Any ideas on these?

[pencil1974]

So I was cleaning up around my cards and came across two things I had forgotten about. I posted the Ruth/Lloyd on the main forum but I figured I might have better luck here.

The Ruth is 7x9 on a really, really heavy stock. But does not seem to be a photo just per say because of the quality, looks a bit rough airbrushed in the background and the details around the hands looks almost drawn.

The Cobb seems to be a photo but I don't know a ton about photos so looking for help. It is 2.5 x 4 9/16.

Both are period, I put the Cobb on a black light with a non-vintage print I had to show that its not just a print out on an ink jet.

Any help would be great.

Thanks,
Brad

[bgar3]

See my reply on main forum, re: movie called Speedy, with Ruth and Lloyd, was also a book wioth photos.

[pencil1974]

Yep saw that on the Ruth, thanks for the info!

[drcy]

The Speedy item is a genuine oddity that I have never before seen, but there was apt to be a lot of stuff surrounding movies-- postcards, promos, trading cards, fan photos, photos, etc. Movies were well covered and publicized and, as many know, there are even European real photo postcards of the movie. There could be heavy stock photos circa 1930, so the thickness is not a disconcerting issue.

[pencil1974]

Yeah it was strange to me, I picked it up on a flyer for like $75 because I have the Jossetti card I thought it would go nicely with it even if it wasn't real. But when I got it and just saw how thick it was and did the black light test to see if it was at least vintage I became curious....then I put it away and totally forgot about it until I was cleaning up and opened a flat box I had the Cobb, Ruth/Lloyd and an N28 page. Those are fun finds when you forget about them.

Any idea on the Cobb photo?

[thecatspajamas]

To my eye, the Cobb photo looks to be second generation (photo of a photo), a common way of capturing an image for reproduction in the days before scanners or even photocopiers. The size and marking on the back fall into what I would typically call a "snapshot," with the slight loss of detail and shift in contrast from crisp black-and-white to a slightly muddied dark-gray-and-light-gray being what makes me think it is second generation rather than being printed from the original negative.

[pencil1974]

Thanks Lance!