Quote:
Originally Posted by horzverti
Repsher offered up a positive image of the original Conlon negative. The original neg was used to create the positive image that Repsher posted. So the U & U serial number or id data is not on the original neg. Conlon distributed his photos, not his negatives. If a news service received an original Conlon photo, they would have to write their own serial number onto the original...then they would have to create their own neg by taking a photo of the original photo. This would embed their written data onto their newly created copy neg. If you were to come across a Conlon image with the info actually written on the front and not embedded into the image, then you may have an original Conlon photo created from the original neg...and it would most likely have Conlon's stamp and/or writing on the back.
So, what you have here are photos created from a copy neg. Nice, crisp images, but not original Conlons.
By the way, good eye friend!
|
Actually, I do not believe this to be entirely true. Conlon DID lend out original photos and negatives to Underwood and Underwood. He had a working relationship with U AND U and was a freelance photographer as mentioned below by Hank.
Now... because of this, U AND U could certainly have printed off the original neg, then returned neg, and produced another neg later because they wanted additional/differnt images(which I have seen and have given an example below). BUT.. just because it has U AND U stamps does not mean it is not a TYPE 1 PHOTO off the orig Conlon neg (cuz of the numbers). In fact, numbers inside of a box suggests the exact opposite. Also, Conlon could have sent them originals unstamped and then UandU used their stamps.
1) Curt is right in that U and U would probably not have etched their numbers in Conlon original negs. BUT, I disagree with him in that all U and U photos with numbers are from DUPE negs. U and U would have created "catalogue plates" or simply another piece of glass with their number on it, put it on top of original neg and there you go... SEE MY CONLON OFF THE ORGINAL NEG BELOW. The number inside square imprint is actually from a piece of rectangular glass cut out with their numbers etched in and placed on top of the neg so it would not damage Conlon’s work.
THIS IS CRYSTAL CLEAR AND OFF THE ORIGINAL CONLON NEGATIVE.
2) EXAMPLE NUMBER TWO IS WHAT I SPOKE ABOUT ABOVE; U AND U CREATED A DUPE NEG(PROBABLY RARE BUT DOES HAPPEN).
It is of the famous Conlon 1927 "eyes" of both Ruth and Gehrig stacked on top of one another. Actually, the known examples of this zoomed in format as "TYPE 1 " images are from U AND U archives. This stacked example was done in house and most likely used for publication by U and U after negs were returned to Conlon. OR.. Conlon sent them original photos and that is all they had to work with to create this. This is clearly done by stacking them on top of one another and creating a DUPE NEG even though there are no cat numbers.
The images are not crystal clear like the originals, the boarders are not crisp and there are white spots all over it(suggesting dust ect. on originals when done).
I am sure this will spawn a flurry of additional questions but I hope it clears up the fact that if you have a Conlon image that is stamped UandU amd/or has numbers on the front, it doesn't mean it is some type other than a type 1. In fact, it probably ups the chances if you are going strictly by the stamps
PS: If anyone has any Ruth/Gehrig UandU photos that are Conlon images, I would be glad to purchase them from you numbers or not