What do you photo guys make of this?

[Shoeless Moe]

I'm always wary buying a $1000 photo that is hanging on someones fridge, but what do I know.

[SAllen2556]

Yes, I'm naive, but if the scams on eBay are a snapshot of our society - well, it's just a bit depressing sometimes.

[drcy]

Not original.

Duly note that I've seen Detroit News photos that were legitimate and came from the newspaper, but made years after the image was shot. That a photo isn't original, doesn't automatically mean it's a forgery. Though the later made Detroit News photos I've seen had a different image tone and a drystamp (embossment)

I don't have a specific opinion on the photo (beyond that it isn't original), but noted news photographers did sometimes reuse old images. Including George Dorrill, George Burke, Brace and Conlon.

[prewarsports]

Agreed

Second generation photograph with staff photographer stamp on the back from much later, probably the 1950's. Hard to tell from the scan but it does not appear to be from the original negative either. It is a nice restrike and definitely has some value, just not $1000. BTW, if this photo WAS original, I think there are about 80 of us that would have pulled that trigger on the first day it was listed!

Rhys

[Michael B]

It is also a matter of size. Many of the early press photos were 4½x6½ (Bain, Thompson), 5x7 or 6x8 (Acme, Pacific & Atlantic, Underwood & Underwood, International Film Service, International Newsreel). 8x10 was not regularly used until the 1930’s and 6x8 was still a common size even into the 1940’s. It raises a red flag when I see a photo that is 8x10 that claims to be very early. I have hundreds of pre-WWII press photos in my archives/collection and there may be a few late 1930's that are that big, but not many. It became such a common size to print for 35mm film (though incorrect in ratio) that it is accepted as the standard size.

David and Rhys may agree or disagree with me. I would welcome their thoughts on this.

[prewarsports]

You are correct. Aside from some high end double-weight studio photographs, the material used to create early press photography was very brittle with a thin piece of paper and heavy gelatin. Because these photos were flimsy and fragile, smaller sizes were more conducive (also more cost effective). This is why Underwood & Underwood (the only company at the time to make really large images) used such thick paper to develop their photographs. Although not a hard rule, earlier press photos are generally much smaller.

Rhys

[gnaz01]

Sorry, had to