REA's 1910 Cobb Sliding Photo LET THE BUYER BEWARE

[photomoto]

REA presents Charles Conlon's circa 1910 Cobb sliding photo as, "without a doubt". the most significant baseball photo ever auctioned based on PSA's Type 1 designation of the photo. Bidding for it has already topped $200,000 with the premium. Bidders should consider the following information from experienced collectors of Conlon's photos.

The Cobb photo has white borders around it. Other advanced Conlon collectors and I have not seen or heard of Conlon's prints made from 1910 to 1912 having such borders. We believe that Conlon began printing with the borders around 1915. In our opinion, based on the borders, Conlon's stamp, and appearance of the photo and print paper, the printing occurred between the mid-1910s and the early to mid-twenties. If we saw and handled the print, we might have a more definitive time frame. The two other advanced collectors and I collectively have more than 100 years of experience with Conlons.

Dennis Goldstein

[doug.goodman]

Interesting.

[perezfan]

Interesting and informative observations... Have you reached out to REA?

Actually I would put the onus squarely on the shoulders of PSA (and not REA), if their "Type 1" assessment is off. Below is a key portion of REA's description of the Cobb photo...

"We were immediately struck by the clarity and condition of the photograph, but because there have been so many second-generation prints made of this photo (Cobb himself kept them on hand to honor requests from fans), we remained cautiously optimistic that we had, perhaps, uncovered an incredible original example of this famed photograph. After thorough examination by PSA/DNA experts, it was confirmed to be only the second-known original example and the finest of the two reviewed to date."

If PSA misdiagnosed this one, I would not be too surprised. There is often a blurry line between "types" with photos of this era. The white border is definitely present, and it sounds like your experience/knowledge base is just as advanced as PSAs. Third party authenticators have a lot of undue power and influence these days, with collectors putting so much blind reliance on their word.

Are there any confirmed examples of White Bordered Type 1 Conlons that date to the earlier teens? I must say that the clarity of the photo appears second-to-none... especially in regard to the exploding infield dirt and well defined detail of Cobb's face. Perhaps some of the other photo experts here can produce evidence or exemplars that will add value to the discussion. Fascinating topic, regardless!

[Bicem]

The clarity would be the same as a type one if printed off the original negative in 1915 or later. That's not the issue.

I've done a quick search of all Conlon photos that both RMY and Heritage have sold and I could not find an example of a Conlon stamped print that had borders that could also be attributed to pre-1915 based on a newspaper stamp or slug.

I'm not saying that proves anything, but if Dennis is correct the photo should be a type two by PSA's (arbitrary) definition (type one needs to be printed within two years of the time photo was taken).

[Michael B]

I did a quick check of some photos I have by George Grantham Bain, Paul Thompson and Edward Bushnell all from the same period. All the photos I have by them that I checked were track and field. I find that most of their early photos have no white margins. When they did a contact print from the glass plate negative they would occasionally keep a black margin (unexposed emulsion) which had the identity scratched into it. I did find two Paul Thompson photos, both 7x9, circa 1908-11, that had small white margins, but not very significant. Unfortunately with these full frame prints you do find a lot of small tears and bend on the corners. Fortunately, archival document repair tape which is essentially tissue paper, is great for fixing them.

No comment on the photo in question. Just an observation about other significant sports photographers of the period.

[BuzzD]

The borders observation is really helpful. I have a 1915 and 1916 with a border but none of the earlier have a white border. Good diagnostic for folks that have only limited experience with these prints.

[photomoto]

I did contact REA, as I also corrected a description of another one of it's earlier photos in the auction. To it's credit, it recontacted PSA, which confirmed its position. At the very least, REA should have disclosed that several of the most experienced Conlon collectors disagree with PSA and said why.

[Bpm0014]

Great info.

[lumberjack]

PSA wants to have this both ways. A "circa 1910s" designation covers a decade. Henry Yee considers a type I photo to have been printed within two years from the time the shot was taken. How can this be a type I with a ten year window?

There are a number of 8x10 Conlons in my own collection and none of them from this period have borders until 1915.

I spoke with REA on Thursday and they told me that they considered Mr. Yee the go-to guy on photographic images.

I don't know to what extent he examined this print and since it has been slabbed, it is impossible to discover more about the paper itself.

Dennis and I have talked about this and as Dennis said, "This is the T206 Wagner of photographs." It certainly is that (unless you own a shot of the 1869 Redlegs).

