REA Old Judge Proofs

[Archive]

Posted By: Kevin Cummings

I am still stunned after seeing some of the prices of Old Judge material last night in Lew Lipset's auction. Clearly, lots of people have lots more money than I do to throw at these things and there are far more collectors interested in 19th century material than there used to be.

With that in mind, I've also noticed that the Old Judge "proofs" in REA have generated very little bidding interest thus far. One of the REA lots is the exact same Flynn proof that was cut apart to make up the four lots in the American Memorabilia (AM) Auction of a few months ago. There was a rather lengthy and contentious board thread back then, but the debate over "authenticity" (or "originality" or whatever other term you might want to appply to the AM offerings) didn't prevent collectors from plunking down in aggregate over $50,000 for them.

So I'm wondering where the underbidders from those lots (or any of the other nouveau riche collectors) are on the REA proofs. Could AM have a more extensive and influential bidder list than REA? Are bidders waiting in the weeds until it get closer to the closing date so as not to tip their hands? Or is everybody just tapped out and REA happens to be last in the auction timeline and is suffering for it?

Also, Sports Collectors Digest had a feature article about the earlier Flynn proofs. I wonder if there will be a follow-up article for the REA lots.

Any thoughts?

[Archive]

Posted By: scgaynor

Read the description for the Flynn and I think that it will explain everything. Especially the part about later prints selling for less than originals.

Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: Kevin Cummings

So your're saying that the ones in AM predate the ones in REA? Doesn't the description in REA state just the opposite?

[Archive]

Posted By: Glenn

They're waiting in the weeds. REA will do just fine in the end.

[Archive]

Posted By: scgaynor

No, I am saying that they probably all came out at the same time. I believe that Rob's description hits the nail on the head.

Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

The ones in the AM auction were the same, from the same period, as the REA ones. Obviously the fact that they were probably not from the 1880's didn't dampen the spirits of the AM bidders.

[Archive]

Posted By: scgaynor

It probably would have made a difference if the AM bidders knew that they were not from the 1880s.

Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

The photos were made in the 20th century.
One auction told bidders that they were from the 19th century.
One auctions tells bidders that they are from the 20th century.

Those three lines should explain why there is a pricing discrepency-- and it has nothing to do with bidder lists.

I had written before about a year before either of these auctions that these proofs were not from the 1880s, as it was obvious they were made later. I was contacted by each of the above auction houses before their auctions of the photos, and clearly expressed to each that the items not from the 1880s (REA was under the assumption that they were made later before they called, the consultation concerning other details).

The REA is the first genuine auctioning of these photos that I know of, as the description is accurate.

I do not hold animosity towards AM or others in this issue. I consider it old news, and wish all the best.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

David--Do you think SCD will update their take on these proofs? I noticed in SCD that AM has some more proofs, including a Gypsy Queen and Mayo proof, in their summer auction. These proofs look the same as the Old Judge proofs. I wonder how they will be portrayed, if at all, in SCD.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter

Hello to you all!

I just signed up for this forum. I was the person discovered these Old Judge proofs about 10 or so years ago. I used to sell them at Flea Markets in New York City and in New Jersey and P.A. Rob Lifson of REA sold about 35 images for me in the fall of 1998 in a private sale.Then I would send some to the Nationals with Sports Card dealers that I new here in Vermont.Later on I sold some on Ebay. Feel free to ask any questions that you would like answered. Maybe I can shed some light on the truth behind the find. The first fact that I will share with you all is that they were not Discovered In Vermont like everyone thought. They were discovered originally in Ticonderoga/Bolton Landing NY. I live in Vermont and that is how Vermont got tied to them.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Peter--Do you know anything about how the person you got the proofs from acquired them? Was he related to someone who worked for Goodwin & Co, the maker of Old Judge Cigarettes? Did he give you any feeling for when the proofs were from?

