Brooklyn CDV

Runscott · #1 01-12-2013, 02:33 PM

One additional item regarding the mount.

I believe the mount is real, but this fact is useless when it comes to authentication. Williamson was a prolific photographer and a prolific creator of cdv's, so procuring a genuine Williamson mount is simple. Procuring a genuine Williamson mount with a photo the same size as the one on the Brooklyn cdv would be a bit more difficult, as this is not the normal image size that Williamson put on his cdv's. The normal size image would be the one that used to be on this mount, as evidenced by the residue that shows both above and below the image (especially below), from the placement of a previous photo. As prolific of a photographer as Williamson was, why wouldn't he simply use a new mount? I'm sure he had plenty of them.

You can google 'williamson brooklyn' images, and you will ONLY find cdv images of the larger size. Williamson had access to the original negative and could have shown more of the baseball players and still used his vignette process, AND produced his normal image-size. But he didn't. Curious. I'll create an example and post it here later.

Yet another reason to test the binder - a bit from just above 'Williamson', and a bit from a corner of the image. Simple process, and removes more doubt.

oldjudge · #2 01-12-2013, 03:29 PM

Scott-I agree 100%. That residue, which seems to imply that a larger photos was once attached to this mount, has bothered me since the beginning.

Don--it's only a great piece if it is period.

Troy--thanks! Without that type of guarantee I think you will lose a lot of bidders.

Runscott · #3 01-12-2013, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Scott-I agree 100%. That residue, which seems to imply that a larger photos was once attached to this mount, has bothered me since the beginning.

Don--it's only a great piece if it is period.

Troy--thanks! Without that type of guarantee I think you will lose a lot of bidders.

This is kind of ugly, but you get the picture - imagine the 'vignette' spreading all the way to the new (normal) edge that I've added to the albumen part. (By the way - I used the loc image and had to reduce contrast significantly in order to approximate what's on the Brooklyn cdv)

oldjudge · #4 01-12-2013, 04:18 PM

Just thought of one other thing to look at. Since albumen prints are made from laying the photographic paper on the glassplate negative, all first generation albumen photos from the same glass plate negative have to have player images that are exactly the same size. If the SRA CdV is second generation then there is a possibility that the player images are of a slightly different size than the one in the LOC. If they are I would think that this would be a huge red flag.

Runscott · #5 01-12-2013, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Just thought of one other thing to look at. Since albumen prints are made from laying the photographic paper on the glassplate negative, all first generation albumen photos from the same glass plate negative have to have player images that are exactly the same size. If the SRA CdV is second generation then there is a possibility that the player images are of a slightly different size than the one in the LOC. If they are I would think that this would be a huge red flag.

Based on the size of 'Brooklyn' and 'Williamson' on the two mounts, the player image sizes appear to be an exact match.

Everyone needs to keep in mind that those of us who think more tests are warranted, are NOT saying that this is a forgery - we are simply stating that the rarity and value of this piece, along with a couple of 'light red' flags (re-use of mount, blurry image) warrant additional tests. "Why?' you ask, would someone who isn't planning on bidding, be concerned? The answer is simple: I am an avid albumen collector. And if members of our hobby feel that a $50,000+ rare (only 1 in existence) does not warrant the tests that Mr. Messier mentions in his report, then what cdv does?

The above is a conclusion that prospective (and existing) forgers will come to as well. This means that, even if this cdv is legitimate, we are exposing our hobby by not doing additional tests. It's important enough that I personally would be willing to contribute $500 toward the testing that Mr. Messier mentions, if it's done prior to the auction.

If it proves to be what Troy says it is, then I'll be elated.

oldjudge · #6 01-12-2013, 11:34 PM

LOL, Don the consignor couldn't have said it better himself. Just interested, even if it is period, why do you think it is the best card to hit the hobby in years? You can probably count the people on one hand who collect this type of stuff. Rarity doesn't make a great card; it is rarity and demand.

Donscards · #7 01-13-2013, 05:25 AM

Jay you answered my earlier message---it is rarity and demand---The Brooklyn piece is the 2nd to be found---it is rare and one of the first cards made. I would say there will be a few bidders from this forum alone that will want this card. By the time the auction comes around and everyone is satisfied as to this being authentic---it will go for big money---I also believe some of the big boys will step in with their (big pockets)---I feel the CDV will go for big money and if the buyer wants to resell in a year or so, he then can make a tidy profit. It will be a interesting auction to watch. Don

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
T206 SGC Graded Brooklyn Team Set 23 out of 27 Cards SOLD SOLD!!!	brookdodger55	Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T	3	03-31-2012 06:15 PM
Looking for Brooklyn Dodger Collectors	dougscats	Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, etc..) B/S/T	0	12-27-2010 05:19 PM
Looking for Brooklyn Dodgers collectors	dougscats	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	0	11-24-2010 12:16 PM
FS: RARE Ca. 1860's CDV Civil War Generals and Officers featuring Abner Doubleday SGC Auth	Archive	19th Century Cards & ALL Baseball Postcards- B/S/T	0	09-06-2008 07:07 PM
Early Baseball CDV	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	11	07-25-2004 11:24 PM