Old Judge Proofs?

[Archive]

Posted By: John Freeman 

Usually I just toss my SCD in the stack of newspapers as it does not feature anything that interests me. This week was different.

The front cover of the SCD features some recently discovered Old Judge proof cards. The inside has a corresponding article by Bob Lemke.

I have seen these pop up at shows in the past both as individual cards and as part of a larger display. I was always under the assumption that they were made quite a bit after the original. In my estimate, quite a bit after.

I am not an Old Judge expert, but I know quite a bit about photographs. I saw these cards displayed at the National. They do not seem to be albumen prints and the stock of the mount does not seem to be from the 19th century. Is Bob Lemke an expert on photographs? I would have thought that SCD would have done more research on them before featuring them on their front cover.

When I asked American Memorabilia about them, they seem to know very little about what they were offering.

Do any of the experts on this board wish to share their views about these cards?

Does anyone know where these cards came from? Are they originally all from the same find or auction house/dealer?

John F.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jon Canfield

I'll defer to Jay to answer fully but I do own two of these and they are period. They were discovered by a man in Vermont who had a relative that worked for Goodwin (I believe I'm getting this right). Basically, many poses of the same player were taken at the studios - the "proofs" are the other photos. I know Doran pops up quite often (I own one). I also have a Flynn.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

I am not a photographic expert so I have no idea if these "proofs" are period or not. I know David has stated that he believes that they are not period and I have no reason to doubt his view.

As to the history of the items, Jon is right that they came from Vermont. The source of these is the same gentleman who was the source of the glass plate negatives that were found almost ten years ago. However, the "proofs" could have been made from glass plate negatives at some point after the late 1880s. These negatives still are very functional and I have taken a negative that I own of Wilson-Omaha, a player who is not known in either N172s or N173s, to a local photographer who made some really nice prints from it.

As does Jon, I own a few of the "proofs" and I guess from a value standpoint I would like for them to be period, but from an informational standpoint of providing images of scarce Old Judge players it really doesn't matter. The images are genuine, the negatives were made in the Old Judge period, the only question is when were the "proofs" printed. I'll defer to the photographic experts to hash that one out.

[Archive]

Posted By: ramram

How about the tintypes that have popped up? I have seen one in person and it certainly appeared to be of a later period. It had the brownish/green tint that often shows up in the phoney Western and Indian (Sitting Bull, Buffalo Bill, etc.) tintypes that pop up now and then. If I recall, the one I saw was an Omaha player also. It was of a half-plate size.

Rob

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

I have long maintined that these items are modern fakes. I am secure enough in my opinion and confident in the reasons that form the basis for the opinion that it makes no difference to me that cover stories or experts disagree or that they are offered in this or that big auction.... As my mom would say when someone suggested things be done differently than she had planned, "Shows how dumb you are."

If someone asks me to write a formal article detailing the reasons for my conclusion I might. Other than that, how auction houses and collectors interpret and price these items is strictly their business. If collectors wish to dismiss my opinion, I can live with it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom Boblitt

to read anything you'd like to write on it David. Hopefully it comes from actually looking at one of them. I have always had my doubts about their validity (the printing of the proofs, that is). I agree with Jay that I think the actual images or negatives are from the period but some of the proofs just don't have that period look to them. I'm sure I'm not the only one would would benefit from your experience with them.......whether it's here or in Oldcardboard magazine or on your own website................

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

there is very little critical thinking at SCD. Most of their auction-related articles consist of parroting press releases. Also, does anyone else find their practice of writing a glowing article about a dealer or supply maker right next to a full page ad for that same company to be just a bit disconcerting?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

SCD's largest advertiser is Coaches Corner Auctions

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

First, I'm not trying to criticize anyone personally. From what I have seen the parties who disagree with me are making good faith efforts and offering honest opinions. Also, I don't run a boarding house and have not seen each and every of these proofs in person. I haven't even seen images of these SCD proofs. So if auction houses and collectors wish to say my opinions don't apply to their collection because theirs are real, so be it.

