The stamps were a form of copyrighting? Since he no doubt traveled a lot he probably had several stamps and lost some, kept a few at the office etc. just my guesses.

My question is why he applied stamps to some prints, and not to others, and why he chose a particular stamp for a particular photo. It could be that he only had one stamp at a time - I have misplaced Henry's book, which might have the answer.

I've always been under the assumption that most photographers' stamps were 1) to help ensure they got paid when the photo was used and 2) as a form of advertising should anyone happen to like the photo and want to purchase additional prints.

At least two of the stamps also feature his mailing address, which changed as he moved, which would explain those changes.

Added: Henry's book shows 3 varieties, 2 of which have an address and are dated to the 1910's. The example of his Englewood NJ addressed stamp also shows his New York addressed stamp scribbled out, so presumably he moved from New York to New Jersey at some point in the 1910's. He also shows the "Evening Telegram" variety which he dates to 1912 (I guess he only used it for 1 year?) He was active up through the 1930's though, so I don't know how he stamped his work in those last 2 decades (I've not researched it myself, so this is all from the book or assumptions based on it).

Well, maybe the third time will be a charm. I understand why stamps are used, but that was not my question.

My question is why he applied stamps to some prints, and not to others, and why he chose a particular stamp for a particular photo.

We will probably never know, but Charles Conlon was a photographer and like most artists I bet he was a bit of an eccentric personality. Today we hold him in such high esteem but in 1910 he was a just a guy with a camera who worked at a newspaper with a job like everyone else. You could have walked right into the "Evening Telegram" office 100 years ago and probably guys in his own company didn't know who he was. He lent his prints out, sent them to friends, sold them, gave them away as gifts and sent them to Baseball Magazine etc. Throughout his career he worked at all sorts of papers, worked for himself, and sent things all over the country. My guess is that if he was on the road and taking pictures sometimes he might develop some prints that day, other times at his studio, other times at the newspaper office etc. If he was sending a packet of photos to Baseball magazine maybe his job required a stamp whereas if he developed them at his home he just hand-wrote notes on the back etc. We really don't know that much about his life because he was not a big deal in his own time and died so long ago. I am sure it has something to do with whatever his job required at the time he took the photos, and if he was at a stage where he was working for himself he probably didn't put much weight into it.

Short answer, we don't know :)

NOTE: Other photographers were the same way. Louis Van Oeyen switched employers a lot and during the early 1920's almost all his work was uncredited as he was just one of about 20 staff photographers at NEA. His stamps and notes are all over the place as well. Paul Thompson was a war-Photographer over seas during WWI and others had similar stories.

Rhys

Is it possible conlon might not have always been involved in the development process? Like if he was on the road, and left photos to be developed and mailed due to time constraints?

Good thoughts, Rhys.

Econteacher - interesting theory and plausible. Could explain non-Conlon notes or prints with only a stamp.

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk