What do you photo guys make of this?

[SAllen2556]

I was intrigued by this photo purported to be an original from 1915. But it just looks weird. The stamp on the back is in black ink, which I've never seen from a Detroit News photo - they're always blue, and the photo itself just looks too pristine. The guys is selling it as an original for the meager sum of $999. Any thoughts? Restrike with a fake stamp? Are fake stamps starting to occur on a regular basis?

This is what he wrote to me when I asked:
Original photos bearing the photographers stamp are not always date stamped. In fact they usually were only dated when they were used by a photo service for insertion in the newspaper or other publication and would then usually bear the photo service or wire service's stamps also. Original photos would also often also bear the names of those pictured hand written or sometimes typed depending on the photographer. This is an original photo and the image was taken in 1915 as I have also seen this image as a used wirephoto bearing the photo service's paper caption with date taken and description.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1915-BABE-RU...item35e3867fce

[bcbgcbrcb]

Definitely does not look like a type I photo to me........

[Shoeless Moe]

I'm always wary buying a $1000 photo that is hanging on someones fridge, but what do I know.

[SAllen2556]

Yes, I'm naive, but if the scams on eBay are a snapshot of our society - well, it's just a bit depressing sometimes.

[drcy]

Not original.

Duly note that I've seen Detroit News photos that were legitimate and came from the newspaper, but made years after the image was shot. That a photo isn't original, doesn't automatically mean it's a forgery. Though the later made Detroit News photos I've seen had a different image tone and a drystamp (embossment)

I don't have a specific opinion on the photo (beyond that it isn't original), but noted news photographers did sometimes reuse old images. Including George Dorrill, George Burke, Brace and Conlon.

[prewarsports]

Agreed

Second generation photograph with staff photographer stamp on the back from much later, probably the 1950's. Hard to tell from the scan but it does not appear to be from the original negative either. It is a nice restrike and definitely has some value, just not $1000. BTW, if this photo WAS original, I think there are about 80 of us that would have pulled that trigger on the first day it was listed!

Rhys

[Michael B]

It is also a matter of size. Many of the early press photos were 4½x6½ (Bain, Thompson), 5x7 or 6x8 (Acme, Pacific & Atlantic, Underwood & Underwood, International Film Service, International Newsreel). 8x10 was not regularly used until the 1930’s and 6x8 was still a common size even into the 1940’s. It raises a red flag when I see a photo that is 8x10 that claims to be very early. I have hundreds of pre-WWII press photos in my archives/collection and there may be a few late 1930's that are that big, but not many. It became such a common size to print for 35mm film (though incorrect in ratio) that it is accepted as the standard size.

David and Rhys may agree or disagree with me. I would welcome their thoughts on this.

[prewarsports]

You are correct. Aside from some high end double-weight studio photographs, the material used to create early press photography was very brittle with a thin piece of paper and heavy gelatin. Because these photos were flimsy and fragile, smaller sizes were more conducive (also more cost effective). This is why Underwood & Underwood (the only company at the time to make really large images) used such thick paper to develop their photographs. Although not a hard rule, earlier press photos are generally much smaller.

Rhys

[gnaz01]

Sorry, had to

[Forever Young]

Not even close.

[SAllen2556]

It's been re-listed at $2500. Interesting sales strategy....

I was really wondering if anyone ever saw a Detroit News photo with a black photographer's stamp on the back. I do know that the font on that stamp is not from 1915. The font of the photog's stamps changed in the late 30's - early 40's I think.

And if it's a re-strike can it be very old given the pristine condition of that photo? Those corners are a psa 7!

...and stop calling me Shirley.

[Shoeless Moe]

$2500

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1915-BABE-RU...item35e3edcc7d


I don't get it.........from the EVAJOY school of selling

[thecatspajamas]

Not commenting on the authenticity or lack thereof of the stamp in the OP, but below is another example of that stamp style in black, along with 1944 date stamp. This on an 8x10 photo from an archive intact since at least the 1950's.

Also worth noting, there appear to have been two William Kuenzels, father and son, who worked for the Detroit News. The father began there in the early 1900's. The son began in the 1940's and later worked for the Miami Herald. I don't know if their careers there overlapped, and it definitely bears further research, but with the two having the same first and last name, and working for the same paper, it seems it would be easy to confuse the two based on stamps alone. It also seems reasonable that Jr could have played around with some of Sr's old work, whether restrikes from the original negatives or by reshooting his father's photos. Not saying that's what is shown, but just throwing some additional info out there for consideration.

[SAllen2556]

Thanks Lance - was hoping you could shed some light on this one!
I'm pretty sure that the younger Kuenzel never worked as a photographer for the Detroit News, but not 100% sure.

Do you actually own the photo you just showed with the black stamp? I ask because I'm wondering if the scan just somehow made it appear black. I have never, ever seen one in person that was black.