Thanks---Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Jay, if you're concerned about whether or not they will be 'cataloged,' I have an online guide to early baseball photographs and plan on including a brief description of these photos. My guide is not a price guide, but the REA prices likely will mentioned as a reference or standard for readers. I have no opinion as to what the prices will be or should be, and am waiting just like everyone else.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

David--No, that wasn't my concern. Bob Lemke's article which was published about the time of the AM auction hypothesized that these proofs were period. Many SCD readers do no access this chat board and are thus left with the impression that that information is still correct. I was wondering if Bob was going to update them with the latest thinking. Perhaps Bob still holds the belief that these proofs are period and does not think that there is any reason to provide any additional information. I'm sure that we would all welcome hearing from Bob on this.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter

Hello Jay,

They were the persons Great Grandfathers who was a photographer for the Goodwin & Co. They stated that they were all from the late 1880s. They were passed down in the family along with the camera and original glass plate negatives. These were images that their Great Grandfather had taken and saved. Lots we destroyed because they hadn't been mounted and they curled up. Those were used to light the wood fire in the stove until I became a buyer. Many others they mounted and framed on whatever they had. That is why the mounts vary and the type of frames. They said their Grandfather would take several different poses of each player. I have no reason to doubt the age since I also had many other images of famous people such as Buffalo Bill and different events that were dated. I contacted Rob Lifson after I had heard he had some coming up in his auction. He kindly sent me an email with the descriptions of the pieces in his auction. I don't agree with his speculation on the date of these pieces. It is based on a photography company the he states was in business in the early 20th century. If these images were important enough to keep and pass down in the family until now. Why wouldn't he of had them in the early 1900s? Maybe Doran requested a picture from the photographer? Who knows? I think basing it on a possible date that a company was in business is incorrect. What would have happened if they were in an envelope that was postmarked in the 1930s or 1940s? Would they be from that era?? I responded to Rob after he sent me the descriptions of the proofs in the auction. I decided to attach a copy of the email that I had sent him in response to his new theory? It differed greatly from the group he sold for me in 1998. Hopefully finally this will help all of you with any questions, Comments, Criticisms or disbeliefs.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kreedo1002
To: info@robertedwardauctions.com
Sent: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 00:22:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Robert Edward Auctions Proofs OLD Judge
Hello Rob,

Thanks for emailing me the detailed description below. It sounds like they will do well!
I just have a couple of observations and concerns.

The Family stated the images were printed in the late 1880s. I have owned some other pieces of photography from the same family with 1887 dates written on them, I would agree that some of them could be later in the 19th century. There was one particular piece I sold locally here in Vermont, and I am sure I can get it for you to examine. I was digging through my old notes when I had sent you the 30 + images in 1998 which you sold for me for $13,500 To ___________.You told me that you had the images authenticated by a photography expert who was called in as part of the OJ Simpson trail and this person concurred that they were real and of the period.Going back through several photographs of the Baseball proofs I have owned I also noticed I had several nonmounted,Single,Double and Triple mounts of the players that you include in your sale. I have also noticed the the sizes and image quality have varied making each image unique and one of a kind even if it is the same pose. Lastly I thought that you had some very strong statements about the others that were sold in 2004 by the West Coast company. I don't feel that anyone has the whole story about the true evolution of the unique pieces. Hopefully as time passes and the interest is elevated about these we will find out more. I will hold on to some of the other pieces I have and we will see what the market will bear.


Sincerely,
Peter O'Brien

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

prints are albumen or silver geletin. That being said, I have seen none of them in person, and and probably couldn't afford them at the 20th century price, let alone the 19th century price.

REA gave a GREAT summary; I'm sorry this all has to be dredged up again, but if doubt remnains, then doubt remains.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

If the source of these proofs was a photographer for Goodwin & Co then maybe we should rethink the time that these photos came from.

David--Is there any way in the world--think outside the box now--that photographs like these could have been produced in the late-1880s?

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter

Hello Again,

I wish I had all of them back for what I had sold them for in the past? I forgot to mention that I had photos of many of the pieces I have sold over the years including a Envelope that was written in fountain pen Attn: John Thomas Goodwin Advertising Dept
2nd F RM 211 Do Not Bend Proofs. But if I kept all of them we wouldn't be talking about this find today.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Peter--Can you post a picture of that envelope? That sounds like some hard evidence that these proofs may in fact be period. David--how can this be?

