Old Judge Proofs?

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

Bob, all 19th century albumen prints were originally mounted-- the photo paper was so thin that they had to be or they would curl up into little cigarettes. The original mount, with name of studio or photographer or other information, is as inseperable a part of the cabinet card as the Sweet Caporal back to a Honus Wagner or the sleaves to a Joe DiMaggio game worn Yankees jersy. The original mount is quite simply a part of the cabinet card, and removing the print from the mount is destroying the overall photo. Any sport or non sport 19th century photo collector knows that if you peel the photographic print from a cabinet you have significanctly reduced the financial value. Any Old Judge N173 collector on this board knows that if you peel the print form a N173, you've probably reduced the value by 80 or 90 percent.

Assuming for the sake of argument these prints are authentic as you say, this means that the prints would have had to have been pealed from the original mount, pasted to a new mount, then cut down at a framing shop.

Are you saying that if someone peels the photographic print from a 1869 Peck & Snynder or 1887 Four Base Hits King Kelly and had them remounted at the local frame shop into 11x14 display pieces, this will have no effect on the value? Irrelevant to value, are you saying it's okay for an auction house to knowing withold the information that the Peck & Snyder and Four Base Hits were restored substantially in recent times?

You have no problem attacking my position, but you sure seem loathe to say one thing bad about AM withholding that the 'unaltered proofs' have been, as you yourself said, far from their original state.

Bob, do you honestly beleive that the bidders would bid the same amount of money if they were told by American Memorabilia that the proofs were remounted and put under a papercuter at a frame shop a year or two ago?

Do you honestly beleive that the winner(s) of the proofs will have no care one way or the other if he finds out that the proofs are not on the original and unaltered mounts as AM 'authenticated' but have been altered/remounted at least twice in modern times?

Do you honestly beleive the winner will be content and smiley the moment he finds out that AM knew about the restoration early in the auction but chose not to tell bidders?

Bob, if you weren't an employee of SCD but the winning bidder, what would be your feelings if you found out six months or a year later that the auction house knew about but chose to to disclose such modern alterations and restorations? After an experience like that would you bid in another of their auctions?

The financial significance of rebacking or restoring a photo or print or baseball card can be debated, but the rebacking or restoring that is known to the seller aways (e.g. without exception) has to disclosed to the potential buyers. It is up to the potential bidders, not the auction house witholding the information, to decide the financial or aesthetic significance of the substantial alteration to a baseball card, cabinet card, premium or vase.

... The proofs are fakes AND altered. Any way American Memorabilia's apologists try and slice it, it's not a pretty sight.