REA's 1910 Cobb Sliding Photo LET THE BUYER BEWARE

[photomoto]

I appreciate the many responding to this thread who view it's purpose as providing information and promoting discussion.

My advanced Conlon collector friends are aware of the prints of his 1904 photos as we have several. Since Conlon began photographing that year, we believe that he hadn't yet set up a darkroom and didn't develop these 4+" x 6+" prints. They also differ in size and style from his other early prints, either his contact prints or his 8" x 10" prints. Also, we question whether these are vintage prints or later prints. Incidentally, I have seen Conlon's Alder Place, NJ stamp on prints from the 1910s.

[Bicem]

Sorry, I meant his 216 W. 111th St. address which is crossed out and updated with the newer NJ address on the back of the photo I posted. Isn't that address stamp known to be early 1904 to 1909?

[T206Jim]

I own a handful of 1904 Conlons, the year he first began baseball photography. Below are the Walsh and Willis images with white borders on thin paper. While mine are unstamped, the Detroit Public Library Ernie Harwell collection owns two exact copies of my images. The backs shown with the Conlon 216 W. 111th stamps are copies I obtained directly from the DPL in my research.

web-Walsh-front-1-Net54.jpg DPL-Walsh-back-Net54.jpg

web-Willis-front-Net54.jpg DPL-back-Net-54.jpg

If you simply enter "Conlon" and "216 W. 111th" in the search box of the Harwell Collection at the DPL literally hundreds of Conlon images will appear that have research notes mentioning the 216 W. 111th Conlon stamp. As best I can tell the photos are all from 1904 to circa 1909.

I have never seen non circa 1904 Conlons issued in the approximately 4 x 6 sepia toned version shown above. As much as I love them, the 1904s all lack the clarity and artistry of his later work. It would seem improbable that a photographer would choose to reissue his "rookie", and only his rookie, images a decade or two later in an inferior format with his earlier stamp. The simplest, and to me most likely, explanation is that a young Conlon issued the white bordered sepia toned 4x6 images circa 1904 and placed his 216 W. 111th stamp on some of them during that period as well.

[D. Bergin]

Very interesting thread.

Also noticed how the two Cobb Sliding Photos that have recently surfaced, are each cropped much different from the other.

The one that has the torn pieces out of it (the private sale that was mentioned), also seems to have been developed with a bit of a higher contrast to it.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by Bicem

Sorry, I meant his 216 W. 111th St. address which is crossed out and updated with the newer NJ address on the back of the photo I posted. Isn't that address stamp known to be early 1904 to 1909?

Jeff - that is correct. W111 ST. Conlon stamps are pre-1910.

[photomoto]

Thanks again for all the responses.

Many have pointed out the existence of 1904 Conlon photos with borders, some stamped with his early NY address. Because of the stylistic and size differences with his other early prints, it is at least questionable whether Conlon developed the prints and exactly when they were developed.

During the decade between 1906 and 1915, Conlon primarily developed numerous contact prints and larger prints, mostly 8" x 10"s. In connection with these prints of his 1906 to 1915 photos, there are none known with the full white borders.

Advanced collectors have checked with the Getty Museum, the Met, and other leading museums and conservators about their ability to determine the dates of early twenty century photographic prints based on paper or fiber analysis. The best reliable analysis that these conservators could make is a date range within approximately ten years. Consequently, PSA's claim that the Cobb sliding print was made between 1910 and 1912 is difficult to swallow, especially because of the lack of other bordered Conlon prints made between 1906 and 1915 from contemporary photos.

[Snapolit1]

Whole thread just make clear that there is a degree of uncertainty in all of the hobby, whether you are buying bats, balls, card, photos or anything else. If you think any AH or industry source is beyond question or challenge I politely disagree. Autographs most prominent example. I've seen legal cases that turn on validity of a signature, and two world renowned experts come to the court room with diametrically opposed views. The idea that folks on this board can look at a bad scan and give some degree of certainty seems like a real stretch to me except in the most obvious cases. Same with photos. And the whole photo classification scheme just interjects more uncertainty in many cases. Some know more than others but nobody knows it all.

