Quote:
Originally Posted by oldjudge
BTW, if, based on your extensive experience, you don't believe me, here is the description from the Metropolitan Museum of Art Burdick Collection for one of the cards. I don't know for certain, but my guess is that they also know more about the topic than you.
From the series Old Judge Cigarettes
Publisher:Issued by Goodwin & Company
Date:1888
Medium:Albumen print photograph, cabinet card
Dimensions:sheet: 6 1/2 x 4 3/8 in. (16.5 x 11.1 cm)
Classifications:Photographs, Ephemera
Credit Line:The Jefferson R. Burdick Collection, Gift of Jefferson R. Burdick
Accession Number:63.350.214.173.152
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldjudge
BTW, what is your photographic background? Are your conclusions based on your examination of Old Judge cards or is yours solely an economic analysis?
|
They're just guessing. Everything is an albumen print until proven otherwise too at the LOC. They're not going to pay for lab testing to find out.
There is very little visual difference between a salt print with gelatin and an albumen print. You can sometimes, however, pick out subtle differences.
Do you see a difference in sharpness and quality between the OJ cabinets and the OJ cards? I'm sure most people will, because the OJ cabinets were made with higher quality materials, and cheap giveaway OJs were made with the cheapest.
What about differences in quality between a stereoview card and an OJ? Stereoview cards were albumen. Why? Because they were sold to people. Quality mattered. OJ cards? Not so much. They were given away, for free.