the only thing wrong with that one!

[drcy]

I have no special insight into this Conlon stamp issue, but I briefly looked at Scott's photo in question, amongst his stack of photos as he showed them to me numerous months ago, and it appeared to be vintage original from what I saw. Whether or not it's a Conlon image I have no opinion as that's not something I've looked into or considered.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by drcy

I have no special insight into this Conlon stamp issue, but I briefly looked at Scott's photo in question, amongst his stack of photos as he showed them to me numerous months ago, and it appeared to be vintage original from what I saw. Whether or not it's a Conlon image I have no opinion as that's not something I've looked into or considered.

David,

I think Rhys meant the link Phil provided. That said, I think several of us are in agreement that Scott's photo is or probably real. I cannot say as I have not seen it(excited to see the back if he removes). My guess would be real as I stated before based on Scott's opinion, size, look of it, comparable example ect..

This bad stamp has been applied to hundreds(at least/probably more) of photos.
I believe the "forger" probably separated photos thought would pass for a Conlon to the non-expert and went stamp crazy to make as much money as possible quickly.

In doing this, the "forger" most likely selected some that were original conlons that didn't have conlon markings, original images that were not conlons(conlon looking), and restrikes of both said.

I knew this was happening a log time ago and brought light of it on the board but there seemed to be a push back. Now it appears to be different. Below is the thread as well as more examples I believe are not original, type 1 Conlon photos with the bad stamp(some with forged conlon writing and sig). There are a ton more that can be viewed just by looking at past auctions. I quickly just picked a handful(some I know are fake and some I suspect by scanned evidence).

I do realize that it seems backward to first start with the stamp to some people(me too). But in this case, if you see a photo with this stamp(particularly if all you have to go by is an online stamp) at least question it first and try to prove it is good second.


Here is the thread from awhile back regarding Fake stamps, handwriting and Conlon sigs.



http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...+conlon+stamps



Other examples of bad stamps:


http://sports.mearsonlineauctions.co...-lot34587.aspx


http://sports.mearsonlineauctions.co...-LOT34603.aspx


http://sports.mearsonlineauctions.co...-LOT34557.aspx


http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...entoryid=97880


http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...entoryid=97883

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Original-SAM..._qi=RTM1562569

*I also have heard that Mears made good on bad Conlons returned(WELL DONE) and I think Legendary might have in the past as well(but not sure-just thought I heard that).

[Econteachert205]

As a new collector of photos, I was wondering what were the giveaways other than it not being a photo of the correct vintage? I checked real conlon stamps and the ones I saw didn't have the rectangle around the outside. Are there legit stamps with the rectangle that are the same color? Excuse my ignorance. Also are there any other photographers being forged? Thanks.

[drcy]

Dennis, a photo expert or seasoned collector doesn't look just at the stamp to determine the originality and age of a photo. Photos with no stamps or marks can be identified as Type Is due to their physical qualities. Many original photos have no stamps.