If you are paying six figures for ANYTHING (excuse me for shouting), you had better be able to kick the tires. I respect Henry Yee, he wrote the book (literally), but the book isn't closed on this stuff yet and there are chapters yet to be added.

More later....
lumberjack

[Snapolit1]

Thanks both of you for your insights and for airing this publicly. An important discussion. Appreciate hearing from objective experts with no axe to grind.

[prewarsports]

I normally do not chime in on stuff like this but I have had a few people call me and bring this thread to my attention as well as ask my opinion, so I will offer a few thoughts.

I have studied Conlon and his paper and stamps as well for years and I do not disagree with what is being said here by those who started the thread. They are an extremely knowledgeable and highly respected group of collectors whose expertise is vast and their collective knowledge is impressive.

WARNING

OPINION and SPECULATION TO FOLLOW BEYOND THIS POINT......

I have seen over the last decade the photo industry change and I have a feeling PSA is changing with it, which if that is the case would be a welcome thing. When this hobby started to gain traction and PSA jumped in, a system was put in place that somewhat mirrored what most people do when evaluating photographs. Whether or not the image is off the original negative is by far the most important aspect, and there is always a gray area between what is considered a first or second generation print. When PSA came up with their standard they used a VERY narrow window of two years. I feel, and many others feel the same way, that this was too narrow. The key though is their use of the word "approximately" when using the two years to evaluate their images. This leaves some ambiguity as to what that means. I think if they could go back in time and do it all over again, they would have expanded that a bit. (Remember Opinion, I am not speaking for PSA, just my observation).

Over the last five or so years I have seen examples of where Henry has expand his database, start to analyze paper fibers rather than reject blank backed photographs, and be scientific in his approach to authenticating. As this hobby has gone from a few hundred thousand in sales to tens of millions, this was a necessity. As his technology has advanced, I feel their window has expanded a bit because they feel more comfortable with their assessments rather than relying on stamps from newspapers and photo archives to date things.

I personally feel that if indeed PSA is expanding their "approximately two years" window to be a Type 1 because their ability to feel comfortable doing so has evolved, this would be a welcome thing in the hobby. I have always felt this was the only potential flaw in their system and when I have spoken about it, it always comes down to that word "approximately."

Again, this is just my opinion as a collector and seller or photographs, but outside the sports world nobody really cares if a 1910 photo was developed in 1912 or 1915, this is why I use five years when evaluating my images for sale. If a Margaret Bourke White photograph of Gandhi at the spinning wheel is a 1950 example instead of say 1947, it does not matter, it is still considered a first generation print. The problem is the 2 years they assigned that they are now confined to stay within.

It is a beautiful photograph and clearly a first generation print. I have no skin in the game, but if I were selling it, I would describe it as a 1910's vintage print from Conlon off his original glass plate negative and call it a "vintage 1" with perhaps a caveat that the photo might have been printed in the mid 1910's.

Again, I generally do not use PSA, not because I am against them, but because I feel comfortable in my own assessments of vintage photography, but I think they do a good job. These are all either observations from being in the industry and studying it every single day and gut feelings of what I think the situation is here.

Rhys

[Bicem]

Good post Rhys, agreed 100%

[Bicem]

Just had a collector friend text me an example of a pre-1910 Conlon with borders that comes directly from Henry Yee's (PSA) vast database (he has others as well).

I believe you can tell it's pre-1910 based on Conlon's New Jersey address on the stamp. Apparently they are rare but do exist.

I'd feel 100% comfortable bidding on the Cobb as described by both REA and PSA after seeing this (if it were in my price range of course).

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Bicem

Just had a collector friend text me an example of a pre-1910 Conlon with borders. I believe you can tell it's pre-1910 based on Conlon's New Jersey address on the stamp. He says they are rare but do exist.

I have seen, handled and collected pre-1910 conlons with borders.

To be clear, This scan you posted came directly from Henry Yee’s database and was given to your friend. There are more.

In speaking with Henry, I believe the Ty Cobb is a Type 1.

[Bicem]

Agreed Ben, just made that clarification in my post, apparently we have mutual friends?

[lumberjack]

Conlon used borders on his prints, as you pointed out with the 1903 Tannehill, but we couldn't find any among our 8x10 dead ball images prior to 1914.

I have a few, Ralph Works and George Mullin, that have borders, but they don't look right. They are too black and white and by 1915 Conlon was using paper that was of a heavier stock.

A Conlon contact print from 1910 is generally from 0.13 mm to 0.15mm. The images I have from 1915 on are 0.16 mm (the size of the Works and Mullin prints). Yeah, I know, I don't have a lot to do during the pandemic.