[benjulmag]

FWIW, the most recent RMY auction had a Conlon image also taken at Hilltop Park c. 1910. The size is 6.5" x 9.5". It has no white border. Here is the link: https://rmyauctions.com/bids/bidplace?itemid=51452

RMY characterizes the photo as Vintage 1, which they define as being printed from the original negative within 5 years of being shot.

[drcy]

All areas have uncertainty. What matters is that experts correctly represent the uncertainty.

There is no area in memorabilia or physics or biology or art or astronomy or religion or economics where there is 100% certainty. The key is to say you don't know when you don't know, and to know when you don't know.

Also, your label shouldn't be more specific than your knowledge. Circa 1930, or "1930s" can be a correct label, where "1932" for the same thing wouldn't be.

As I said before, I don't have specific knowledge of Conlon's photos including what sizes he's used when, but a question shouldn't be just about the white borders but the white borders with the 8x10" size. Showing pre-1910 white-bordered photos certainly is relevant and informative, but ones that are smaller than 8x10" are not the same things. The 8x10" size is very relevant and should be sorted out, as an 8x10" white bordered photo is generally associated with later time periods.

I don't know the two-year window question necessarily has great relevance to the value of this photo. For example, if the photo turned out to be made in 1918, would that alter the hobby value? I don't know that it would. Two years always was and always will be just someone's arbitrary pick. There is no objective, exact definition for what is "original," and a historic photo doesn't have to be original to valuable. There are many other factors and qualities that go into value.

[Robbie]

There are so many inciteful and interesting viewpoints in this thread...

Neither Conlon (nor any other non-studio, sports/news photographer of that era) had anything I believe one would deem perfectly consistent methods, systems, and ways of doing things... Different assignments at any time, or all the time, for whomever was offering the best opportunity... different requirements for sizes, quality, speed, number of prints... other factors like whether contact proofs were needed/made, who owned/controlled/had the negatives... and then inconsistent copyright stampings that may have been done contemporaneously or not, or no stamp at all.

This leaves us with expert opinions and examples with which we can try to deduce print periods. Like others have said, this is a very good method, but far from 100% certain. Perhaps if forensics advance far enough, we can come close to answering these questions with virtual certainty?

An over-arching issue for me in all of this (and I believe for many of us), is that unlike in the pure "Art Photography World," we want the original print that is made earliest as possible after a photo is taken!

So I want that 1910 Conlon photo to be a 1910 print, as opposed to a 1915 print, or even a 1912 print. I believe that an earlier print will always be the most valuable and most preferable to just about every serious photo collector.

Your thoughts?

[Snapolit1]

David, just a quick public thank you for your posts through the years on photos. You are a measured, thoughtful voice on these issues, and I am sure I speak for many board members in saying thank you for sharing your expertise and opinions on these issues. I always look forward to reading your posts and learning something.

Originally Posted by drcy

All areas have uncertainty. What matters is that experts correctly represent the uncertainty.

There is no area in memorabilia or physics or biology or art or astronomy or religion or economics where there is 100% certainty. The key is to say you don't know when you don't know, and to know when you don't know.

Also, your label shouldn't be more specific than your knowledge. Circa 1930, or "1930s" can be a correct label, where "1932" for the same thing wouldn't be.

As I said before, I don't have specific knowledge of Conlon's photos including what sizes he's used when, but a question shouldn't be just about the white borders but the white borders with the 8x10" size. Showing pre-1910 white-bordered photos certainly is relevant and informative, but ones that are smaller than 8x10" are not the same things. The 8x10" size is very relevant and should be sorted out, as an 8x10" white bordered photo is generally associated with later time periods.

I don't know the two-year window question necessarily has great relevance to the value of this photo. For example, if the photo turned out to be made in 1918, would that alter the hobby value? I don't know that it would. Two years always was and always will be just someone's arbitrary pick. There is no objective, exact definition for what is "original," and a historic photo doesn't have to be original to valuable. There are many other factors and qualities that go into value.