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

[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?

[Bpm0014]

Yes, the lesser known Lee. Robert’s brother. Was a rifle-maker from Nashville, Tennessee...

[drcy]

Photos of Albert Lee were very collectible back then. It was considered the Paris of Southern Minnesota, and, before they were paved over for a Gimble's, famous for its mineral hot springs and prehistoric tar pits.

Apology accepted

[Peter_Spaeth]

Robbie Robertson's original lyric was, "Virgil quick come see, there goes 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.

[sphere and ash]

Originally Posted by 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.

I’ve printed in salt and albumen, and it’s not at all clear to me what “exceptionally pure paper” is. I don’t think it’s true that the process requires a modern paper.

[SetBuilder]

Originally Posted by sphere and ash

I’ve printed in salt and albumen, and it’s not at all clear to me what “exceptionally pure paper” is. I don’t think it’s true that the process requires a modern paper.

I don't know...you can Google it. It says it in every article I've read...that you need pure, high quality paper, free of impurities.

[drcy]

I know a lot of art photographers who use old processes. They aren't making forgeries or attempting to make photos that someone would be fooled into thinking was old.

A funny thing was I was talking with a well-known print (ink) artist who does digital collages. I was surprised at how little he knew about digital printing itself-- how to identify laser versus inkjet printing under the microscope, halftone reproductions, blacklight and paper, etc. He just bought a big printer and used it. I also met a photographer from Paris who was having an exhibition, and she said she sent her photos in to be developed by a company. She likely wasn't up to date on a lot of stuff collectors know. So an expert can know more about the physicality of the artwork than the artist him or herself.

[SetBuilder]

Originally Posted by sphere and ash

I’ve printed in salt and albumen, and it’s not at all clear to me what “exceptionally pure paper” is. I don’t think it’s true that the process requires a modern paper.

Here, I found it for you:

"Paper had to be thin, yet strong when wet. It also needed to be exceptionally pure--the slightest trace of foreign matter would react with other photographic chemicals and cause staining."

https://www.realorrepro.com/article/Photographic-Images

I'd love to know where you can find stacks of old paper that meets this criteria.

[sphere and ash]

Originally Posted by SetBuilder

Here, I found it for you:

"Paper had to be thin, yet strong when wet. It also needed to be exceptionally pure--the slightest trace of foreign matter would react with other photographic chemicals and cause staining."

https://www.realorrepro.com/article/Photographic-Images

I'd love to know where you can find stacks of old paper that meets this criteria.

This link is almost enough to get me to try albumen printing again:

https://www.alternativephotography.c...umen-printing/

According to the link, Cranes (Kid Finish 32#, Platinotype or Parchment Wove 44#), Arches (Platinotype) and Strathmore (500 Drawing) would all work. My guess is that one could tell the difference between a vintage print and a print using one of these papers. Having said that, I have some theories about how a vintage paper could be made to work. I’m just not sure it’s a good idea to share such theories with a wide audience.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by 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.

I am intrigued about the carbon dating you describe. Do you know its margin of error (i.e., in years)? At the price you describe it would seem to make a lot of sense for a CdV such as this Atlantics. But how intrusive a test is it? Would it materially impact the item's potential value by requiring one to remove/destroy the tested portion?

I don't profess to have the level of photographic expertise of others on this Board. But common sense tells me that forgers are busy at work trying to replicate old photos when the potential value exceeds a certain threshold, as certainly would be the case with a CdV of arguably the most important team of the 1860's. If modern pure paper is required to make an albumen image, would it be so difficult once the image has been made and adhered to a period mount to intentionally soil it so as to make it appear old? Did the expert who examined it prior to it first appearing at auction have an opportunity to examine it out of the slab? If he did not, that would seem to me to limit the full extent of what his examination could potentially reveal. SGC did the slabbing. I have high regard for SGC as card graders. But I'm not persuaded ascertaining whether a photograph is a period albumen falls within their expertise.

Assuming the carbon dating's margin of error could establish whether the photo is period, and the testing process would not be expected to damage the image, the current owner of the photo would seem to be in an unenviable conundrum. It did not sell in the HA auction. So potential purchasers would expect the item to be carbon dated. But to do that would require the item be removed from the slab. Once that is done, there is real risk whether a grading company would agree to re-slab it unless the testing shows it to be consistent with a period albumen photograph. So it would pretty much be an all or nothing gamble -- (I) the test removes suspicions as to authenticity, the item gets re-slabbed though this time with a lot more evidence to show it is real and retains its value, or (II) the item flunks testing, is not re-slabbed and likely will be difficult to resell for anything close to what it first sold for.

[drcy]

You wouldn't want to carbon date the average CDV, due to the margin of error and that a piece has to be removed for testing. However, an advertised old paper baseball item was carbon dated at the University of Arizona to definitively prove that it was modern for a court case. Though Man Ray forgeries were discovered by another test on the paper.

If you want to learn how carbon dating and other such highly advanced processes work, I recommend the following book (I'm the author ). Spectroscopy-- a non-destructive test that identifies the chemical makeup and levels at the molecular level using a handheld device-- would potentially be very useful for baseball memorabilia, photos to cards to uniforms. Spectronomuy is used to date many things including painting. Spectroscopy is something I see in the future of baseball memorabilia and is even used to determine if aging signs (rust, foxing, etc) is authentic. The devices are expensive, but everything's free after that.

The book also goes into all the issues in authentication-- margins of error in testing, limits of science, etc.

Link

[benjulmag]

Thank you David. That is very useful information.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

I am intrigued about the carbon dating you describe. Do you know its margin of error (i.e., in years)? At the price you describe it would seem to make a lot of sense for a CdV such as this Atlantics. But how intrusive a test is it? Would it materially impact the item's potential value by requiring one to remove/destroy the tested portion?

I don't profess to have the level of photographic expertise of others on this Board. But common sense tells me that forgers are busy at work trying to replicate old photos when the potential value exceeds a certain threshold, as certainly would be the case with a CdV of arguably the most important team of the 1860's. If modern pure paper is required to make an albumen image, would it be so difficult once the image has been made and adhered to a period mount to intentionally soil it so as to make it appear old? Did the expert who examined it prior to it first appearing at auction have an opportunity to examine it out of the slab? If he did not, that would seem to me to limit the full extent of what his examination could potentially reveal. SGC did the slabbing. I have high regard for SGC as card graders. But I'm not persuaded ascertaining whether a photograph is a period albumen falls within their expertise.

Assuming the carbon dating's margin of error could establish whether the photo is period, and the testing process would not be expected to damage the image, the current owner of the photo would seem to be in an unenviable conundrum. It did not sell in the HA auction. So potential purchasers would expect the item to be carbon dated. But to do that would require the item be removed from the slab. Once that is done, there is real risk whether a grading company would agree to re-slab it unless the testing shows it to be consistent with a period albumen photograph. So it would pretty much be an all or nothing gamble -- (I) the test removes suspicions as to authenticity, the item gets re-slabbed though this time with a lot more evidence to show it is real and retains its value, or (II) the item flunks testing, is not re-slabbed and likely will be difficult to resell for anything close to what it first sold for.

Corey-I don’t think the fellow who bought it in Saco River cares any more. After it didn’t sell in Heritage he told me that he was donating it to the HOF (the repository for all things that can’t be sold—LOL)

[drcy]

I had a modern platinotype and it fluoresced under blacklight.