 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12
01-03-2011, 01:11 PM
|
||||
|
||||
are we forgetting
As a novice I have handled maybe a few hundred vintage photos in all. That being said it seems quite obvious to this novice, due to emulsion (correct term?) and wear, when the paper was made that the negatives were printed on, and even an approximate period of the photo mfg date. I guess we sometimes forget common sense? Of course there could be old paper that made the photos from negatives today, but I can't believe the wear would look the same?
__________________
Leon Luckey www.luckeycards.com 
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Vintage Type I Press Photos - 1936 Yankees, Carl Hubbell & Red Ruffing, 1937 NL AS's | D. Bergin | Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T | 0 | 10-01-2009 01:00 AM |
| Vintage Type I Press Photos - 1936 Yankees, Carl Hubbell, Babe Didrikson & Jimmy Foxx | D. Bergin | Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T | 0 | 10-01-2009 12:39 AM |
| E107 - Type I vs. Type II | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 32 | 07-17-2005 01:17 AM |
| Type Card Collection | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 2 | 07-15-2005 11:01 PM |
| Type collecting criteria | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 10 | 01-29-2003 11:29 AM |
Threaded Mode