In a month or so, I will make an article or list or whatever giving my reasons for my opinion. I have things in the queue that come first (non-baseball). The argument reasons range from techincal to logical to general observations. There are a wide variety of these proofs: tintypes, cabinets, displaye pieces, plain paper photo, perhaps others for all I know. For two of the just mentioned, there are technical imposibilities. Meaning, it would have been impossible for a 19th century photo studio to create a physical quality that appears on two of these proofs types.

A while ago (less than a year), I was asked to examine in person some of these proofs for a big auction house. I examined the three under my trusty microscope (and could tell right now you how the photographic prints were physically made), and recommended that the auctionhouse not include them. The well known person at the auction house was of the same opinion before he sent them, but had promised the consignor he would get a second opinion. The proofs were not included in the auction ... This is why I was suprised to see the issue come up now.

Duly note that auction houses, or normal collectors for that matter, don't always follow with my authenticity-related advice, whether solicited or unsolicited. Some point blank disagree with it. I offer my authenticity views, what others do with it is their concern.

Some vintage baseball collectors might be loathe to take the baseball advice of some guy who collects fashion photos.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Lemke

To satisfy my curiosity I looked a little deeper into this and spoke with a principal at American Memorabilia, who filled me in on some of the efforts they expended to authenticate the photos/proofs. Michael Petersen, who provided the COA for the photos, is a professional photographer of 40 years' experience; he is not connected with the sports collectibles hobby. Unlike some who have expressed an opinion on authenticity without actually seeing these particular items, I did examine them at length at the National. Admittedly, I'm not a forensic photography expert, but I've had 25 years of daily professional experience in the card hobby and I saw nothing to indicate these photos did not originate in the 19th Century. As I said before, the market will ultimately decide their value when the hammer falls in a month.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Can we get a link to view these for ourselves? Thanks.

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

Bob, I wish to note that as I have not seen SCD proofs or pictures of them (as noted on more than one occasion), I am not making any claim about them. American Memorabilia can auction them and bidders can bid to their hearts' content for all I am concerned.

In fact if you go back to my first post on this subject (in a different thread, about SCD) my first sentence was: "I am specifically not commenting on these (SCD) mentioned examples as I have neither seen the article or seem images of the photos."

So bidders should bid millions and millions, let the market decide the authenticity! That's the way authenticity should be decided in a capitalistic society anyway. If the final bid is twice the minimum, they are definitely authentic. If the final bid is not so high, we can have a online poll or something, maybe a bathing suit contest.

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

"I am not an Old Judge expert, but I know quite a bit about photographs. I saw these cards displayed at the National. They do not seem to be albumen prints and the stock of the mount does not seem to be from the 19th century. Is Bob Lemke an expert on photographs? I would have thought that SCD would have done more research on them before featuring them on their front cover."

"I have long maintained that these items are modern fakes."


"Michael Petersen, who provided the COA for the photos, is a professional photographer of 40 years' experience"

"I've had 25 years of daily professional experience in the card hobby and I saw nothing to indicate these photos did not originate in the 19th Century."


So which is it?

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

I'm voting for the write in candidate of Jean Shrimpton. Two terms.

[Archive]

Posted By: Johs Evans

I am assuming these are the same “Old Judge Proofs” that I viewed several years back (also out of Vermont). I knew in two seconds that they were frauds. Not even close.

A “professional photographer” did the authentication. Sears or J.C. Penny? That is like your cards being authenticated by the guy selling wax packs in the 7-11 back in 1973. And the fact that he has been doing it for 40 years only raises issues of old age. Several times through the years I have been faced photographers telling us what is what on vintage photos. Every single time it was nothing but problems. A guy that takes photos means he is just that. Not an expert on vintage images.

For what it’s worth, a semi-retired Bob Lemke could care less about the advertising recevenue brought in by American Memorabilia. He just saw something he liked and reported on it. Bob erred in my opinion but his heart was in the right place. He wanted to show something to the collecting public he thought was cool.

