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

[drcy]

Originally Posted by lumberjack

I believe the forgers were also selling museum quality Hine photos, something that was very un-Hine like. That should have raised a few eyebrows. Hine wouldn't have been considered an artist in his lifetime, he was a muckraker, not Ansel Adams. Nobody caught on to that at the time, which is willful suspension of disbelief.
lumberjack

The Hine photos were proven to be forgeries by a paper chemist. Though the chemist was asked to do the tests because there were suspicions to strong beliefs that they were forgeries. Suspicions from collectors and dealers almost always come first. That's why boards such as this one are so important.

It's also possible they fluoresced under black light. I believe the Man Ray forgeries did, as well as the Hilter Diaries forgery.

There's actually a simple but remarkably reliable test I use for dating photos including modern and unstamped photos (though not the only test). But it's so straightforward that I don't say what it is, so as to not tip off forgers. It's particularly useful for modern photos-- say of George Brett or a supposed rookie Ken Griffey Jr-- where they can otherwise harder to date. It doesn't pinpoint year, but if you have a supposed original rookie year of Griffey you can be confident that it's period versus recent.

[ls7plus]

Thanks for the link, David. I've downloaded the 198 pp PDF version of your book and look forward to reading it (and yes, I still have the Ruth we discussed. I am planning to have it forensically examined next year by an expert with a good track record in Michigan--been a bit sidetracked lately with other matters having a higher priority).

Best wishes,

Larry

[drcy]

Duly note that I think most fakes-- including baseball cards and normal ephemera--, are easily identified without the highly advanced scientific tests. Radiometric dating and such are usually done with priceless museum relics or part of academic study. I'm sure all the authentic and questioned Vermeers and Michelangelo paintings have had all the tests on them.

If you collected meteorites or moon rocks or ancient Chinese ceramics or had a historic baseball artifact, I could see how a normal collector might want those tests done. But no one needs radiometric dating to authenticate a T206 or ACME news photo.

In fact, some of the more effective tests are the ones collectors already do. Simple stuff like blacklight, checking for gloss and texture, measuring thickness, and holding a questioned card next to some real ones are very effective tests. A test doesn't have to be complicated or expensive to be effective and important. A bunch simple tests used together can be greater than one expensive nuclear physics test.

Though I readily admit that, beyond knowing how the ink and paper tests work and knowing the basic stuff average collectors know, autographs are outside of my area of expertise. Not something I've focused on or been interested in, and I never present myself here as an autograph expert.

[benjulmag]

Wouldn't degradation in resolution be a tell tale sign of a fake? If when putting side by side two images and noticing clear differences in resolution, I'm curious what could account for that other than the photos were not printed at the same time and from the same negative.

I remember some time ago considering buying a rare sealed record album. The first few "experts" I showed it to thought it was good. I then went to a person highly regarded as very knowledgeable in this area. He compared the album to an original he had and one could instantly tell the one I had was a fake. There were clear differences in the focus of the printed letters, as well as subtle differences in color tone.

In the case of the Atlantics CdV, the only known original I am aware of is located at the Library of Congress. Its resolution is noticeably sharper than the one sold by Saco Auctions. It also might have had different cropping. The best spin I can think to put on this is that the CdV was a period pirate CdV (a period copy printed from a different negative than the original), which on occasion turn up. When they do, the ones I have seen are not printed on mounts from the studio that produced the original, but instead on generic CdV mounts with no studio or copyright info on the verso. The most prominent baseball example I can think of is the 1867 Harvard BBC which is depicted in Mark Rucker's CdV book. As I recall, it had a blank verso. Some years later another turned up, this one having the typical studio and copyright info on the verso. The image is also known in yearbook size, as the 1867 Harvard yearbook contains a book-sized image of the team. So likely the pirate CdV was struck from the yearbook image.


If the Atlantic CdV was a period pirate, that would be relevant info to a prospective purchaser because it would not a first generation CdV. While it would still be valuable, IMO its value would be significantly less than if it had been a first generation CdV. What makes me believe it is not this (aside from the lack of provenance) is that it appears remounted, and the mount it is on is from the studio that is known to have taken the image. That appears to be a clear attempt to deceive, in contrast to pirate Cdvs that are printed on generic mounts with no studio or copyright designations.

[SetBuilder]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Wouldn't degradation in resolution be a tell tale sign of a fake? If when putting side by side two images and noticing clear differences in resolution, I'm curious what could account for that other than the photos were not printed at the same time and from the same negative.

If that's the case, then a large percentage of Old Judges are fake, because most have degraded and blurry images with poor registration.

I've seen a few glass negatives at auctions and most have some wear and tear from being handled constantly -- fingerprints, dirt, scratches, stains, etc.

Plus, the negatives were exposed out in the sun, with the constant flow of harsh UV rays. Over time the negatives probably got lighter and the image therefore got darker and blurrier.

I remember reading a story that Mathew Brady's glass plate war negatives were liquidated and purchased at an auction. The man who bought them used them to line the roof/ceiling of his greenhouse. Imagine that. After a few years the glass plates were practically transparent due to the UV exposure.

[drcy]

Resolution is very relevant to identifying an original versus reproduction. However, some processes, including albumen, can fade with age. The other problem with more modern photos is that they can be slightly blurry due to the photographer not having it in focus.

[SAllen2556]

Originally Posted by drcy

Resolution is very relevant to identifying an original versus reproduction. However, some processes, including albumen, can fade with age. The other problem with more modern photos is that they can be slightly blurry due to the photographer not having it in focus.

Modern photos, as you well know, are 35mm. Newspaper photographers went to 35mm, I believe in the late 60's, while photos from Babe Ruth's days were all 4 x 5 - which made for much better resolution. I have many baseball photos from the 70's and they all, to me, look like crap even though they're all original.

It's all about the paper it seems to me. The photo itself can easily be faked.

Scan of original 1970's photo from 35mm negative
mark fidrych.jpg

4 x 5 negative scanned
marlin stuart1.jpg

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by SetBuilder

If that's the case, then a large percentage of Old Judges are fake, because most have degraded and blurry images with poor registration.

I've seen a few glass negatives at auctions and most have some wear and tear from being handled constantly -- fingerprints, dirt, scratches, stains, etc.

Plus, the negatives were exposed out in the sun, with the constant flow of harsh UV rays. Over time the negatives probably got lighter and the image therefore got darker and blurrier.

I remember reading a story that Mathew Brady's glass plate war negatives were liquidated and purchased at an auction. The man who bought them used them to line the roof/ceiling of his greenhouse. Imagine that. After a few years the glass plates were practically transparent due to the UV exposure.

Resolution is different than contrast. I agree that photos can become washed out in time. I heard that same story about the Brady glass negatives. As I recall the two Atlantics CdVs had comparable contrast. Yet the one at the Library of Congress shows noticeably better detail. Assuming the photos were printed at the same time from the same negative, are you saying that phenomena can be explained solely by how they were stored over the years? I say that as a question, not a statement, which is why I made the post in the first place.

[oldjudge]

BTW, all N172s are photographs of photographs. That is why N173s, which are first generation photographs, are oftentimes sharper than N172s.