REA's 1910 Cobb Sliding Photo LET THE BUYER BEWARE

[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.