They should be pulled immediately from that auction. That is what I would do. Lemke should also explore this further to set the SCD reader’s straight.

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

These "proofs" were shopped around at the Atlanta National. To start with, there were approximately 40 of them -- all of which had been glued to a poster board and inserted in a frame so that they were more difficult to examine through the glass. What caught my attention was that there were two catalogued California League players. The seller, upon hearing that they were definitely NOT period N172s, simply went to the next dealer's booth and proceeded to "spin" an even more fanciful tale as to their origin. I have absolutely no doubt that one or more dealers/buyers were taken in by this ruse.

It is also interesting to note that when they were presented to Alan Rosen, even he was suspicious and tendered an offer contingent upon them being authenticated by a grading company. They were flatly rejected by SGC.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom Boblitt

the heavyweights weigh in! Nice to see some of the movers and shakers in the hobby giving us their opinion on the items......I found it interesting that American Memorabilia was the recipient of these items. Not really known for their 19th century card and photo prowess. Other items that they had in the auction were primarily memorabilia items. Something of this nature, if real, would more appropriately wind up in a Robert Edward, Mastronet or Lelands auction.

Any time I've seen these, they just look 'overdone'. Kind of like the reprints that you see on ebay so often. Looks like they have been super-aged or extreme efforts taken to really make them look real. I didn't feel good about the mounts that they were on either. They just looked too crude for the time. Why mount them on cut mattboard type mounts (most I've seen) when the actual cabinets were on the standard 4x6 mounts. Along with that the 'proofs' widely believed to be authentic are usually on photographic studio standard mounts. Anyway, just found that wierd. I still maintain that the actual images must be vintage. Don't know though......

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

The market will surely determine the current value of these "things", but we all know that you cannot rely on memorabilia collectors' wishful thinking and an auction catalog description to determine authenticity...the Mastro grandfather clock full of baseballs should have taught us that.

There is a good chance, regardless of what any of us want to believe, that someone who is very intelligent, creative and very interested in vintage photography and possibly baseball history, yet also unscrupulous and deviant, thought it was worth the time and effort to create elaborate fakes, for profit and/or fun. Yes, it would have been very difficult - that might have been part of the appeal of the project.

The best way to prove whether or not these are real is by finding a single example that originated from the same Vermont source, that exhibits traits impossible to find in its 19th century counterpart - if such an example cannot be found (and I believe David says it can, in fact be found), then you still are left with items which may or may not be authentic. In any case, it will take a vintage photography expert to determine this, not a baseball card collector. Every time I buy a vintage baseball photograph from any auction house, I feel like I'm taking a crap-shoot ( I mixed a metaphor with a bodily function!)

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

Here is a short list of issues for consideration. Not complete

1) Some are on 'extra thick proof paper.' That in an of itself is bogus. The genuine Old Judges were made on albumen paper, which was a special kind of handmade and chemically treated paper needed by the photographers. Photography is a chemical process, and the photographer could not used typing or writing paper from the local store ... The crux is that all albumen paper was one and only one thickness: that of a gnat's hide. There was no such thing as 'extra plus alumen paper'-- never existed. I've always condidered the 'extra thick paper' proofs to automatically be a joke ... One thing I teach beginning 19th centurty photo collectors to do is to see if the photo print on the cabinet card is super thin-- as albumen paper was always super thin, while later paper was thicker. Thickness is quality even casual collectors can look for.

2) Many genuine Old Judge cards have the white in the image writing: 'Goodwinn & Co." or the player's name or whatever. As I'm sure many OJers have figured out, the Goodwin worker wrote on the glass negative and this writing appeared on the card as part of the actual photographic image ... This type of 'in the image wring' could not be done on a tintype. A tintype is a primitive and completely different process than with the Old Judge paper photos. There is no glass negative involved and you can't put writing into the image-- unless you're photographing a book or such. Technically impossible.

3) It makes no sense that Goodwin & Co. would make a proof tintype or any sort of tintype. The tintype process could only produce one photo. Making a tintype proof is on the order of the them hiring a painter to make a oil painting proof-- makes no sense.

4) The 'cabinets' I examined were not on albumen paper, which was the paper Goodwin would have used. Along with an number of microscopic qualities I won't divulge, the paper was too thick. Albumen paper was made by only a handful of factories in the entire world (I'm talking like 3 not 30), and were made to exacting specifications. Again, this photo paper was used for a delicate chemical process (named photography) and the factories had to be exact in the manufacture. 1800s albumen paper has a unique combination of qualities that can be identified.

5) The black mounts on the cabinets are not period. Those types of mounts may have been used in 1910 or 1920, but not in the 1880s. As with photographric paper, cabinet mounts were usually made by factories and there were commercial standards. Just like with an car, a photograph historian can judge the age of a photo by the color, shape, size and style. In 1930 could they have made an automobile that looked like a 1990s Mazda Miata? Perhaps, but they didn't. And I doubt that anyone here is going to buy into the argument that that Miata in the parking lot was made in 1930. Simularly, you're not going to convince an expert on early cabinets that those mounts are from the 1880s.

6) One of the proofs on the back had the stamp 'Proof.' To me, this is a joke. With these items, proof is a term we modern day collectors use retroactively. The photo might as well have a stamp that says 'hoochie mama' or 'Don't go there, girfriend'

7) Some guy was selling a framed behind glass "complete set of three" for a player. How could anyone on this earth say that this is a complete set at three? Unless he's making it up.

8) Some guy was selling a framed set of three "in the original glass and frame" This is stupid. Goodwin wouldn't frame sets of proofs behind glass. They didn't have a deal with Shop at Home to offer Chistmas display pieces.

9) One Goodwin proof had a sticker advertising Allen & Ginter cigarettes on back. Goodwin and Allen and Ginter were competeing companies! Please someone explain to me why Goodwin would make a cabinet card to promote their competitor's product?

10) That's the end of the shortlist. I'm now going to walk to the supermarket and buy some gum.

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

One on my list is an error. I got cottage cheese and lemonaide, not gum, at the supermarket.

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred

Is there an image or scan that can be viewed of these items? Were the cabinets present at the Cleveland National this year? I saw a table with 4 cabinets of the same player in different poses. I believe that the team was KC. Would these be the cabinets in question. I think they had a black mount on the backs.

Any info would be appreciated.

Thanks!

I stopped subscribing to SCD a while back. Before the internet it was a neat publication where I'd rarely get the good stuff from the ads because I'd get my copy a few days later (west coast) than everyone else. I still have a bunch of back issues but they're depressing because you see the prices of the material way back when and.......

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

The mentioned proof cabinets I have seen have distinctly Old Judge players and poses, and are on black mounts that don't resemble the regular N173 mounts (note that some N173 mounts can be black). Especially as they have no text on the mount, they are easy to differentiate from the regualar N173.

Genuine 1880s cabinet mounts were die-cut in a factory and have an almost cookie-cutter appearance. The proofs I saw in person were obviouisly not factory cut,