By the 1920s, and late '30s, Conlon was using heavier paper still, 0.17 to 0.19.

An inexpensive micrometer or digital caliper is all you need; you are not measuring the thickness of paint scraped off of "Night Watch."

It would be just great if Henry Yee would say a few words right about now.

The REA image is going to go thru the roof. What's the over/under on 375 thousand dollars? Everybody has something to gain: old guys with collections, people ready to sell, dealers and grading companies. I include myself somewhere in there.

I agree, it's a terrific looking image. What irks me is the arbitrary nature of the grading scale. The goal post got moved.

Paul Messier, someone I have no connection to, is probably the premier expert on grading photographs. Look him up.
lumberjack

[drcy]

There are strong trends but few absolutes in photographic history, such as about borders and time periods. For whatever rule one makes, there's bound to be an exception discovered.

Many trends are not because they could not do something, but because most didn't. Photographers tended to follow the in vogue trends.

Though stylistic trends are very essential to dating and authenticating photos. I have no particular knowledge about how and when Conlon used borders or what sizes he made, and don't follow his photos as closely as others here. Most Pre-1910 photos didn't have white borders, but that doesn't mean they couldn't or never did. 8x10" was an uncommon size back then, and, ordinarily, an 8x10" white-bordered photo would be assumed to be more modern. But that's a statement of trends or a population report, not a rule.

As a kid of maybe 8, I saw the Conlon image in the family encyclopedia and the image immediately captured my imagination. Something unconscious and neurological about it, as with many great artworks. I've had similar immediate experiences with a Vermeer and a Francis Bacon, some other famous artworks.

[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?

[drcy]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Your thoughts?

The age is important to me.

[drcy]

I just looked at the PSA label, and the date says "c. 1910s." I'd refer to that rather than the type number they give. There is an obvious conflict between that dating and the type number next to it. PSA/DNA's type and "original" definition says "within approximately two years of when the picture was taken," while the dating on the label doesn't even pinpoint the photo to an exact decade.

1930s-40s George Burke photos are the same deal. You know the era they were made by the back stamp (Burke changed stamp and studio address), but usually don't know what year they were made (1930 versus 1933, 1935 versus 1941). I call those Burke photos "vintage."

These photos shouldn't be assigned a type number because they don't know exactly when they were made.

As I said, there's nothing errant without not knowing details about a photo. With most baseball tintypes, the identities of the players and even teams and state are usually not known, and you very rarely know the exact year. You give an opinion about the decade due to the photo's physicality, uniforms, photo studio backdrop, etc.-- and you usually can be certain that the tintype or cabinet card is from the 1860s versus the 1880s. On the other hand, many news photos have the printing date stamped or tagged right on the photo, so they can often be dated to the day. Most news photos were made for specific news events, so can be reliably dated to the year without a date stamp or dated tag due to that circumstance. Same with many Hollywood movie photos. There are many other photos with other supporting physical evidence that you can logically and very reasonably assume (and label) the photo was made the year it was shot: a snapshot, family picnic real photo postcard, a high school senior portrait, most of the photos in a family photo album. This explains why a photo expert can confidentally call a photo original without knowing the year it was shot and printed. Though that's not the case with many of the Burke and the Cobb photos, as we know the images were put out by the photographers over a relatively large timespan.

I don't think it's logically and honestly arguable that a PSA/DNA type number can be given to the Conlon photo. Your label or description of an item can't be more specific than your knowledge. That's authentication and identification 101.

[D. Bergin]

Everything Mr. Rudd has said in this thread is spot on. I don't need to really add anything else.

I'll wager that if Henry Yee and PSA could go back in time, they would re-think that whole TypeI I two year window, and make the definition more open ended, and perhaps even a little more vague.

[Robbie]

About 12 years ago or so, I developed my own proprietary system to identify, categorize, and evaluate photographs.

I will not go into all the details, but when it came to coordinating photos into date categories (the “when” a print was made), I had to implement some assumptions, like all others do who evaluate photos.

I do this by designating photos into “Printing Eras,” and I do that with the following designations and descriptions;


Printing Era:

“IP” (for “Initial Print”): These are prints that which upon thorough examination of the photograph, and research of its provenance, renders an expert opinion that the print was developed and/or published within 6 Months of when the photograph was originally taken. This category includes things like the original artwork used for contemporaneous publication, and vintage contact prints stored in the original magazine’s file, etc…

I created this category because there are photos that can be determined with high confidence to be produced for use or distribution at that time and/or are “THE” Original Art for some publication or use. These photos are rare, sometimes unique, and desirable, and deserve a designation that nobody else is currently giving them. This would benefit less experienced collectors as well as bring out the true value.

