Chuck Conners Photo ?

[Archive]

Posted By: Scot York

I bought this 8X10 photo of Chuck Conners this year. I'm almost positive the autograph is authentic but, not sure if the photo is period. Anybody have any knowledge of this type of photo(1938)or any other way to date the photo itself?.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

One simple thing to do is to look at and feel the back of the photo. If the back is supermooth and plasticy, it's definitely modern. Most modern (1970-90s) family snapshots have this plasticy feel, so you can compare. If, instead, the back is fibery, papery like regular paper, this is conistant with the photo being older. Some new paper is also fibery, papery, so it isn't proof of old age-- but papery/fibery is consistant ... The majority of modern Hall of Famers authentic signed 8x10 photos you find for sale on eBay-- ala 2001 Willie Mays signed reprint photo showing him in 1960, or Hank Aaron signed photo showing him in 1955-- have this plasticy paper on back, so they are quickly identified as modern photos. Most bidders in these auctions are bidding on the autograph and either know/assume the photo is modern or don't particularly care. MLB, NFL and NBA sell genuinely high quality 8x10 reprints of old timers for autographs. These photos not only are plasticy, but have the MBL, NFL, NBA stamps and/or holograms. A lot of the living HOFer and Old Timer signed photos are on these photos.

If you own a blacklight, you can quickly weed out most modern reprints, even those on papery photopaper-- as modern photopaper tends to fluoresce a certain way under black light.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scot

The back is not glossy and has a coarse feel but, no fibers that I can see. Thanks for your help.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

If it has a coarse feel, that's what I was talking about. The modern plasticy paper is literally coated in resin (it's called "resin-coated paper") and looks and feels as if it was laminated or smoothly coated with bees wax. If yours feels coarse on back, it's definitely not the resin coated paper.

Whether old or new, the fronts of these photos are often glossy/smooth (this is where the photochemicals are held and where the image is chemically developed, so there are added substances which can make the fronts glossy). The 'paperr V plasticy' comparison is done on the back of a photo, not the front.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scot

With what you're telling me, I'd say this photo is period. It's also toned on the back as if it were that old. I'm a riffleman fan and was glad to get this piece. I have another Conners auto that I know is authentic and this matches. You really made my day! Thanks again.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

It it has a coarse back and toning, that's consistant with it being an older photo.

A veteran autograph expert was selling a Smokey Joe Wood autograph photo showing a baby faced Wood in Red Sox uniform. The seller didn't realize that the photo was an original by Charles Conlon (clearly stamped and signed on back) and the photo itself was probably worth 10-15X more than a Wood autograph. The photo was quite the artifact, as Wood personized his autograph to the famous old-timer autograph collector Jeffrey Morey, and Morey wrote on the back something on the order of "Dear Mr Wood, please autograph this mail it back to me at your convenience. Thank you." This suggests Morey was mailing off original Conlon photos to get autographs!