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%

[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.