"1888" GOODWIN CHAMPIONS (N162) cards are actually an 1889 set

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by SetBuilder

No way they used eggs.

Sorry, but they're not albumen.

BTW, what is your photographic background? Are your conclusions based on your examination of Old Judge cards or is yours solely an economic analysis?

[oldjudge]

BTW, if, based on your extensive experience, you don't believe me, here is the description from the Metropolitan Museum of Art Burdick Collection for one of the cards. I don't know for certain, but my guess is that they also know more about the topic than you.

From the series Old Judge Cigarettes

Publisher:Issued by Goodwin & Company
Date:1888
Medium:Albumen print photograph, cabinet card
Dimensions:sheet: 6 1/2 x 4 3/8 in. (16.5 x 11.1 cm)
Classifications:Photographs, Ephemera
Credit Line:The Jefferson R. Burdick Collection, Gift of Jefferson R. Burdick
Accession Number:63.350.214.173.152

[SetBuilder]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

BTW, if, based on your extensive experience, you don't believe me, here is the description from the Metropolitan Museum of Art Burdick Collection for one of the cards. I don't know for certain, but my guess is that they also know more about the topic than you.

From the series Old Judge Cigarettes

Publisher:Issued by Goodwin & Company
Date:1888
Medium:Albumen print photograph, cabinet card
Dimensions:sheet: 6 1/2 x 4 3/8 in. (16.5 x 11.1 cm)
Classifications:Photographs, Ephemera
Credit Line:The Jefferson R. Burdick Collection, Gift of Jefferson R. Burdick
Accession Number:63.350.214.173.152

Originally Posted by oldjudge

BTW, what is your photographic background? Are your conclusions based on your examination of Old Judge cards or is yours solely an economic analysis?

They're just guessing. Everything is an albumen print until proven otherwise too at the LOC. They're not going to pay for lab testing to find out.

There is very little visual difference between a salt print with gelatin and an albumen print. You can sometimes, however, pick out subtle differences.

Do you see a difference in sharpness and quality between the OJ cabinets and the OJ cards? I'm sure most people will, because the OJ cabinets were made with higher quality materials, and cheap giveaway OJs were made with the cheapest.

What about differences in quality between a stereoview card and an OJ? Stereoview cards were albumen. Why? Because they were sold to people. Quality mattered. OJ cards? Not so much. They were given away, for free.

[Joe_G.]

Mark, so nice to see you post. Your GQ advertisement from the 1887 City Argus is among my favorite advertising pieces. Let me know if you ever locate a second one.

Manny, I'm following your responses with interest.

Originally Posted by SetBuilder

They're just guessing. Everything is an albumen print until proven otherwise too at the LOC. They're not going to pay for lab testing to find out.

There is very little visual difference between a salt print with gelatin and an albumen print. You can sometimes, however, pick out subtle differences.

Do you see a difference in sharpness and quality between the OJ cabinets and the OJ cards? I'm sure most people will, because the OJ cabinets were made with higher quality materials, and cheap giveaway OJs were made with the cheapest.

What about differences in quality between a stereoview card and an OJ? Stereoview cards were albumen. Why? Because they were sold to people. Quality mattered. OJ cards? Not so much. They were given away, for free.

Do you know how much it costs to analyze a card and is it destructive in any way? Jay, myself, and others have noted a decline in quality for the 1890 OJs vs earlier years. It would be interesting to have a couple cards from each year tested. The earlier cards, especially the 1887 Brooklyn players, have held up well over the years. In 1889, many of the cards have varying levels of pink tinting. It would be interesting to verify salt vs albumen print. It would surprise a lot of people if some of our 19th century photographic cards were found to be salt prints.

[SetBuilder]

Originally Posted by Joe_G.

Mark, so nice to see you post. Your GQ advertisement from the 1887 City Argus is among my favorite advertising pieces. Let me know if you ever locate a second one.

Manny, I'm following your responses with interest.



Do you know how much it costs to analyze a card and is it destructive in any way? Jay, myself, and others have noted a decline in quality for the 1890 OJs vs earlier years. It would be interesting to have a couple cards from each year tested. The earlier cards, especially the 1887 Brooklyn players, have held up well over the years. In 1889, many of the cards have varying levels of pink tinting. It would be interesting to verify salt vs albumen print. It would surprise a lot of people if some of our 19th century photographic cards were found to be salt prints.

It's always possible they changed production at some point. Perhaps they started as albumen prints and then changed to a cheaper method. The difference in sepia tones, sharpness, and contrast between OJ's is too varied, and is indicative of a shift in printing method.

[oldjudge]

Old Judge cabinets can appear higher quality because they were first generation prints. N172s were second generation. We explain this in the Old Judge book.
BTW, you never answered my question. How many Old Judges have you examined such that you are qualified to opine on the photographs and make you think your knowledge is superior to that of the MET and the LOC?

[SetBuilder]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Old Judge cabinets can appear higher quality because they were first generation prints. N172s were second generation. We explain this in the Old Judge book.
BTW, you never answered my question. How many Old Judges have you examined such that you are qualified to opine on the photographs and make you think your knowledge is superior to that of the MET and the LOC?

Just some basic knowledge of history and a bit of common sense goes a long way.

What makes more sense to Goodwin, from an economic point of view?

To use either, pre-sensitized albumen paper (more expensive; think of it like buying premium photo paper today), or a group of workers to separate egg whites all day to make photo-grade albumen (more expensive);

Instead of,

Salt and water (cheap, readily available in large barrels), and gelatin (cheap, widely used by paper mills to size paper and add/or to add a semi-gloss surface)?

[SetBuilder]

Originally Posted by Joe_G.

Do you know how much it costs to analyze a card and is it destructive in any way?

In regards to this question, the answer is no. You just need a XRF (X-Ray flourescence) analyzer and/or a ATR-FTIR spectrometer, among other tools and methods. I think you can probably rent one somewhere for several hundred dollars per day/week.

You might enjoy this article from the Getty Museum. It goes into a lot of detail:

https://www.getty.edu/conservation/p...as_albumen.pdf.

And this one too.

https://www.getty.edu/conservation/p..._saltprint.pdf