How can you tell if a photo is an original? 1915 Hans Lobert Photo

[packs]

I wish I could get a better scan but I'm not in the same place as my photo. It's back home and I'm on the road. I have until June 9th to file a paypal claim and will be back home the 23rd. Are there any properties of the photo paper that I should pay attention to that would give away that it is not from 1915?

[packs]

Here is a close up of Lobert's face. The size of the photo is 10 by 12. There is some browning on the bottom left corner and the paper is what i would call very thin. You can see some slight wrinkling in my first scan. The back of the photo is brownish. There is a lot of detail in the photo and it is very clear. That's one of the reasons I thought it could be an original, or at least from the original negative. Just look at that glove!

[prewarsports]

It is really hard to tell. One thing you can do to see if it is old (although it doesnt pinpoint it that much) is to get a corner a little damp. As the photo starts to dry it should be VERY sticky before it dries totally. I think photos after the 1940's or 1950's will not be sticky when wet because they did not use gelatin in the process. This will not tell you it is from 1915 but it can tell you if it was made in the last 40 years or so. Without seeing it in person it is impossible to tell but the lack of stamps on the back and it being a known published image would make me think it is probably a more recent print, but it is impossible to tell for sure so dont take that as gospel.

[packs]

I'll try the sticky test when I get back.

As for it being published: Well it isn't exactly a known published photo. I did some Googling and found this Lobert photo on someone's site. It isn't exactly the same, but is similar. This person's photo WAS printed and contained a tagline on the back of it that denoted it as being Opening Day 1915 Giants against the Dodgers. This photo I could tell is definitely a later printing because it is not clear and looks like it has been reprinted a ton. The only real similarities it shares with my photo is that it is Lobert throwing at third base, but the time of day, positioning, shadows and cropping is totally different. For comparison:

[bmarlowe1]

From what I am seeing from carefully looking at the shadows, the population of the bleachers, and some off the patterns in the dirt - these both were taken very close in time to each other.

[D. Bergin]

Might be a large size albumen print. Great shot. Mr. Rudd might be able to tell a little better.

[packs]

I'm thinking these two photos were taken the same day too. Maybe in between warm up tosses? Which would be really fantastic because an original photo from Opening Day 1915 would be an incredible piece to own. The other photo that I posted is clearly a reprinted photo. Everything about it screams that it's been through a lot of copying, the dissolving of fine details and general shadowy nature of that particular print. Mine however, is very clear and even clearer than the close up scan I posted makes it seem. I've been doing some research online about early photography and from what I'm reading it seems as though the clearer the image, the more likely it is to at least come from the original negative, if not an original print. However, it's extremely hard to do any real investigating because me and my photo are 3,000 miles apart.

I'm going to try the sticky test next week when I return home. I wish I had a black light, but I do not. Can you tell me a little bit more about Albumen prints? Is 10 by 12 any indication of printing? Anything else you guys could tell me I should look for in the characteristics of the photo paper? All help and discussion has been greatly appreiciated. Thanks guys!