Are Type I Photos The Only Safe Bet In This Hobby?

[sphere and ash]

Originally Posted by SetBuilder

Here, I found it for you:

"Paper had to be thin, yet strong when wet. It also needed to be exceptionally pure--the slightest trace of foreign matter would react with other photographic chemicals and cause staining."

https://www.realorrepro.com/article/Photographic-Images

I'd love to know where you can find stacks of old paper that meets this criteria.

This link is almost enough to get me to try albumen printing again:

https://www.alternativephotography.c...umen-printing/

According to the link, Cranes (Kid Finish 32#, Platinotype or Parchment Wove 44#), Arches (Platinotype) and Strathmore (500 Drawing) would all work. My guess is that one could tell the difference between a vintage print and a print using one of these papers. Having said that, I have some theories about how a vintage paper could be made to work. I’m just not sure it’s a good idea to share such theories with a wide audience.

[lumberjack]

Originally Posted by sphere and ash

This link is almost enough to get me to try albumen printing again:

https://www.alternativephotography.c...umen-printing/

According to the link, Cranes (Kid Finish 32#, Platinotype or Parchment Wove 44#), Arches (Platinotype) and Strathmore (500 Drawing) would all work. My guess is that one could tell the difference between a vintage print and a print using one of these papers. Having said that, I have some theories about how a vintage paper could be made to work. I’m just not sure it’s a good idea to share such theories with a wide audience.

Paul,
I've been talking with my photo guru about these different types of paper. Cranes Kid Finish is stationary paper. Cranes, by the way, makes paper for US currency. Now, if you can get find a really sharp chemist and borrow a paper mill for a couple of hours in the middle of the night, well, the possibilities are endless....I once worked in a paper mill, this is the sort of thing we used to talk about.

Strathmore 500 is drawing paper. Maybe both would work for exotic 19th century stuff, I don't know how they would apply to the 20th century. I'm fighting above my weight class, here.

Platinotype, which was produced in France until 1924, was made as a speciality paper from the 1990s until about 2008. Platinotype is the real deal and I would encourage anybody who is ready to go into the counterfeit photo business (if my ideas about finding an amoral chemist and and empty paper mill don't work out) to try this stuff. Problem being, you can't fake the patina. This is the real sticking point, right?

Vintage paper is available on eBay, but you just don't know if it will work until you try it.

All modern white paper has been treated with bleach and would be detected with a black light. It sounds as though platinotype is unbleached.

Lastly, you have more hands on experience that I, and I'm just talking about 20th century photographers (like Conlon), but the paper used throughout the dead ball era was very thin. Is any of the paper you mentioned of that thickness. If a photo passed the black light test, could it pass a micrometer or calipers?

I still think it would be easier to fake "Night Watch" than Cobb sliding into Jimmy Austin. But, hey, we know guys who were buying ink jet photos in the belief they were vintage prints. Everybody, do your homework.
lumberjack

[sphere and ash]

Originally Posted by lumberjack

Paul,
I've been talking with my photo guru about these different types of paper. Cranes Kid Finish is stationary paper. Cranes, by the way, makes paper for US currency. Now, if you can get find a really sharp chemist and borrow a paper mill for a couple of hours in the middle of the night, well, the possibilities are endless....I once worked in a paper mill, this is the sort of thing we used to talk about.

Strathmore 500 is drawing paper. Maybe both would work for exotic 19th century stuff, I don't know how they would apply to the 20th century. I'm fighting above my weight class, here.

Platinotype, which was produced in France until 1924, was made as a speciality paper from the 1990s until about 2008. Platinotype is the real deal and I would encourage anybody who is ready to go into the counterfeit photo business (if my ideas about finding an amoral chemist and and empty paper mill don't work out) to try this stuff. Problem being, you can't fake the patina. This is the real sticking point, right?

Vintage paper is available on eBay, but you just don't know if it will work until you try it.

All modern white paper has been treated with bleach and would be detected with a black light. It sounds as though platinotype is unbleached.

Lastly, you have more hands on experience that I, and I'm just talking about 20th century photographers (like Conlon), but the paper used throughout the dead ball era was very thin. Is any of the paper you mentioned of that thickness. If a photo passed the black light test, could it pass a micrometer or calipers?