One of the neat things is that the typical Old Judge era cabinet mount was gilded. This means it was embelished in gold. They were gilded on the edges and often on the text on the front (the words are in gold)-- though the gold dust has often flaked off the edges. Not only is it nice for the eyes, but this gilding is a great convenience for today's collector. Even if you are no photo expert, if you find an Old Judge or Joseph Hall cabinet at a garage sale and Old Judge or Hall's name is guilded on the mount, that's a huge sign it's genuine ... Some might argue that it would as hard to forge a real looking Dog's Head mount as it would the photographic print placed on it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Correct me if I am wrong, but all we are argueing about now is when these "proofs" were produced. Obviously, the images are genuine. They are Old Judge images and, in most cases, they are not available elsewhere.
Let me expound a possible theory on the genesis of these items. I believe they all are sourced from some fellow in Vermont who was also the source of all the glass plate negatives. Lets say that the only original material he, or his family, had were these negatives. Maybe he had alot of these, alot more than the 44 or so in the discovery of about ten years ago. Lets also say that he liked the images but, as is the case with glass plate negatives, they don't by themselves display well. So somewhere along the line someone decided to print out some images for display. This could have been done in 1890 or 1910 or 1940, who knows, but they were printed from these glass plate negatives. The intent was not to deceive, the intent may have been to just create a means to easily view the images. It was only within the last ten years or so when these images took on serious value that someone in this family decided to market these "proofs". Since Terry Knouse was one of the first people I saw selling these (I purchased a framed piece from him about six or seven years ago) I would love to hear if he can add anything to the discussion.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

If I owned any of these, I would certainly go with that.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Scott---If you didn't own these what would you go with? Tough to explain how the images could not be genuine when they are unknown elsewhere.

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

While I don't agree many points of Jay's theory, I won't argue with owners who say their have some value simply as display pieces. If they were printed later from the original negatives and depict unknown players or poses, I could see how that would be cool for an OJ collector. The images on these are crystal clear and real photo. I don't collect OJs, but if they came out with a modern limited edition 11x14" of King Kelly or Ed Delajant suitable for framing on my wall I would place a bid.

I have no problem with people buying and selling these items if they they described accurately ... Though a practical value problem is that, if the negatives still are around, there are no limits on how many will be made in the future.

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

At the British Musem in London, experts determined that a series of ancient Greek statues on display were complete fakes. They were forged by the ancient Romans!

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom Boblitt

with Jay about the images.......they are clearly real images that have been around since the period. I would also subscribe to his theory that someone printed them--maybe the original owners--for display purposes. When someone told them they could get $5K apiece for them, they became 'proofs' from the period. Or....they could have been made to deceive.

Jay.....I've seen some of the negatives before and I'm sure you have some.....have you seen the negatives from the pieces where no known N172/N173 pose is known to exist? I find that odd.....didn't you say that for some of the 'proofs' there is no known N172/N173? The negatives I've seen were in some type of wooden frame that looked as though it was made for them expressly (at a later time).

They are cool as a display piece though--regardless of the value.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Tom--For example, of the four Flynn "proofs" being auctioned off three are poses not known on any Old Judge card. You don't just fabricate these out of thin air. They had to be printed from original negatives. When? Who knows.
As a side note, David take your medicine. Your typing is getting very erratic.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

as you pointed out, the question is "when were they printed?". When I made the statement "if I owned some of them..." I simply meant that if I were "sitting on the fence", it would be more pleasant to assume the best.

I had an opportunity to pick some up three years ago at reasonable prices and passed because I felt that they were printed in the last 20 years by someone who put a lot of effort into making them look vintage, by reproducing vintage photography techniques. Perhaps I blew an opportunity of a lifetime.

Some of the points David made did not require that you actually hold the item and examine it. On the other hand, with such thoroughly researched work as this person has done, only someone who is a vintage photography expert could make a more certain determination as to age, certainly a card collector would not be able to do it alone - we have to rely on the experts and circumstantial evidence.

I think that by combining David's vintage photography expertise and the Old Judge expertise that you have, that it would be simple to come up with an answer. I bet you two could sit down together with a pile of these things and give us all what we are looking for - if not, then I doubt anyone could.

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

Actually, Jay, I've been bi-polar ("manic deprresive") since I was a lad, but I take my lithium nightly, so any bad typing is pure incompetence.

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

As this espisode may have scared some folks, the following are a few useful notes for collectors and potential collectors of 19th century cabinets and similar mounted photos.

1) These 'proof' cabinets are the exception, as the makers, apparently, had access to the original negatives. Original 19th century baseball negatves are rare-- and notice that these fakes are all for Old Judge subjects. The reason these fooled many people is because the images are so clear. This clarity will rarely exist on other examples.