Meanwhile, I believe the market has determined that “Initial Prints” are the most valuable and sought after photographs relative to other vintage and non-vintage prints.

“FPE” (for “First Printing Era”): These are prints developed within 10 Years of photographs originally taken prior to 1920, and within 5 Years of photographs taken in 1920 or later. All IP’s are FPE’s, but not all FPE’s are IP’s.

“SPE” (for “Second Printing Era”): These are prints developed beyond the First Printing Era but within 20 Years of when the photograph was taken.

“LP” (for “Later Printing”): These are prints developed more than 20 Years after the photograph was taken.

“NV” (for “Not Vintage”): Like “Later Prints,” these are prints developed more than 20 Years after the photograph was taken, but are so recent as to have no current market value beyond display.

This is just my system for dating.


Without having actually observed in person the Conlon Photo under discussion, but taking into account what the experts are saying here, along with the very highly respected opinion of Henry Yee, I would refer to the photo as:

Original Negative | First Printing Era or ON | FPE

Simple as that.

Robert Slatkin

[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.

[drcy]

Thanks!

No system is perfect, and systems are continually being refined. The question is if PSA/DNA refines and correct things. I think there should be photos that they holder but without a type assigned. I believe PSA has said their system was designed for news photos and doesn't necessarily fit to some other photos.

Another issue is the graders couldn't have been unaware of the incongruity of their dating and the two-year window, but decided the photo should get a type 1 and "original" label anyway. That should be problematic to collectors if PSA applies that kind of situational fudging and disregard of their own rules in other areas, such as autographs, card grading and game-used.

However, my observation has been that PSA/DNA has been reliable in photo dating and authentication, and collectors should generally be confident in buying PSA/DNA authenticated photos.

Originally Posted by 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.

[SAllen2556]

Not sure where or when, but I found this once upon a time on some website. It appears to be the entire negative with a white border.

Cobb-sliding.jpg

[lumberjack]

This is a knockoff. You can see this print in one of the Conlon books done by the McCabes.
lumberjack

[TCMA]

If it helps, here's an example of the same Conlon photo created both with and without borders:

[Casey2296]

Who is that pictured Andrew?

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Who is that pictured Andrew?

Good question. I’ll see if I have that info.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Casey2296]

[QUOTE=TCMA;2044096]Good question. I’ll see if I have that info.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE

Such a great image.]

[Robbie]

The photo on the right (the one with the "clip marks" burned into the upper corners) looks like it's made from the original negative. The other photo (the one with the border) has less depth and definition, and is cropped differently.... and looks like it was made from a dupe neg or a secondary source.

Thank you for showing these photos side by side!

Originally Posted by TCMA

If it helps, here's an example of the same Conlon photo created both with and without borders:

[perezfan]

I was going to say the same, but you beat me to it!

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by perezfan

I was going to say the same, but you beat me to it!

Great minds...
I've noticed from your many posts that you are extremely knowledgeable about many different aspects and niches in the hobby. I admire that very much Mark.

[photomoto]

Andrew, great images showing the differences in the two prints. I'm not convinced that the print with borders is a secondary print as opposed to a later one. Do you have an opinion? Also, would you mind posting the backs of the two prints and indicating whether the bordered print appears to be thicker than the other one?

[lumberjack]

Graded paper was rated from one to four. You were going from low contrast, 1,
to normal, to higher contrast (which was in the range of normal depending on the negative), to high contrast, 4. This isn't heavy stuff, I'm not a photographer and what I don't know is cosmic, but these are things you can pick up on.

Also, you could buy a set of filters (8), which would also change the contrast.

Both photos are from the original negative, IMO. Conlon was foxing around with his prints. I have Conlon 8x10s c. WW I, that fill the range from low contrast to high.

RMY said something recently that grabbed me. If a photographer took a shot, then printed the image himself from the original negative, what difference does it make as to the year (warning: I have a dog in this fight). It can get start to get dicey if the image was printed by someone in the orbit of the original photographer. Or, as another example, the Library of Congress has all the FSA negatives. They can give you an archival print, a pristine image, that is pleasing to the eye, a nice piece of history and something you can hang on the wall, but worthless as an object of speculative value. Sure wish Jim Rowe was still sellin' these things for a dollar a piece at the Troy, Michigan shows.

