Are these Conlon photos?

[thecatspajamas]

I was waiting to see if Rhys would clarify, but quoting from his earlier post:

Originally Posted by prewarsports

I dont think save a few that the "Conlon" was written by Charles Conlon but I do know for a fact that at least the ones I have came that way direct from the Sporting News.

seems to me that when he says "direct from the Sporting News" he's not talking about "by way of John Rogers."

Either way though, if you're going to be calling out a major outfit like Rogers and his team for fraud, you need to have more to back up your argument than "well, he could have done it" and

Originally Posted by Forever Young

I have noticed both fake signatures AND fake stamps which, I believe, get photos directly from the same team

Again, I will remind you that John Rogers has several THOUSAND original Conlon glass plate negatives at his disposal, and several MILLION vintage photos to boot, with many many many better quality shots than those shown here. Not only does it not make sense for him to have faked a Conlon signature on the back of less-than-Conlon-quality photos and not call attention to the signature on the back in the hopes that someone will see it and bid a little more in an auction, but if he were going to try to fake Conlon photos, he has far better material at his disposal to do so. These are not the 4 to 5-figure Ruth photos we're talking about here. I really don't see any "damning evidence" having been presented yet, and while it is possible that someone is adding fake Conlon sigs, I really don't think Rogers is the one doing it.

[Forever Young]

Call out?
Major outfit?? Really???
What is this?? I am trying to get to the bottom of forged items in the hobby here.
I am merely trying to trace back the origin of these items.
You act like I am defaming the president of the United States.
That group is part of the supply chain so naturally they will be mentioned in the process.
I am not accusing any one particular person/group of fraud.. I just know someone is doing it at this point.

You do not have to remind me of anything Lance.

Scott-The crickets were driving me crazy

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

I was waiting to see if Rhys would clarify, but quoting from his earlier post:



seems to me that when he says "direct from the Sporting News" he's not talking about "by way of John Rogers."

Either way though, if you're going to be calling out a major outfit like Rogers and his team for fraud, you need to have more to back up your argument than "well, he could have done it" and

Again, I will remind you that John Rogers has several THOUSAND original Conlon glass plate negatives at his disposal, and several MILLION vintage photos to boot, with many many many better quality shots than those shown here. Not only does it not make sense for him to have faked a Conlon signature on the back of less-than-Conlon-quality photos and not call attention to the signature on the back in the hopes that someone will see it and bid a little more in an auction, but if he were going to try to fake Conlon photos, he has far better material at his disposal to do so. These are not the 4 to 5-figure Ruth photos we're talking about here. I really don't see any "damning evidence" having been presented yet, and while it is possible that someone is adding fake Conlon sigs, I really don't think Rogers is the one doing it.

EDITED 9/23/14: PLEASE SEE NEWEST THREAD BELOW ABOUT QUESTIONABLE CONLON STAMPS, WRITING AND SIGS.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=194436

[PhilNap]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

seems to me that when he says "direct from the Sporting News" he's not talking about "by way of John Rogers."

Lance, do you know of the Sporting News making photos from their archives available other than their bulk sale to Rogers?

If yes, was it the left overs or was it prior to the Rogers purchase?

If no, then lets let Rhys answer the question. If he so pleases.

[prewarsports]

Hi

Yes I got a some with the Conlon in a circle direct from the Sporting News. However, you need to understand I have bought over 1000 photos from them, probably closer to 1500 photos. If there were 20-25 photos with Conlon written in pencil (total guess, I have not counted, could be 10 for al I know) and say 15 are not in Conlons hand, the conclusion would HAVE TO BE that someone at the Sporting News YEARS ago was trying to identify Conlon images and probably got some wrong. You would have to think that if someone in the 1950's was trying to identify images that were Conlon images for filing purposes they probably got some wrong. Maybe they were getting into trouble using Conlon images without crediting him (which Conlon DID do all the time) and perhaps they went back and tried to re-identify them with mixed success? That is my take. I know the Rogers guys very well and I am 100% sure they did not put the name on there, and I know they were there when I got them, so the only conclusion for the ones I have is filing mistakes at the Sporting News with no malicious intent.

Please note, the above statement is ONLY in regard to the Conlon identified images I purchased and if indeed other people are trying to forge the Conlon name to make a buck, that is on them and a totally different issue. I stand behind the fact that there is NO WAY the Rogers guys are doing this, they actually enjoy it when someone finds a diamond in the rough because it makes for happy customers and repeat business and would never do something like this to risk a multi-million dollar business model for a few thousand bucks!

On a complete side not, I also bought at LEAST 20 die cut photos mounted to board which when removed displayed completely original Conlon Stamps on the back.

I will fix the one I have on ebay which appearantly is not a real Conlon which was alluded to earlier in this thread.

Thanks for listening to my thoughts and let me know if I need to further clarify anything.

Rhys Yeakley

[prewarsports]

I also want to add in full disclosure, I have bought A LOT of Sporting News photos from third parites as well, as many of you know I am active as a buyer on ebay and in the major auctions as well such as MEARS which sells a lot of the SN photos as well.

I also want to add that I changed the auction that was mentioned, I dont want to have ANYONE think even for a second that I would intentionally try and pass off a photo that was not Conlon as his work.

I guess now the question is, do you leave the "Conlon" on the back of photos like that, or should I just erase it to make sure nobody tries to pass it off down the line?

I wanted to also add that of the 1500 or so photos I bought, MANY were real Conlons with authentic stamps and handwritten notations, I mean like 50-100 real ones and maybe 10-15 ones with wrong identifications so please keep that in mind to. It is obvious that when you are dealing with a publication that has THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of real Conlons and I am talking about 10-15 with misidentifications, my example is VERY small. However, if someone else out there is faking the notations then that IS a problem!

Hope these responses help.

Rhys

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

...the conclusion would HAVE TO BE that someone at the Sporting News YEARS ago was trying to identify Conlon images and probably got some wrong. You would have to think that if someone in the 1950's was trying to identify images that were Conlon images for filing purposes they probably got some wrong.

Well-said, Rhys. As far as you or John's honesty, I personally would never question that, but it's something that almost all of us get accused of at some point or another.

I will fix the one I have on ebay which appearantly is not a real Conlon which was alluded to earlier in this thread.

Rhys, that's just my opinion - if I pointed out something that you agreed with, great, but your opinion is certainly as valid as mine. I've had type 1 Reulbach photos by almost every worthwhile photographer - if I go back and compare yours to the others I've owned, I can probably give you a good idea of who the photographer was. My initial thought was Frances Burke but I need to find that image.

[PhilNap]

Rhys,

Thanks for clarifying. I wasn't aware that others had access to the Sporting News archive. Were you able to get in there before they did the archive sale to Rogers?

[prewarsports]

When I said "direct" I meant through Rogers archives but that is as direct as it gets, they all go through his company as far as I know. I meant that they came direct from the SN via the Rogers group. However, I was able view some of these as they were being removed from file folders for the first time and so that is what I meant as well as being direct. Some of these went straight from files to me but I had to buy them from the Rogers group etc. Hopefully that clarifies what I meant.

[Forever Young]

https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.co...ntence-rogers/