2) The most common forgery is a computer print fake. Either the whole thing can be a computer print or just the image can be a computer print. In cases (non-baseball), the forger made a computer print of the paper photo part (invariably a famous subject) and pasted it to a genuine mount ... These fakes are easy to identify, as the image is made up of a tiny patter on color dots under a magnifying glass. Genuine photos have no ink pattern, as there is no ink and printing press involved.

3) Many baseball photos are misrepresented-- ala it really isn't Babe Ruth or a baseball player or the photo is not as old as they say. Here, good observation or asking for anothers' opinion will solve. As the age itself of a photo is directly related to its value, it's not a bad idea to get a second opinion as to whether the photo is really from the 1860s or 70s ... Though not wishing to make a plug, my baseball photo guide has detailed listings on how to date a mount by it's color and design (qualities you can observe even when the image is online) and the how to date the uniform the player is wearing (again, something observable even if you don't have the photo in person) ... For example, Rob asked about the age of his tintype. I said 1880s-90s. Why? Because the player was hold a type of ring bat (rings on barrell) that was made in 1880s-90s.

4) Beyond authenticity, the value of baseball photos is greatly effected by the style, size and type. For example, certain styles of 19th century photos are rare and/or unusually visually pleasing and will gain a big premium in price. Certain photographers, i.e. Horner or Joseph Hall, will give a huge boost in price. Even something as simple as an usnual color mount can give boost. Also, some players are much harder to find in photo form than others. Babe Ruth is relatively common, but Addie Joss or Ed Delahanty are rare ... Personal experience and observation will help the collector see what is unusual, along with asking the opinion of the more experienced ... I don't actively buy baseball photos, other than a few here and there if the price is right, so potential bidders should not fear to ask me as I might be bidding competition.

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

The most common potential bidder questions are on the order of "Does this look okay and is this a reasonable price?" ... I'm happy to answer these types of questions, but have to be asked ... If bidders don't ask me or wait until until after the auction, there's nothing I can do about that.

[Archive]

Posted By: nickinvegas

I have personally examined the 6 OJ proofs(american memorabilia auction) for several hours and these my conclusions:

1) The photographs are albumen. I say that because they are the proper gauge for albumen of this period, They smell like Albumen, Under the microscope they look like albumen should.

2) The wear on the actual photo is what it should be. While they were obviously not left out in the sun or light for the last 100+ years; each one has a great patina that would be difficult to fake.

3)The player, team, uniform all match the time period the proofs would have been created.

There are more reasons, I could go on. But, my limited attention span has reared it's ugly head again. So I will end in saying, I believe these to be nothing short of stunning. The value of these rare items can not be stated, the people will decide.

After the sale if there is information that contradicts the listing, every penny will be refunded! And Credit Cards are accepted.

Regards,
Nick Martinez
American Memorabilia Auctions

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred

Nick,

Were these 4 proofs/cabinets/photos at the National? Was there a team listed with the players name? If possible can you please provide a link to the scans of the items for viewing.

Thanks!

[Archive]

Posted By: nickinvegas

Yes, they were the same ones Bob Lemke mentioned in SCD(they were at the National.)

http://www.americanmemorabilia.com/Auctions.asp?auccat=Baseball&

Thanks,
Nick

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

Nick, just remember that I'm the type of guy who says, "I told you so." Story has it that these may be the same proofs I examined for MastroNet (hint: patina and varnish aren't the same thing). People don't always follow my formal advice on the authenticity of photos, but down the road these people invariably realize my knowledge and insight on the subject (not to suggest I'm not ignorant about a million other subjects, including how to set the date on my new watch, use cling wrap and cut the dog's toenails). No matter how you or SCD or the auction house argue your position now, I promise you that a year or two down the road that you will shake your head that you didn't take my opinion and advice more seriously.

[Archive]

Posted By: nickinvegas

David,
I can live with an I told you so and I am not above saying what a dope I am.

