A quick note to correct some misinformation I gave above:
William Robert Kuenzel (the younger Kuenzel) worked for the Detroit Free Press, not the Detroit News. Same city, different paper. My bad (and my bad memory).
The stamp on my photo is still black, but may well be an anomaly/outlier. I don't own any others to compare it to that I can be certain are "untainted."
This an unfortunate aspect of all this that I think is being glossed over. What does a new collector who has not had opportunity or a lifetime of collecting to handle much vintage photography do to gain experience or conduct their own research when so much of the available material has passed through hands that couldn't leave them as-found? How can they be sure of the accuracy of any conclusions that they draw, unless they know the provenance of the photos they are handling? I suppose it's still possible to develop one's "Spidey Sense" by beginning with low-end material and lesser-known or non-sports subjects, but with each revelation of fraud, it just seems like it's going to be that much harder for the new collectors coming on to graduate to making expensive purchases with any sort of confidence. I suppose it was inevitable that such fraud would strike photo collecting, as it seems to have done with virtually every other area of collecting, but the fact that it's hitting this early, when the collecting ranks are still on the upswing, just makes me a bit sad I guess.
Well, enough lamentations, now back to our regularly-scheduled infighting...