FS: 1887 Detroit Wolverines CDV (Pirated Copy)

[Joe_G.]

Originally Posted by drcy

The CDV is from the 1800s. The microscopic images are of an albumen print.

Hello David, thanks for chiming in. I'd agree that the mount is likely an original from Millard and dates to the 1800s. But the albumen print, is there a reason you definitively date it to the 1800s when albumen paper was sold through 1929? Just curious.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by Joe_G.

Hello David, thanks for chiming in. I'd agree that the mount is likely an original from Millard and dates to the 1800s. But the albumen print, is there a reason you definitively date it to the 1800s when albumen paper was sold through 1929? Just curious.

Whatever the theoretical possibility, the photographer of such a photo wouldn't make an albumen print in the 20th century. Many theoretical possibilities and arguments are pie-in-the-sky, meaning they are so highly improbable that they can be dismissed in the real world situation. I'd bet that a 20th-century baseball albumen photo doesn't exist.

[insidethewrapper]

Joe: I don't know much about photography, but couldn't anyone take the photo from one mount and place on another mount (ie, off Tomlinson and place on another mount )? Looks like the same photo that has the Kalamazoo Bats mount. .

[Joe_G.]

Thanks Rob, Henry, & Kevin.

Originally Posted by drcy

Whatever the theoretical possibility, the photographer of such a photo wouldn't make an albumen print in the 20th century. Many theoretical possibilities and arguments are pie-in-the-sky, meaning they are so highly improbable that they can be dismissed in the real world situation. I'd bet that a 20th-century baseball albumen photo doesn't exist.

I always defer to you on such matters. You've been a great resource for many of us over the years including when you inspected my old large format "Champions of the League" composite some 13 years ago . . . you concluded it was a mid-20th century creation. I've read that albumen paper was the most widely used photographic printing material through 1895 and didn't realize it would become so rare by the time 20th century rolled around.

Out of curiosity, in your opinion, how close could someone come to creating an authentic appearing (circa 1880s) albumen print today?

Originally Posted by insidethewrapper

Joe: I don't know much about photography, but couldn't anyone take the photo from one mount and place on another mount (ie, off Tomlinson and place on another mount )? Looks like the same photo that has the Kalamazoo Bats mount.

This is possible but not recommended if soak the print as you will incur irreversible damage (more cracks, lower strength). I found this article interesting: http://albumen.conservation-us.org/science/

Manny's CDV is not the same variant found on K-Bat card. There are two 1887 images that were taken perhaps a minute or so apart.

Here is one of the two variants courtesy of NYPL, this imperial cabinet matches Manny's CDV. The imperial cabinets from Tomlinson have unbelievable clarity (consistent high quality seen from all the 1886, 1887, and 1888 photo shoots). Manny's CDV is a 2nd gen print (photo of a photo) and will lack this detail.

Here is the K-Bat (not mine), a slightly different image. NYPL has this 2nd version as an imperial cabinet as well (BB HOF also has both variants). Note that the K-Bat and Manny's CDV lack the clarity of the Tomlinson cabinets.

[drcy]

Artists today do all the old processes today-- albumen, salt print, tintypes ambrotypes--, but it's for artistic purposes (often of obviously modern subjects), and the photos can be identified as modern by inspecting the materials. Some of the ambrotypes, tintypes and daguerreotypes are HUGE, WAY larger than 1800s versions would be . . . Just a note.

I know of a woman in South Carolina who makes tintypes of people who pay people at Civil War recreation festivals. Her own 1800s photobooth.

[Leon]

I never knew there were fakes of Ambros and so forth. I have only seen those crappy looking, very large Goodwin tintypes....with their names NOT reversed. Good to know. I am also surprised albuman wasn't used in the 20th century. Learn (or remember again ) something new every day....
.

Originally Posted by drcy

Artists today do all the old processes today-- albumen, salt print, tintypes ambrotypes--, but it's for artistic purposes (often of obviously modern subjects), and the photos can be identified as modern by inspecting the materials. Some of the ambrotypes, tintypes and daguerreotypes are HUGE, WAY larger than 1800s versions would be . . . Just a note.

I know of a woman in South Carolina who makes tintypes of people who pay people at Civil War recreation festivals. Her own 1800s photobooth.

[drcy]

I wouldn't call them fake, but modern art using old processes.

I know a bunch of art photographers across the world, and they do it all the ways, from digital to daguerreotypes. These days you can digitally print on metal sheets-- and some artists do this--, but the modern dags, tintypes, etc are the real deal. The digitally printed metal sheets are usually do not remotely resemble old photos, but are color.