In this case, I don't feel that I am wrong. Your hints have not helped me.There is no "Varnish" on the item. Having spent much of my youth working with my Dad on wood. Varnish is something I can usually recognize. In your other post you mentioned "tin types". These are not Tin Types. I am usually pretty good at hints, but not in this case.

As far as your opinion goes, I fully respect it.You have proven yourself again and again. That is why I called you and asked your opinion. That is why I offered to Fed Ex the proofs to you, which you refused. I hope you can understand that I can't pull an auction based on one persons opinion that has not even examined them.

I am looking forward to the start of your formal authentication service, I will give you some business. In the meantime I will always strive to get the best available authentication of items; and that is what I have done in this case.

The only thing I don't understand is, why I have shown this to other experts and they seem to agree with my opinion. I have taken great care in examining them(and this ain't my first rodeo) and I don't smell a rat. I have also read litature(ie. Albumen.com) and I do not see the light.

As far as Henry's nails go. I would suggest cutting just a tiny bit above the quick(red part), getting closer and closer everytime will cause the quick to go further up each time. This will make it so he won't need to get his nails cut as often.

Regards,
Nick

[Archive]

Posted By: The other One (Julie)

but if Nick and David are talking about the same proofs--David, did you see the scans on the A.H. auction page? ...and David has examined them in person (NOT on the internet), I cannot imagine him being wrong. A fairly high-powered microscope should settle the question once and for all (he advised me buy a 100X one--it has lenses of 100, 80, 40 and 10X).

Obviously, if the negatives are period and the prints are not, there is some sort of peculiar scenerio involved...

As for cutting canine or feline toenails, it is the most harrowing experience a vet tech has...and that includes assisting in surgery.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

I'm not sure if it adds anything to this discussion but I have a framed piece with exactly these same four images of Flynn on one piece of black cardboard. My guess is that the four pieces in question were once in a similar state and were removed from the frame and cut into individual "proofs". I can say with certainty that these photos are different than the photos in N173s. Not being a photographic expert I don't know what the differences mean but there definitely are differences. Having said that, my question would be that if these are genuine proofs why make two sets of the same proofs? My guess is that there are more than two sets also. Flynn and Doran seem to be the most common subjects and I know there are more than two copies of certain Doran poses.

[Archive]

Posted By: The other One (Julie)

is to print the picture by the same porocess, on the same medium.

[Archive]

Posted By: nickinvegas

Just to clarify the items we are talking about are:

-not being auctioned by "American Heritage" it's American Memorabilia.

-Have been examined by me under a microscope and are as advertised.

-David has not personally examined the items.

Nick

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh Evans

Nick in Vegas:

First, I viewed these proofs up close and personal and they were not even close to being real. They are simply frauds. They are also a known commodity within our tiny industry having bounced around for over a decade, and as far as I know every major auctioneer has rejected them. Therefore, any responsible individual should regard them as questionable and should thereby only be sold with that caveat or not at all as a best case scenario.

Therefore, it is not just David but many others in our hobby that are saying these are no good. If you think as a fellow auctioneer I am being subjective in this matter then realize I passed on these several years ago when I had the opportunity to obtain them and price was not an issue. If you also know me, I am more committed to the industry I have made my life in and doing what is right for the stuff is more important to me than getting one more piece or collection or one more dollar. I hope my actions through the years have proven this out.

As for the fact that these will be refundable based on “proving” they are bad that is naïve. First of all, it should be guilty until proven innocent with regard to authenticity. Besides, will the moneys be put into escrow to protect those that come back ten years from now with hats (stamped "Proof"?) in hand?

This may be off topic but I feel it is relevant when you make a statement regarding refunds. Victor Moreno and American Memorabilia do not have the greatest track record. Do you know that they paid an unscrupulous employee of mine (Katie O’Brien) to steal our mailing list? Do you know we caught them red handed and a New York judge literally stopped their first auction from happening and they had to provide a public apology?