I sure hope no one pays $2500 for that photo. This is the correct font for a Detroit News photo from about the mid 1920's and before. The font is clearly different, and this was the only font used for every photographer from this time period. I would even question whether a stamp was used in 1915. I don't know when they actually started stamping the photos. But the stamp on the Ruth photo is in no way from 1915.

early 20's stamp (even then it was dark blue):


stamp consistent from 1930's until late 60's. (this is from 1957)


Ruth photo on ebay:

[joshleland]

Very disappointed by you "photo guys." You talk like you have knowledge but to truly understand the field you have to have smarts. This is obviously the work of John Rogers. He has been selling material with phony stamps for years. Plus he sold the Detroit News which makes this pretty obvious in my book. This is a piece of crap created by him from scratch and you guys should know that. You don't get that kind of understanding by googling it. It takes years of experience and sorting through a million photos. Not by quoting fancy terminology you got off the Internet. You get it in the trenches. Photos are war and you need the scars to prove it.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by joshleland

Very disappointed by you "photo guys." You talk like you have knowledge but to truly understand the field you have to have smarts. This is obviously the work of John Rogers. He has been selling material with phony stamps for years. Plus he sold the Detroit News which makes this pretty obvious in my book. This is a piece of crap created by him from scratch and you guys should know that. You don't get that kind of understanding by googling it. It takes years of experience and sorting through a million photos. Not by quoting fancy terminology you got off the Internet. You get it in the trenches. Photos are war and you need the scars to prove it.

Wow.

[prewarsports]

With all due respect Josh, you have no idea how much time others on here have spent "in the trenches" with regard to the Rogers issues or how many photos we have handled. I would be happy to educate you if you want to drop me a line with regard to both issues. Your post is pretty insulting considering you literally have no idea what is going on with this issue behind the scenes and just how educated some people on this forum actually are (or how many millions of photos we have handled). I will just leave it at that.

[Michael B]

Mr. Evans,
You make a broad brush slam against those commenting that you completely ignored the fact that the three, that I know of, true ‘photo guys’ (I prefer photo swamis or photo dudes) all clearly pointed out that it was not original to the period. It is easy to hear or read what you want to rather than what was said or written. It does not matter if it is a John Rogers or Howie Smuckmeister (sorry Howie) forgery. That is not germain to the main point being addressed which was whether it was from 1915 or not. After reaching that point, then and only then does the fact that Arkansas Jack reprinted these photos and affixed stamps on the back become a point of conversation. You are quite knowledgeable and I respect that. However, understand that there are many here that have deep fonts of knowledge, but do not own auction houses and are mainly collectors and dealers on a smaller scale. And yes – apology accepted.

AS QUOTED:

David:
“Not original.

Duly note that I've seen Detroit News photos that were legitimate and came from the newspaper, but made years after the image was shot. That a photo isn't original, doesn't automatically mean it's a forgery. Though the later made Detroit News photos I've seen had a different image tone and a drystamp (embossment)”

Rhys:
“Agreed

Second generation photograph with staff photographer stamp on the back from much later, probably the 1950's. Hard to tell from the scan but it does not appear to be from the original negative either. It is a nice restrike and definitely has some value, just not $1000. BTW, if this photo WAS original, I think there are about 80 of us that would have pulled that trigger on the first day it was listed!”

Me:
“It is also a matter of size. Many of the early press photos were 4½x6½ (Bain, Thompson), 5x7 or 6x8 (Acme, Pacific & Atlantic, Underwood & Underwood, International Film Service, International Newsreel). 8x10 was not regularly used until the 1930’s and 6x8 was still a common size even into the 1940’s. It raises a red flag when I see a photo that is 8x10 that claims to be very early. I have hundreds of pre-WWII press photos in my archives/collection and there may be a few late 1930's that are that big, but not many. It became such a common size to print for 35mm film (though incorrect in ratio) that it is accepted as the standard size.”

Rhys again:
“You are correct. Aside from some high end double-weight studio photographs, the material used to create early press photography was very brittle with a thin piece of paper and heavy gelatin. Because these photos were flimsy and fragile, smaller sizes were more conducive (also more cost effective). This is why Underwood & Underwood (the only company at the time to make really large images) used such thick paper to develop their photographs. Although not a hard rule, earlier press photos are generally much smaller.”

[SAllen2556]

I thought what everyone said demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was fake, and thanks to everyone who took the time to reply.

Personally, I didn't know the deal about the smaller size photos way back when. I did know the stamp was incorrect, which is what originally caught my eye.

That's what's so cool about net54, you can learn about the hobby from people who are neither arrogant nor smug when it comes to sharing their knowledge...ahem.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

With all due respect Josh, you have no idea how much time others on here have spent "in the trenches" with regard to the Rogers issues or how many photos we have handled. I would be happy to educate you if you want to drop me a line with regard to both issues. Your post is pretty insulting considering you literally have no idea what is going on with this issue behind the scenes and just how educated some people on this forum actually are (or how many millions of photos we have handled). I will just leave it at that.

You are a lot nicer than I am.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by joshleland

Very disappointed by you "photo guys."

Fortunately photos can be discussed, acquired, enjoyed, etc., without being an official Net54 "photo guy".

