1914 Babe Ruth M. Lantern Slide ?

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by GKreindler

The original 4" x 5" glass plate negative of this Ruth image resides in the collection of the Chicago History Museum. If I remember correctly, it's from 1917. You'll notice the same markings on the top of the image.



I can't speak towards the legitimacy of the slides as originals, but I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable labeling them as such.

Graig

I agree with Greig,

Everything about this piece screams “fake” to me. The fact that it looks so amateurishly done, no period label, wrong date to inhance value, and to top it all off they left the photographers notations and writing from the negative on the finished piece. If you were making this to sell or for some other purpose they would have done a good job doing so and nobody would leave the random marks at the top of that photo, those would have been the first things cropped out of that photo.

Regardless of what it looks like under a microscope it doesn’t pass the initial eye test of something done during that period.

[packs]

Every lantern slide I've ever seen is as sharp as you would expect from a negative. You can plainly tell that the slide in question has a grainy, fuzzy image indicative of a copy.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

I agree with Greig,

Everything about this piece screams “fake” to me. The fact that it looks so amateurishly done, no period label, wrong date to inhance value, and to top it all off they left the photographers notations and writing from the negative on the finished piece. If you were making this to sell or for some other purpose they would have done a good job doing so and nobody would leave the random marks at the top of that photo, those would have been the first things cropped out of that photo.

Regardless of what it looks like under a microscope it doesn’t pass the initial eye test of something done during that period.

You haven't seen many lantern slides have you?

They can be totally original and also totally shoddy work.

A lot of what's put there was made by companies like keystone, and they're very professionally done, often for educational use. The rest vary a lot in quality. Everything from nicely produced to just an image taped between glass. I've seen some labeled with nothing more than pencil and some cloth tape. Some not labeled at all. Those were usually done from someone's own photos either to have slides to show, or for a talk about something at a club or church function.


As far as I know they're all copies, though I suppose some amateur ones could be from an original negative reverse processed.

[Michael B]

I picked up a dozen magic lantern slides in September that are all Olympic related. I did not check them all, but the ones I did were produced by E.R. Deats of 10 S. 18th St., Philadelphia. Many of them were done for the Philadelphia Inter-State Dairy Council. These were colorized photos and it appears that they took a photo of a photo as the quality is not the greatest with dust marks and other flaws. These were done in the late 1940's as they show the 1936 and 1948 Olympics. They were most like done for educational displays as mentioned by Steve. With all of the ones I own you can tell that they were professionally created as the black masking holding the negative is neatly done and the labels are period. Those are some of the things I would look for in assessing one.

[The Owner 3]

Thanks all! Here are some pics, and some are taken from taking a picture inside the 40x zoom magnifier. These still don't quite capture it. There seems to be a transparent film within the glass slides, which I've researched was another technique used to make these. The zoom shows the texture of the transparent piece, and you'll notice, no dots in a pattern or halftone dots. It may look a little like it, but that's the texture of the transparency within the glass. It does seem plausible that this is a pic of a pic because it isn't as sharp as an original, but it still may be from the era. Next I'll show what a half tone picture looks like in a 40x zoom lens.

IMG_0102.jpg

IMG_0114.jpg

IMG_0143.jpg

IMG_0145.jpg

IMG_0173.JPG

[The Owner 3]

I printed this from the pic that's been thrown around on this post. If someone was trying to fake the glass lantern, they would have to use the one found on the web. When printed, it would look like this - halftone dots to make up the image. The initial image looks better, but when you zoom in, here's what you see.

IMG_0165.jpg

IMG_0162.jpg

IMG_0163.jpg

IMG_0164.jpg

[Michael B]

I am sorry, but you are making certain incorrect assumptions comparing a print you pulled of the web and your image. The image you printed from the web is a reproduction of the image as it appeared in some publication, thus the 'dots'. A silver halide print or positive transparency from the original glass plate negative would show no such 'dots'. The only comment on your slide is that the horizontal lines appear rather odd. Those would not be there if this was made from the original negative.

[The Owner 3]

I never said anything about it being made from the original negative. I'm saying that if it was made maliciously and for profit from getting an image off the web, that's how the result would look. And it's not like what's on the slide. It was just a comparison. Nothing more.

I'm trying to find out how it was made. I never said that it came from the original negative. Maybe a picture of a picture with film to make a new "not original" negative that is much lesser quality. There were kits made during that time to take a photo and transfer the photo onto a glass slide or transparent film.

I'm just trying to figure it out. And to do that, I'm comparing what the slide image looks like compared to what it might look like if someone was trying to print from a web image. Never said the original negative.