We have been talking in private about H Yee's grading system, which seems to be based on the back stamps of news service photographs. It's kind of mind staggering; the guy must have looked at ten thousand images. He doesn't say much about the work of the pioneer photographers other than elementary bios and reproductions of their work. For example, Conlon used at least four back stamps and two variations of his signature. Often there is no ID at all. He reprinted the photos for years. For example....

Steven Gietschier, the archivist at TSN, was of the opinion that Conlon created the second negative for Cobb/Austin, the one that added the gravy-stain baseball, because he was relatively deluged with requests for the image. I think the fake baseball is a distraction, but if Conlon signed the image, what does that do to its value. Another long story.

Henry, you don't know me, but please give us your opinion. Somebody wanna call Henry....

Back to Andrew. In the case of the unknown A's pitcher, one image may be worth more to a buyer due to its contrast or its condition, but they were probably printed about the same time. Fine.
lumberjack

[prewarsports]

I would not say it does not make a difference, I would just say who are we to decide one hundred years later that 1912 is fine and 1913 is not. Or 1919 is great but 1925 is not. In a perfect world where people are generally educated on what they are buying, I believe a photographers work should stand on its own, then a period of production should be listed (c. 1910), then the buyers should really decide. A 1910 print of the Cobb should be more valuable than a 1915 print, but this would play out in the market with all information available to the buyers, both however are Conlon's original work.

I have actually toyed with the idea when I sell photos of just having a small checklist.

Off original Negative Yes/No
Known Photographer Yes/No
Paper Type __________
Date of Creation __________
Date of Production _________

That would give you all the information you would need to know. Granted, a "Type 1" PSA designation checks off most of those boxes without saying a single extra word, it is easy to understand, and that is why people like it.

[prewarsports]

Also, as to the post Andrew made of the side by side Conlons, the paper used and method of production has more to do with what the naked eye perceives than you would think. Some really blurry images are off the original negative and some crystal clear images are sometimes not. Conlon had a more washed out look in his production during the WWI era through the early 1920's. I have never been a fan of that era. I have no idea why he used this method, someday when I am dead too I have a mental note to ask him, but Conlon was a rock star who went through a "Spaghetti Incident" phase for a time and many of his images are pretty blurry for a fairly substantial period of time. Perhaps the Sporting News and baseball guide books (his biggest clients) preferred these?

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by photomoto

Andrew, great images showing the differences in the two prints. I'm not convinced that the print with borders is a secondary print as opposed to a later one. Do you have an opinion? Also, would you mind posting the backs of the two prints and indicating whether the bordered print appears to be thicker than the other one?

Unfortunately, I shot those images months ago while our company was still operating. Not sure I could track the photos down now. Snapped a few pics back then because there was a striking difference between the two prints which I felt was worth noting. It's even more apparent in-person. We certainly had more examples of this and I'll post if I can find.

Can't say I have a reason to believe one would have printed off the original neg while the other wasn't. Off the top of my head I do think there is a difference in paper between the two, with the borderless photos on the thinner stock.

[TCMA]

Here's my favorite example of a borderless Conlon 8x10. Clarity of this image is off the charts, which is something you just don't get with the Conlon 8x10's that have borders:

Chic Gandil / sometime between 1913-1915


And here's a great example of a Conlon with borders (left) that is grainy and washed out:

Eddie Grant / early 1910

[TCMA]

Smaller photos but these are shots of Kip Selbach from 1904. May be difficult to see over the computer but in-person, to my eye, the shot on the left looks like it's off of a copy neg, not simply a bad or fuzzy print.

[lumberjack]

Thank you, Andrew. The portrait of Grant is like the Thompson head shots. They used those big ol' honking cameras and you could count the freckles on Grant's face.

Yes, thinner paper on the older prints.

N.E.A., which supplied photos, among other things, to hundreds of newspapers at the time we are talking about, shot images of ballplayers for their clients. Too many of them look as though they were shot during a sandstorm. It wasn't an art project, they just wanted something they could print in a newspaper. N.E.A. wasn't going to hire Ansel Adams to shoot Red Faber (which is kind of a shame, isn't it?)

Maybe that's all Conlon's clients were asking of him. By the way, one of Conlon's biggest customers for his contact prints was Wm. Kunzel, who shot pictures for the Detroit News. The Conlon prints in the Harwell Collection in Detroit came to Harwell by way of Kunzel.

The McCabes, who are true Conlon lovers, admit in the preface to one of their books that focus could be a programmatic for Conlon.

I have a hunch that Conlon was self taught, feeling his way along as he went.
lumberjack