How can you tell if a photo is an original? 1915 Hans Lobert Photo

[packs]

I'll try the sticky test when I get back.

As for it being published: Well it isn't exactly a known published photo. I did some Googling and found this Lobert photo on someone's site. It isn't exactly the same, but is similar. This person's photo WAS printed and contained a tagline on the back of it that denoted it as being Opening Day 1915 Giants against the Dodgers. This photo I could tell is definitely a later printing because it is not clear and looks like it has been reprinted a ton. The only real similarities it shares with my photo is that it is Lobert throwing at third base, but the time of day, positioning, shadows and cropping is totally different. For comparison:

[bmarlowe1]

From what I am seeing from carefully looking at the shadows, the population of the bleachers, and some off the patterns in the dirt - these both were taken very close in time to each other.

[D. Bergin]

Might be a large size albumen print. Great shot. Mr. Rudd might be able to tell a little better.

[packs]

I'm thinking these two photos were taken the same day too. Maybe in between warm up tosses? Which would be really fantastic because an original photo from Opening Day 1915 would be an incredible piece to own. The other photo that I posted is clearly a reprinted photo. Everything about it screams that it's been through a lot of copying, the dissolving of fine details and general shadowy nature of that particular print. Mine however, is very clear and even clearer than the close up scan I posted makes it seem. I've been doing some research online about early photography and from what I'm reading it seems as though the clearer the image, the more likely it is to at least come from the original negative, if not an original print. However, it's extremely hard to do any real investigating because me and my photo are 3,000 miles apart.

I'm going to try the sticky test next week when I return home. I wish I had a black light, but I do not. Can you tell me a little bit more about Albumen prints? Is 10 by 12 any indication of printing? Anything else you guys could tell me I should look for in the characteristics of the photo paper? All help and discussion has been greatly appreiciated. Thanks guys!

[prewarsports]

Albumem photos are VERY thin, thinner than a piece of paper and they had to glue them to cabinets because they were so thin and brittle. It is not going to be albumem even if original from 1915, but will be a gelatin photo of some type (many were Silver gelatin from that era).

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

Albumem photos are VERY thin, thinner than a piece of paper and they had to glue them to cabinets because they were so thin and brittle. It is not going to be albumem even if original from 1915, but will be a gelatin photo of some type (many were Silver gelatin from that era).

I was thinking we were looking at a trimmed photo with a paper backing if that was an albumen, but yeah, it's probably too late and the toning doesn't look right.

Hard to tell not having it in hand. First impression is it's a print pretty close to the era. Whether it fits into the 2 year Type I designation is up for debate, as are a great many non-press professional photographer photos.

[drc]

I can't tell you from the scans, but if the paper is thin, the image is sharp (as it appears to be) and the back is toned, it could be original. Early 1900s photo paper was thinner and modern photo paper usually bright white on back. If the paper seems very thin compared to modern photos, that' your best sign it's vintage.

One thing is 10x12 is an unusual size for a photo back then. On the other hand, that's an unusual size for a modern reprint too. The vast majority of 1950s- reprints of old baseball images like that are 8x10.

As I said, I can't tell you it's original just from the scans, but I also don't see anything that says it isn't.