By the way, we spent $80,000 to make an example of these guys. This was about principal more than anything else.

Do I have an axe to grind here? Absolutely. But am I correct. I’ll leave that up to you and this forum.

[Archive]

Posted By: The Other One (Julie)

cause I'm not bidding on them!

They are WONDERFUL pictures, though. So clear!

[Archive]

Posted By: Elliot

I'm not sure why there is so much confusion about these items. Josh is correct in that these have been bouncing around the industry for a little while and I'm quite sure that David has examined these in person. David has no axe to grind and is quite knowledgeable with regards to photographs of this genre. He has been quite vocal in his opinion that these are not original "proofs" from the time period that is claimed.

Josh Evans (who admittedly has an axe to grind with the auctioneers) has also weighed in on the matter and has quite clearly agreed with David. I know of at least two other people who have handled these items in the past and both have no doubt that they are not as claimed by American Memorabilia. They have this opinion, despite the obvious financial incentive they would have had when they were in their possession to proclaim them to be real "proofs".

I think that it should be obvious to everybody that these are not "proofs" from the time period claimed. They are, however, an interesting collectible, and would certainly have some value. Given the fact that major auction houses have refused to market these items as "original", it should be clear that American Memorabilia would, in the least, be best served to have the pieces re-examined and reconsider their opinion regarding their authenticity, or auction them as a later generation photograph.

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

Everyone makes mistakes-- whether it's MastroNet, Sotheby's, Joe Blow on eBay or me. There's no shame in realizing you made a boo boo, even a dumb one, and correcting the description or pulling the lot. In fact, it tends to be a good sign when a seller does this, if not too often.

[Archive]

Posted By: ramram

As I mentioned earlier, I had a chance to view a half plate tintype a few years ago that I believe carry a connection with these pieces. As I recall, I believe it was also an Omaha player. Admittedly, I've got a great deal of experience with hard images (tintypes, ambrotypes, dags) from the 1850-1860's period but not as much with later periods. The tintype had just about disappeared by the early 1880's and the process may have changed somewhat but the one I viewed did not appear to be "right" in my opinion. I also recall bidding on a couple of similar tintype images, prior to this time, but luckily did was not the winning bidder.

Furthermore, I have gone back in some of my old HCA (Historical Collectible Auctions) catalogs and pulled up some other interesting items for what it is worth. In their June 2002 auction there is a "Goodwin tintype of Omaha Baseball Player Sliding. Half plate tintype of baseball player...This tintype is marked in negative "Burns L.F. Omaha W.A." and "Copyright 1888 Goodwin & Co."". The next lot was "P H Mayo & Bro. Photo of Omaha Baseball Player. Photograph on heavy cardboard of baseball player in uniform leaning on bat. This cabinet card sized photograph has written in negative "P.H. Mayo & Brother Tobacco Co." at top and "Doran T.B. Omaha W.A." at bottom and "Copyright 1888 Goodwin & Co." at right corner". Also, in the May 1998 catalog there is a single framed set of photos described as "Baseball Photo Sequence. Very interesting framed display of five silver print photos [not sure if the auction company was accurate on calling them silver prints or not but this could be important], each 4-1/2" x 6", depicting a late 19th century baseball player in a sequence of batting, catching, and fielding a ball. The man is IDed in negative as Doran T.B. Omaha W.A. and photos are marked Copyright 1888 by Goodwin & Co. There is a little bit of staining around edges.... Overall 26" x 8-1/2" in period frame."

Rob

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Well, it's easy to see why American Memorabilia would have an extremely difficult time pulling these lots. When you look at the web site the auction is listed as the Old Judge Auction with a picture of one of the Flynn images on the front.

[Archive]

Posted By: The Other One (Julie)

in 1888...

[Archive]

Posted By: david

i dont think anyone has mentioned this but the one thing that bothers me about these images is the writing of the goodwin copywrite and the lettering in the name and team. something doesnt seem right with them to me