NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. When you click on links to eBay on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
T206s on eBay
Babe Ruth Cards on eBay
t206 Ty Cobb on eBay
Ty Cobb Cards on eBay
Lou Gehrig Cards on eBay
Baseball T201-T217 on eBay
Baseball E90-E107 on eBay
T205 Cards on eBay
Baseball Postcards on eBay
Goudey Cards on eBay
Baseball Memorabilia on eBay
Baseball Exhibit Cards on eBay
Baseball Strip Cards on eBay
Baseball Baking Cards on eBay
Sporting News Cards on eBay
Play Ball Cards on eBay
Joe DiMaggio Cards on eBay
Mickey Mantle Cards on eBay
Bowman 1951-1955 on eBay
Football Cards on eBay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Main Forum - WWII & Older Baseball Cards > Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-05-2020, 09:23 PM
photomoto photomoto is offline
member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 62
Default 1910 Cobb Sliding Photo

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.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-05-2020, 11:08 PM
Bicem's Avatar
Bicem Bicem is offline
Jeff 'Prize-ner'
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,205
Default

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?


Last edited by Bicem; 12-06-2020 at 02:19 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-06-2020, 04:36 AM
T206Jim's Avatar
T206Jim T206Jim is offline
J1m Ch@pman
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Texas
Posts: 875
Default

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.
__________________
Check out the Chapman Deadball Collection:
https://chapmandeadballcollection.com/

Last edited by T206Jim; 12-06-2020 at 04:49 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-06-2020, 09:38 AM
D. Bergin's Avatar
D. Bergin D. Bergin is offline
Dave
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: CT
Posts: 6,874
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-06-2020, 11:19 AM
Vintageclout Vintageclout is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 544
Default Conlon Photos

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bicem View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-06-2020, 01:24 PM
photomoto photomoto is offline
member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 62
Default 1910 Cobb Sliding Photo

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.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-06-2020, 01:34 PM
Snapolit1's Avatar
Snapolit1 Snapolit1 is offline
Ste.ve Na.polit.ano
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 6,304
Default

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.

Last edited by Snapolit1; 12-06-2020 at 01:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-06-2020, 02:26 PM
benjulmag benjulmag is offline
CoreyRS.hanus
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 772
Default

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.

Last edited by benjulmag; 12-06-2020 at 02:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-06-2020, 02:33 PM
drcy's Avatar
drcy drcy is offline
David Ru.dd Cycl.eback
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,486
Default

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.

Last edited by drcy; 12-06-2020 at 03:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-06-2020, 06:40 PM
Robbie's Avatar
Robbie Robbie is offline
Rob Sl@+kin
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 159
Default

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?
__________________
Focusing on Vintage Sports & Non-Sports Photography for over 25 Years.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-07-2020, 07:16 PM
Snapolit1's Avatar
Snapolit1 Snapolit1 is offline
Ste.ve Na.polit.ano
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 6,304
Default

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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by drcy View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply




Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
T206 Cobb Reprint on ebay... buyer beware Blunder19 Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 4 08-04-2020 02:34 PM
SOLD: Ty Cobb Type 1 Sliding photo - 1912 Runscott Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T 4 02-05-2015 01:13 PM
T206 fake cobb on ebay-buyer beware !!! JohnP0621 Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 10 05-29-2014 06:56 AM
Wow...Buyer beware !! T206DK Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 6 03-25-2010 02:14 PM
buyer beware Archive Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 3 02-15-2003 06:35 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:23 AM.


ebay GSB