I still think it would be easier to fake "Night Watch" than Cobb sliding into Jimmy Austin. But, hey, we know guys who were buying ink jet photos in the belief they were vintage prints. Everybody, do your homework.
lumberjack

I was arguing against the idea, raised earlier in this thread, that there was something about albumen that made it impossible to reproduce. Having printed in albumen about twenty years ago, that didn’t seem right to me. You just have to experiment until you find the right paper.

There was a major scandal in the photography market fifteen years ago when people began to question the authenticity of Lewis Hine photographs originating from the collection of Hine scholars Walter and Naomi Rosenblum. Some 500 prints were sold as vintage, meaning that they were purported to have been printed and signed by Hine. Tests of the photographic paper, however, revealed that it contained optical brightening agents in the baryta layer that were not introduced until 1955. Since Hine died in 1940, the presence of OBAs meant that Walter Rosenblum might have printed the Hines himself and signed Hine’s name to the posthumous prints. It is hard to convey how shocking this possibility was—the Rosenblums were giants among photography scholars.

The problem with faking a Conlon now is not unlike the problem the Rosenblums allegedly confronted. Conlon died before OBAs were introduced in photographic papers. To forge a Conlon, you need a paper without OBAs. It seems to me inevitable that someone wiłl make one available.

[lumberjack]

I believe the forgers were also selling museum quality Hine photos, something that was very un-Hine like. That should have raised a few eyebrows. Hine wouldn't have been considered an artist in his lifetime, he was a muckraker, not Ansel Adams. Nobody caught on to that at the time, which is willful suspension of disbelief.
lumberjack

[drcy]

Originally Posted by lumberjack

I believe the forgers were also selling museum quality Hine photos, something that was very un-Hine like. That should have raised a few eyebrows. Hine wouldn't have been considered an artist in his lifetime, he was a muckraker, not Ansel Adams. Nobody caught on to that at the time, which is willful suspension of disbelief.
lumberjack

The Hine photos were proven to be forgeries by a paper chemist. Though the chemist was asked to do the tests because there were suspicions to strong beliefs that they were forgeries. Suspicions from collectors and dealers almost always come first. That's why boards such as this one are so important.

It's also possible they fluoresced under black light. I believe the Man Ray forgeries did, as well as the Hilter Diaries forgery.

There's actually a simple but remarkably reliable test I use for dating photos including modern and unstamped photos (though not the only test). But it's so straightforward that I don't say what it is, so as to not tip off forgers. It's particularly useful for modern photos-- say of George Brett or a supposed rookie Ken Griffey Jr-- where they can otherwise harder to date. It doesn't pinpoint year, but if you have a supposed original rookie year of Griffey you can be confident that it's period versus recent.

[ls7plus]

Thanks for the link, David. I've downloaded the 198 pp PDF version of your book and look forward to reading it (and yes, I still have the Ruth we discussed. I am planning to have it forensically examined next year by an expert with a good track record in Michigan--been a bit sidetracked lately with other matters having a higher priority).

Best wishes,

Larry

[drcy]

Duly note that I think most fakes-- including baseball cards and normal ephemera--, are easily identified without the highly advanced scientific tests. Radiometric dating and such are usually done with priceless museum relics or part of academic study. I'm sure all the authentic and questioned Vermeers and Michelangelo paintings have had all the tests on them.

If you collected meteorites or moon rocks or ancient Chinese ceramics or had a historic baseball artifact, I could see how a normal collector might want those tests done. But no one needs radiometric dating to authenticate a T206 or ACME news photo.

In fact, some of the more effective tests are the ones collectors already do. Simple stuff like blacklight, checking for gloss and texture, measuring thickness, and holding a questioned card next to some real ones are very effective tests. A test doesn't have to be complicated or expensive to be effective and important. A bunch simple tests used together can be greater than one expensive nuclear physics test.

Though I readily admit that, beyond knowing how the ink and paper tests work and knowing the basic stuff average collectors know, autographs are outside of my area of expertise. Not something I've focused on or been interested in, and I never present myself here as an autograph expert.