What do you photo guys make of this?

[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

[Forever Young]

Not even close.

[Shoeless Moe]

$2500

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1915-BABE-RU...item35e3edcc7d


I don't get it.........from the EVAJOY school of selling

[thecatspajamas]

Not commenting on the authenticity or lack thereof of the stamp in the OP, but below is another example of that stamp style in black, along with 1944 date stamp. This on an 8x10 photo from an archive intact since at least the 1950's.

Also worth noting, there appear to have been two William Kuenzels, father and son, who worked for the Detroit News. The father began there in the early 1900's. The son began in the 1940's and later worked for the Miami Herald. I don't know if their careers there overlapped, and it definitely bears further research, but with the two having the same first and last name, and working for the same paper, it seems it would be easy to confuse the two based on stamps alone. It also seems reasonable that Jr could have played around with some of Sr's old work, whether restrikes from the original negatives or by reshooting his father's photos. Not saying that's what is shown, but just throwing some additional info out there for consideration.

[SAllen2556]

Thanks Lance - was hoping you could shed some light on this one!
I'm pretty sure that the younger Kuenzel never worked as a photographer for the Detroit News, but not 100% sure.

Do you actually own the photo you just showed with the black stamp? I ask because I'm wondering if the scan just somehow made it appear black. I have never, ever seen one in person that was black.

I sure hope no one pays $2500 for that photo. This is the correct font for a Detroit News photo from about the mid 1920's and before. The font is clearly different, and this was the only font used for every photographer from this time period. I would even question whether a stamp was used in 1915. I don't know when they actually started stamping the photos. But the stamp on the Ruth photo is in no way from 1915.

early 20's stamp (even then it was dark blue):


stamp consistent from 1930's until late 60's. (this is from 1957)


Ruth photo on ebay:

[SAllen2556]

It's been re-listed at $2500. Interesting sales strategy....

I was really wondering if anyone ever saw a Detroit News photo with a black photographer's stamp on the back. I do know that the font on that stamp is not from 1915. The font of the photog's stamps changed in the late 30's - early 40's I think.

And if it's a re-strike can it be very old given the pristine condition of that photo? Those corners are a psa 7!

...and stop calling me Shirley.