Real or fake?

[edjs]

Hi all, this is from finished auctions, so I think it is okay to debate. I know what I think, but I am a first class rookie when it comes to this stuff. I am wondering if you all think these are real or fake. Like I said, I know what I think, but will not state my opinion so I don't have to state my full name (I am a private guy, and like it that way). Just looking for anyone to chime in and see if I am learning my lessons about what to collect from being on this forum (you will be either reinforcing my choices or teaching me how to make better choices). So far, I think you all are some first rate instructors, but this will reinforce some of the lessons I have learned. So, are these real or fake, and why?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1911-All-Sta...vip=true&rt=nc

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1939-Negro-L...vip=true&rt=nc

[drcy]

Irrelevant to whether or not I think they are fakes, if the seller doesn't know if they're originals and won't take them out of the frames, they're auctions not worthy of bids. I wouldn't bid without being shown the backs of the photos. I like where the seller says "If these don't sell, I'll remove them from the frames to see if they're real." Doesn't exactly instill confidence in the product.

It's hard to tell if the seller is ignorant or BSing (He says he thinks Ty Cobb might be in the photo and he think's it might be the guy to the left of the manager?), but it doesn't matter if you don't bid.

P.s. If you look up close at some of the Cobb images it appears you can see the cross hatch printing pattern which wouldn't appear on a real photo. I didn't look at the other photo.

[GKreindler]

Ed,

I'd agree with David's sentiments. That moiré pattern that he speaks of is a bit more prevalent in the 1911 photo where the seller is showing the Van Oeyen stamp. Chances are, the photo was taken from a book and might have been reproduced again for the sake of enlargement. I'd be pretty darn shocked if it was real.

Regardless, I would LOVE to paint both images. That shot from '39 is particularly special.

Graig

[gnaz01]

I followed the auction but didn't bid, as I was skeptical, but I agree 100% with David here on his opinion.

[steve B]

I think both are fake for the same reasons.

They just don't look like photos. The 39 isn't sharp enough, and the other while it's got good detail the pattern mentioned says it's printed. There are some nice prints available that are being made from images in the library of congress. Good quality and often on heavy acid-free stock. Most are computer printed, so they won't last a century, but they're also inexpensive.

I could see someone maybe not wanting to remove them from the frame if it was a pro framing job with the backer taped on or entirely covered. But it's just some pretty bad cardboard and a few tacks.
Both I think would have sold for a lot more if they were real, enough that the effort of removing them to be sure would be well worth it.

Steve B

[Bocabirdman]

I thought this was going to be a "spot the implants" pictorial.

[edjs]

Originally Posted by Bocabirdman

I thought this was going to be a "spot the implants" pictorial.

Sorry to disappoint.

[drcy]

In general, I wouldn't bid on a framed behind glass photographic print that hasn't been removed by the seller, unless the seller is known to be an expert on photos or is otherwise a reputable/seasoned seller of such items. Beyond authenticity, there's the question of condition.

For a $20,000 photo that can be removed, I don't see a legitimate reason for the seller not to inspect the back. It's borderline insanity to me. Would you sell a baseball card or jersey without looking at both sides? "I am offering what appears to be a game used Brett Favre jersey, but I haven't looked at the back. If it doesn't sell, I will turn it over and take a look."

[edjs]

Thanks guys, I really appreciate your thoughts on these, it is good to know what to look for when going out to buy things.

[jimq]

I was the winning bidder on the Joss game photo. I had bid quite a bit higher but got it at much less. The seller was very helpful and sent it express mail. It arrived today.

It's positively original. It has the reflective type look when you angle it and it's very very thin old paper.

I would be much more thrilled if it wasn't glued to the black paper behind it. A thin line of glue about 4" wide maybe 2" from the top. There are also 2 small wrinkles on the left side.

The seller is a consignment seller; I'm thinking somebody didn't know what they had, didn't tell him what they had, and he didn't do his homework.

Before I bid, I searched for the photo and only found one other. The copyright stamp was in a different location so I hoped I was ok. Turned out I got lucky.

Originally Posted by edjs

Hi all, this is from finished auctions, so I think it is okay to debate. I know what I think, but I am a first class rookie when it comes to this stuff. I am wondering if you all think these are real or fake. Like I said, I know what I think, but will not state my opinion so I don't have to state my full name (I am a private guy, and like it that way). Just looking for anyone to chime in and see if I am learning my lessons about what to collect from being on this forum (you will be either reinforcing my choices or teaching me how to make better choices). So far, I think you all are some first rate instructors, but this will reinforce some of the lessons I have learned. So, are these real or fake, and why?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1911-All-Sta...vip=true&rt=nc

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1939-Negro-L...vip=true&rt=nc

[edjs]

Originally Posted by jimq

I was the winning bidder on the Joss game photo. I had bid quite a bit higher but got it at much less. The seller was very helpful and sent it express mail. It arrived today.

It's positively original. It has the reflective type look when you angle it and it's very very thin old paper.

I would be much more thrilled if it wasn't glued to the black paper behind it. A thin line of glue about 4" wide maybe 2" from the top. There are also 2 small wrinkles on the left side.

The seller is a consignment seller; I'm thinking somebody didn't know what they had, didn't tell him what they had, and he didn't do his homework.

Before I bid, I searched for the photo and only found one other. The copyright stamp was in a different location so I hoped I was ok. Turned out I got lucky.

Awesome, that is quite an image. Since you have said you got it, obviously I didn't. I watched that auction everyday, and just couldn't decide to make a bid. When I say I am a rookie in the photo dept., I mean it. I just don't know enough, and am trying to learn what to look for. Thanks for commenting.

[steve B]

Very nice pickup!

The pics looked bad.

Between the horrible pics and not taking it out of the frame they cost themselves a load of money.

Steve B

[Leon]

Based on the pictures on ebay I wouldn't have bid either. Kudos to our member taking a chance if they are real...

[veleno45]

I have that Negro League all-star pic on my office wall right now, so I would say it is a copy like mine. I think I bought mine for $4.99 as a repro.

[jimq]

Originally Posted by veleno45

I have that Negro League all-star pic on my office wall right now, so I would say it is a copy like mine. I think I bought mine for $4.99 as a repro.

I ended up taking it to an expert, and he said it's not from 1911. The auction said 14 day return, but the seller tried everything he could to not refund my $. I sent it express, he said it arrived damaged and was underinsured and he would give me a "partial" refund. He had all the stories, not grandfather's attic but 80+ year old guy, etc etc.

Long story short, ebay made him take it back. I already had a newer reprint of that picture and this one was much better than that one, but not for that much money.

I'm only out $20 or so for shipping, but really disappointed.