What do you photo guys make of this?

[joshleland]

Very disappointed by you "photo guys." You talk like you have knowledge but to truly understand the field you have to have smarts. This is obviously the work of John Rogers. He has been selling material with phony stamps for years. Plus he sold the Detroit News which makes this pretty obvious in my book. This is a piece of crap created by him from scratch and you guys should know that. You don't get that kind of understanding by googling it. It takes years of experience and sorting through a million photos. Not by quoting fancy terminology you got off the Internet. You get it in the trenches. Photos are war and you need the scars to prove it.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by joshleland

Very disappointed by you "photo guys." You talk like you have knowledge but to truly understand the field you have to have smarts. This is obviously the work of John Rogers. He has been selling material with phony stamps for years. Plus he sold the Detroit News which makes this pretty obvious in my book. This is a piece of crap created by him from scratch and you guys should know that. You don't get that kind of understanding by googling it. It takes years of experience and sorting through a million photos. Not by quoting fancy terminology you got off the Internet. You get it in the trenches. Photos are war and you need the scars to prove it.

Wow.

[prewarsports]

With all due respect Josh, you have no idea how much time others on here have spent "in the trenches" with regard to the Rogers issues or how many photos we have handled. I would be happy to educate you if you want to drop me a line with regard to both issues. Your post is pretty insulting considering you literally have no idea what is going on with this issue behind the scenes and just how educated some people on this forum actually are (or how many millions of photos we have handled). I will just leave it at that.

[Michael B]

Mr. Evans,
You make a broad brush slam against those commenting that you completely ignored the fact that the three, that I know of, true ‘photo guys’ (I prefer photo swamis or photo dudes) all clearly pointed out that it was not original to the period. It is easy to hear or read what you want to rather than what was said or written. It does not matter if it is a John Rogers or Howie Smuckmeister (sorry Howie) forgery. That is not germain to the main point being addressed which was whether it was from 1915 or not. After reaching that point, then and only then does the fact that Arkansas Jack reprinted these photos and affixed stamps on the back become a point of conversation. You are quite knowledgeable and I respect that. However, understand that there are many here that have deep fonts of knowledge, but do not own auction houses and are mainly collectors and dealers on a smaller scale. And yes – apology accepted.

AS QUOTED:

David:
“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)”

Rhys:
“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!”

Me:
“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.”

Rhys again:
“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.”

[SAllen2556]

I thought what everyone said demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was fake, and thanks to everyone who took the time to reply.

Personally, I didn't know the deal about the smaller size photos way back when. I did know the stamp was incorrect, which is what originally caught my eye.

That's what's so cool about net54, you can learn about the hobby from people who are neither arrogant nor smug when it comes to sharing their knowledge...ahem.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

With all due respect Josh, you have no idea how much time others on here have spent "in the trenches" with regard to the Rogers issues or how many photos we have handled. I would be happy to educate you if you want to drop me a line with regard to both issues. Your post is pretty insulting considering you literally have no idea what is going on with this issue behind the scenes and just how educated some people on this forum actually are (or how many millions of photos we have handled). I will just leave it at that.

You are a lot nicer than I am.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by joshleland

Very disappointed by you "photo guys."

Fortunately photos can be discussed, acquired, enjoyed, etc., without being an official Net54 "photo guy".

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by joshleland

Very disappointed by you "photo guys." You talk like you have knowledge but to truly understand the field you have to have smarts. This is obviously the work of John Rogers. He has been selling material with phony stamps for years. Plus he sold the Detroit News which makes this pretty obvious in my book. This is a piece of crap created by him from scratch and you guys should know that. You don't get that kind of understanding by googling it. It takes years of experience and sorting through a million photos. Not by quoting fancy terminology you got off the Internet. You get it in the trenches. Photos are war and you need the scars to prove it.

Josh, is it true that your sister works for John Rogers helping to sell his photos on ebay?

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Josh, is it true that your sister works for John Rogers helping to sell his photos on ebay?

You're going to ruin Christmas/Hanukkah/Kwanzaa.

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Josh, is it true that your sister works for John Rogers helping to sell his photos on ebay?

I am sure Josh will answer this, but I wanted to chime in. His sister, who is very nice, was/is selling for Josh on ebay under the listing name tique I believe. Josh may have fired the first shot across the bow, but it was directed at the Net54 members only. He did not try to indict family members.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Michael B

I am sure Josh will answer this, but I wanted to chime in. His sister, who is very nice, was/is selling for Josh on ebay under the listing name tique I believe. Josh may have fired the first shot across the bow, but it was directed at the Net54 members only. He did not try to indict family members.

I wasn't trying to indict his family member, the criticism wasn't against her. I just thought it was unusual that he would bash Rogers if his sister worked for him. Of course, I could be wrong about his sister's job.

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by calvindog

I wasn't trying to indict his family member, the criticism wasn't against her. I just thought it was unusual that he would bash Rogers if his sister worked for him. Of course, I could be wrong about his sister's job.

Not a problem. I understand your point. I just checked and if you do an advanced search for seller tiqu you will find several hundred listings and at the bottom it specifically says "Lelands......"

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Michael B

Not a problem. I understand your point. I just checked and if you do an advanced search for seller tiqu you will find several hundred listings and at the bottom it specifically says "Lelands......"

Well, then that's good to know.

[joshleland]

Jeff:
Yes, you are 100% correct that my sister used to take photos on consignment from John Rogers. Not sports stuff so many here would not notice or care. However there is no john Rogers anymore at least on a day to day basis in the Arkansas operation. Actually she is now selling for the creditors who have been bilked by Rogers. She has her eyes wide open with regards to the collection and is one of the most knowledgable wire photo people in the business. I know because I taught her. As for other "photo guys" on here I am just surprised that no one called this out as a Rogers fake. It's simply obvious. By the way, do you know how long it took me to go through a million photos one at a time. Doing it about 6-8 hours a day it took me about five years.

[joshleland]

Oh yes and tiqu. That is not my sister. It is my 80 year old mother who sells photos for me on eBay. She loves doing it and feel free to contact her as she loves hearing from hobbyists. But be nice Jeff, thats my mom.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by joshleland

This is obviously the work of John Rogers. He has been selling material with phony stamps for years. Plus he sold the Detroit News which makes this pretty obvious in my book.

Originally Posted by Forever Young

It is fake... No doubt.

Thanks Josh, and thanks Ben for confirming.

See Dennis? We are all getting along.

[Econteachert205]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Thanks Josh, and thanks Ben for confirming.

See Dennis? We are all getting along.

I certainly do.