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by joshleland

Very disappointed by you "photo guys." You talk like you have knowledge but to truly understand the field you have to have smarts. This is obviously the work of John Rogers. He has been selling material with phony stamps for years. Plus he sold the Detroit News which makes this pretty obvious in my book. This is a piece of crap created by him from scratch and you guys should know that. You don't get that kind of understanding by googling it. It takes years of experience and sorting through a million photos. Not by quoting fancy terminology you got off the Internet. You get it in the trenches. Photos are war and you need the scars to prove it.

Josh, is it true that your sister works for John Rogers helping to sell his photos on ebay?

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Josh, is it true that your sister works for John Rogers helping to sell his photos on ebay?

You're going to ruin Christmas/Hanukkah/Kwanzaa.

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Josh, is it true that your sister works for John Rogers helping to sell his photos on ebay?

I am sure Josh will answer this, but I wanted to chime in. His sister, who is very nice, was/is selling for Josh on ebay under the listing name tique I believe. Josh may have fired the first shot across the bow, but it was directed at the Net54 members only. He did not try to indict family members.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Michael B

I am sure Josh will answer this, but I wanted to chime in. His sister, who is very nice, was/is selling for Josh on ebay under the listing name tique I believe. Josh may have fired the first shot across the bow, but it was directed at the Net54 members only. He did not try to indict family members.

I wasn't trying to indict his family member, the criticism wasn't against her. I just thought it was unusual that he would bash Rogers if his sister worked for him. Of course, I could be wrong about his sister's job.

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by calvindog

I wasn't trying to indict his family member, the criticism wasn't against her. I just thought it was unusual that he would bash Rogers if his sister worked for him. Of course, I could be wrong about his sister's job.

Not a problem. I understand your point. I just checked and if you do an advanced search for seller tiqu you will find several hundred listings and at the bottom it specifically says "Lelands......"

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Michael B

Not a problem. I understand your point. I just checked and if you do an advanced search for seller tiqu you will find several hundred listings and at the bottom it specifically says "Lelands......"

Well, then that's good to know.

[joshleland]

Jeff:
Yes, you are 100% correct that my sister used to take photos on consignment from John Rogers. Not sports stuff so many here would not notice or care. However there is no john Rogers anymore at least on a day to day basis in the Arkansas operation. Actually she is now selling for the creditors who have been bilked by Rogers. She has her eyes wide open with regards to the collection and is one of the most knowledgable wire photo people in the business. I know because I taught her. As for other "photo guys" on here I am just surprised that no one called this out as a Rogers fake. It's simply obvious. By the way, do you know how long it took me to go through a million photos one at a time. Doing it about 6-8 hours a day it took me about five years.

[joshleland]

Oh yes and tiqu. That is not my sister. It is my 80 year old mother who sells photos for me on eBay. She loves doing it and feel free to contact her as she loves hearing from hobbyists. But be nice Jeff, thats my mom.

[calvindog]

As long as your sister isn't presently selling photos for John Rogers -- and she was selling photos for him while he was committing daily fraud -- I'll be nice.

[thecatspajamas]

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...

[D. Bergin]

Quick question here:

Was Rodgers actually replicating/forging stamps, or was he simply passing on later generation press photos as 1st generation originals?

I always got the sense he was a guy who was determined to corner the photo market, but didn't have much of a clue to what he was actually selling.........or if he did, he was real good at finding other whales who didn't know what a restrike was, and passing them off to them as originals, hoping they would get buried in collections.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Quick question here:

Was Rodgers actually replicating/forging stamps, or was he simply passing on later generation press photos as 1st generation originals?

I always got the sense he was a guy who was determined to corner the photo market, but didn't have much of a clue to what he was actually selling.........or if he did, he was real good at finding other whales who didn't know what a restrike was, and passing them off to them as originals, hoping they would get buried in collections.

Yes to all the above. Also.. Josh has no clue the extent but he wants everyone to think he does.

[Runscott]

Josh stated that the stamp is a Rogers creation. Is it, or isn't it?

[Econteachert205]

I don't understand Josh's disappointment in the "photo guys". No one was particularly fooled by the photo. I looked at it, knew with what little knowledge I have that it was not type 1 or type 2 read the 6 or so comments at the time which confirmed this and moved on. Why this turned into a huge blow up I have no idea.

[Runscott]

…..

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Josh stated that the stamp is a Rogers creation. Is it, or isn't it?

It is fake... No doubt.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by joshleland

This is obviously the work of John Rogers. He has been selling material with phony stamps for years. Plus he sold the Detroit News which makes this pretty obvious in my book.

Originally Posted by Forever Young

It is fake... No doubt.

Thanks Josh, and thanks Ben for confirming.

See Dennis? We are all getting along.

[Econteachert205]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Thanks Josh, and thanks Ben for confirming.

See Dennis? We are all getting along.

I certainly do.

[ramram]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

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...

Lance - how dare you break into this soap opera full of cat fighting and bluffery (sic) just to talk about a subject pertinent to the topic!