Are Type I Photos The Only Safe Bet In This Hobby?

[drcy]

I've seen original albumen photos remounted (I think there were remounted Kalamazoo bats out there-- with obviously different mounts, and a matter of restoration), but have never seen a forgery using albumen.

I know there was questioning about one big albumen baseball photo a while back in an auction. But it wasn't about the photographic print itself-- no one doubted it was original--, it was about the mount. Some thought it was remounted. But it was an esoteric, early photo, not a trading card like an Old Judge. Whether remounted or not, it still had a lot of value.

The good deal with photos is the older they are, the easier they are to authenticate. The older the materials, the older the processes, etc. Also albumens get wear and aging signs distinct to the process and materials. Theoretically, modern photos are easier to forge, because the original and forger-used materials and processes are from the same era.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by drcy

I've seen original albumen photos remounted (I think there were remounted Kalamazoo bats out there-- with obviously different mounts, and a matter of restoration), but have never seen a forgery using albumen.

I know there was questioning about one big albumen baseball photo a while back in an auction. But it wasn't about the photographic print itself-- no one doubted it was original--, it was about the mount. Some thought it was remounted. But it was an esoteric, early photo, not a trading card like an Old Judge. Whether remounted or not, it still had a lot of value.

The good deal with photos is the older they are, the easier they are to authenticate. The older the materials, the older the processes, etc. Also albumens get wear and aging signs distinct to the process and materials. Theoretically, modern photos are easier to forge, because the original and forger-used materials and processes are from the same era.

Are you referring to the 1865 Atlantics CdV?

[drcy]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Are you referring to the 1865 Atlantics CdV?

Yes.

[benjulmag]

The item did not meet the reserve when it last appeared in the Heritage auction. My guess is the reason is that the leap of faith required to believe the photo was real was too great.

I do not question it is an albumen photo. What I do question is how one can be so sure it is a period albumen photo. I know someone who examined it before it was slabbed. He told me that because the photo was not completely adhered to the mount he was able to inspect a portion of the verso, which appeared to be unsoiled and on paper that looked to be modern and perfectly white in color. Adding to this that the CdV has no known provenance, appears to clearly have been remounted, and shows a clear degradation in resolution from the other known copy, I am surprised you express the confidence you do that the photo is genuine.

[drcy]

We may or may not be talking about the same CDV. I don't know, and am too lazy to look into it.

The one I was thinking of was supposedly remounted from a stolen stereoview, and the remounting was to hide that it was stolen. At least, that's the story someone told me.

But, either way, I'm too busy with work to get in a debate on it, and won't refute anything you say about the HA photo.

[Leon]

So are you implying that you feel it could be a faked albumen photo? I have asked quite a few experienced hobbyists and no one has said they have seen one yet. There is a reason I am asking these questions and it has to do with a card I am getting graded.

Originally Posted by benjulmag

The item did not meet the reserve when it last appeared in the Heritage auction. My guess is the reason is that the leap of faith required to believe the photo was real was too great.

I do not question it is an albumen photo. What I do question is how one can be so sure it is a period albumen photo. I know someone who examined it before it was slabbed. He told me that because the photo was not completely adhered to the mount he was able to inspect a portion of the verso, which appeared to be unsoiled and on paper that looked to be modern and perfectly white in color. Adding to this that the CdV has no known provenance, appears to clearly have been remounted, and shows a clear degradation in resolution from the other known copy, I am surprised you express the confidence you do that the photo is genuine.

[drcy]

It is possible and not rare for there to be a vintage 1800s albumen with an earlier image. Not rare with famous subjects such as Abe Lincoln and Albert E. Lee. They're usually easily identified as later (or period) by the style of the mount. For an example, below is an 1890s cabinet of Lincoln in 1864. Not hard to identify because the dates are in the text.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by drcy

It is possible and not rare for there to be a vintage 1800s albumen with an earlier image. Not rare with famous subjects such as Abe Lincoln and Albert E. Lee. They're usually easily identified as later (or period) by the style of the mount. For an example, below is an 1890s cabinet of Lincoln in 1864. Not hard to identify because the dates are in the text.

Albert E. Lee?

[sphere and ash]

Originally Posted by Leon

So are you implying that you feel it could be a faked albumen photo? I have asked quite a few experienced hobbyists and no one has said they have seen one yet. There is a reason I am asking these questions and it has to do with a card I am getting graded.

There is no question that modern albumen prints can be made. You can see photographers working in albumen having a back-and-forth in the following link:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/thread...recipes.12822/

Whether someone could make a modern albumen print that is indistinguishable from a nineteenth century albumen print is another question. Nineteenth century papers tend to be very thin, and I think it would be hard to find modern papers that are that thin. Hard to find—not impossible.

[SetBuilder]

Google says you need exceptionally pure paper to make albumen or the chemicals will react horribly with any impurities and it will ruin the print. The only way for the process to work is for the paper to be modern. Old paper has all kinds of impurities built up and old photo paper still in the original box doesn't exist as far as I can see, and even if it did, I would think the chemicals would be degraded by now and it would make it unusable.

That's why it's probably extremely hard to make modern fakes look old...the paper has to be modern and that's easy to tell.

An easy way to tell for sure would be to get the paper carbon dated, IMO. The carbon dating process is now a lot more precise and a lot cheaper than before. The last time I checked it was like $500-600 for 1 sample.