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter

I will try to get it scaned over the weekend. I also had the photographers salesman sample mounted portfolio. It had all the different size photos including all the tobacco brands in the images like the one the REA has up for auction. Bat's Tobacco, Lucky Curve, Home Run,Ph Mayo and Gypsy Queen. They were the cabinet size and the tobacco card size. It would of been a presentation piece used by the photographer. Rob can tell you all about the piece that was part of the 30 plus images he stated were period. Email me and I will give you my phone number here in Vermont.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Just spent about a half hour on the phone talking to Peter and I must say that he makes a compelling arguement that the proofs are period. Although some of the proofs may have been attached to the cardboard some time after the 1880s (they were sitting unbacked in files and were becoming damaged)the actual proofs he contends are period. The source--the relatives of a photographer for Goodwin--can't get much better than that. He also notes that proofs of Matthews are very rare. He promised to post some more information of the board so I anxiously await what he has.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

My opinion is that the debate about the age of these large framed display photographs should exclude the consignors. Though that would make this a very short thread.

If collectors or dealers or auction houses want to do their own study about judging the age and authenticity of photographs (including 19th century baseball photos), a worthwhile guide and reference is at the following

http://www.cycleback.com/photoguide/

I have nothing wrong with people debating me and disagreeing with my opinion, but, a story about a family keeping their fire stoked until recent years with Old Judges doesn't offer me much to mull over.

As I said, I hope those interested do their own study on the matter, and, as I said even earlier, I have no preconceived notion as to what the sale price will be. These are attractive and striking display pieces, and I honestly don't see anything wrong with a Old Judge or early baseball fan dropping some $$ on them in the current REA auction.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

There are amateur photographers today who have studied and learned the process of making modern daguerreotypes, using the same techniques that were used in the 1840's and 1850's. I've seen some of them and they are quite well done. That said, why couldn't someone take a glass plate negative and learn to produce a photograph that would be virtually identical to and nearly indistinguishable from one made in the 1880's? It's not that these proofs can't be period, they very well may be. But you would be amazed what people can do with a little practice and a bit of technology. If the glass plate negatives stayed in the family all those years, it's not unreasonable to think they were used at a somewhat later date to produce additional images.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter

Hello Jay,

The rarest of the images are the so called "Prototypes" as REA titles the Doran in is sale. There about 2 to 3 images for each player in only one of the poses. In a couple of cases they were in smaller sizes like the card size.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter

This is a picture of the from envelope that came with several Goodwin & Co Images back in 1997-98 I sold it with a grouping of the proofs.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

That envelope is a pretty neat keepsake- doesn't definitively prove anything, but does bolster the argument that the proofs were made while the guy's great-grandfather worked there. Very interesting.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter

Some have speculated the they could have been printed later as some sort of a scheme to make alot of $$$$$. You must remember these were purchased from the family on many different times for a fraction of what others eventually paid for them. They went through several hands and across the country and everyone made a profit. The first groups of proofs were purchased for less than $50 a piece! and the negatives for purchased for almost nothing.

[Archive]

Posted By: barry sloate

Shame on the family for giving away these heirlooms for next to nothing. A little bit of extra work on their part could have gone a long way.

[Archive]

Posted By: scgaynor

I have not heard anybody comment that they are modern prints, but it seems that the only people who think that they are from the 1880s are people who have a financial interest in them being from the 1880s.

I also don't understand why some would have advertising for Lucky Curve and Bats, when those brands didn't exist until many years after N173's were produced. The earliest Bats tin that I have seen is from the 1920s or 1930s.

If it does date from the 1880s, is odd that the person would use the term "proof" well before its time. He might as well have written "future N173's."

Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Scott- That's interesting. Didn't printers always make proofs? There are T206 and T3 proofs for example from 1910. They didn't exist 20 years earlier? Or are you saying the term did not exist?

[Archive]

Posted By: scgaynor

Just the term "proof". I have never seen anything from the 19th century, sports or nonsports, marked in that way.

Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

If that's true, then that's compelling evidence that the envelope was marked well after 1888. Worthy of further research.

[Archive]

Posted By: scgaynor

Barry, the flip side is that I may be totally wrong. I am just relating my experience, ask around and let me know what you find out.

Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

According to the Encyclopedia Brittanica the term proof was used in relation to printing dating back to the 15th century. Although it obviously did not relate to photography back then it is not hard to imagine it being used in the late-1800s.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter

This Alfred E Moore Aeronaut June 87 photograph was in another group of proofs that I had some time ago. I tried a digital camera to make a copy but it doesn't work as well, I should have the others scanned by Wednesday when I return from a business trip. This photo is in a private collection here in Vermont. It was the same type as the old Judge proofs.