1914 Babe Ruth M. Lantern Slide ?

[packs]

Image is really fuzzy. Definitely not an original print.

[The Owner 3]

Seinfeld reference. Well, in person it looks great. It's hard to capture a glass lantern slide in a photo, and the seller didn't have the greatest photos of it.

I realize the caption is mistaken, but it may have just been a reference to Babe's first game, but with a later photo of him in a Red Sox uniform. I don't think it was meant to deceive anyone, but just a reference to his first game for when it was projected.

But who knows for sure? I'm no expert on glass lantern slides, but I took a gamble. I knew I didn't have much time before the auction got out of hand, so I made a deal. I'll try to get a better photo of it and post it.

[TUM301]

Thanks for the update, looking forward to hear/seeing more of this item. Welcome to the "54", Murph

[The Owner 3]

I used a 40x zoom magnifying glass to see if there was halftoning in the image that would be present if it were a copied print. In other words, varying sizes of ink dots in a pattern. I didn’t see halftoning, but something closer to film grain, which isn’t in a pattern.

I’ve used this on other black and white photos that are reproduced prints and you can easily see halftoning in them. I’ve used it on other black and white prints that I know are type 1 from the original negative and see only film grain and no halftoning.

If you ever want to have the time of your life, get yourself a 40x zoom magnifying glass. They’re like $5 on Amazon, but they’ll change your life.

Anyway, I was glad to see there were no pattern dots or halftoning in the magic lantern slide.

[GKreindler]

The original 4" x 5" glass plate negative of this Ruth image resides in the collection of the Chicago History Museum. If I remember correctly, it's from 1917. You'll notice the same markings on the top of the image.



I can't speak towards the legitimacy of the slides as originals, but I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable labeling them as such.

Graig

[The Owner 3]

Thanks GK. Yeah, I saw that one too and I did see that it's from 1917. Trust me, I'm not labeling this as anything until I know for sure what it is exactly. Don't worry, this is not going back on eBay. If it's researched and found to be from the era, I'm keeping it. If it's researched and found to be completely fake and made in a basement, I'm keeping it. It's in good hands as far as not trying to pull one over on anyone.

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by GKreindler

The original 4" x 5" glass plate negative of this Ruth image resides in the collection of the Chicago History Museum. If I remember correctly, it's from 1917. You'll notice the same markings on the top of the image.



I can't speak towards the legitimacy of the slides as originals, but I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable labeling them as such.

Graig

I agree with Greig,

Everything about this piece screams “fake” to me. The fact that it looks so amateurishly done, no period label, wrong date to inhance value, and to top it all off they left the photographers notations and writing from the negative on the finished piece. If you were making this to sell or for some other purpose they would have done a good job doing so and nobody would leave the random marks at the top of that photo, those would have been the first things cropped out of that photo.

Regardless of what it looks like under a microscope it doesn’t pass the initial eye test of something done during that period.

[packs]

Every lantern slide I've ever seen is as sharp as you would expect from a negative. You can plainly tell that the slide in question has a grainy, fuzzy image indicative of a copy.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

I agree with Greig,

Everything about this piece screams “fake” to me. The fact that it looks so amateurishly done, no period label, wrong date to inhance value, and to top it all off they left the photographers notations and writing from the negative on the finished piece. If you were making this to sell or for some other purpose they would have done a good job doing so and nobody would leave the random marks at the top of that photo, those would have been the first things cropped out of that photo.

Regardless of what it looks like under a microscope it doesn’t pass the initial eye test of something done during that period.

You haven't seen many lantern slides have you?

They can be totally original and also totally shoddy work.

A lot of what's put there was made by companies like keystone, and they're very professionally done, often for educational use. The rest vary a lot in quality. Everything from nicely produced to just an image taped between glass. I've seen some labeled with nothing more than pencil and some cloth tape. Some not labeled at all. Those were usually done from someone's own photos either to have slides to show, or for a talk about something at a club or church function.


As far as I know they're all copies, though I suppose some amateur ones could be from an original negative reverse processed.