Old Judge Proofs?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

David--There is nothing wrong with the writing

[Archive]

Posted By: nickinvegas

Josh,
What you mentioned in regards to wrongs done in the past by American Memorabilia are indeed in the past. If all of that happen before their first auction, that was nearly ten years ago(I have heard different verisons of your acusations, some with you on the receiveing end.)I am always cautious in sliging mud, I tend to get some on me! I have done business with them in recent years and I have been very satisfied. I was cautious in my decision to join their team. I can tell you this, If I say something will be done it will be done. I am putting my name and experience in the hobby as a partner with American Memorabilia.I feel if you look into any ones hobby past you will find some questionable decisions, me icluded. The difference is I have always gone out of my way to make things right, and that is what I will do at American Memorabilia. Just as you do with your successfull business.

They say that you can tell alot about a person by their enemies, If Victor has attracted you as an enemy it is a good sign. Your operation is one of the best in the business; And if you are at all concerned about American Memorabilia it is indeed a good sign.

In regards to pulling the auction, I have yet to hear anything that gives me difinative proof of a problem with the items. All I hear is lore,"this person saw that, and this person did that...
I will bring the proofs with me to the fort washington show, if any one wants to inspect them, and tell me the error of my ways I am open to that.

I am not above saying I am wrong and loosing revenue. Like David said it is a good sign if an auction house protects it's customers. I just need a factual reason and I have yet to hear it.

Warmest Regards,
Nick Martinez
American Memorabila

[Archive]

Posted By: Rich Klein

I'm glad to see that these are bringing so much scrutiny. My suggestion is that someone with NO axe to grind for EITHER side take a good hard look and examination of these items.

Someone who has experience with 19th century materials and can date the materials totally.

I suspect that many authenticators would love a "free" trip to Vegas and if I were American with this much discussion on the subject, I'd offer to foot the bill to get someone agreeable to all sides out to Vegas to do a forensic exam.

Just an idea from someone who spends quite a bit of his time trying to figure out the fun world of 75 new products in baseball each

Regards
Rich

[Archive]

Posted By: The Other One (Julie)

.........

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

First, I wish to note that I only post as the registered hankron with Veruschka transiguration avitar. Not to suggest that there was anything wrong with the other david's posts, just clarifying that I don't post in under my name.

Second, I was recently informed by off board source that the AM cabinets are the same ones I examined several monthes ago. I did scientific examination on the paper and mount and have stated that these the photos I examined were not proofs and were not original. Neither the photographic paper (which was NOT albumen!) nor the mount was vintage. I examined them in person at the request of MastroNet. The expert at MastroNet, who is someone who is well known and widely respected, came to an independant opinion that these were fakes.

It blows my mind that there is controversy and debates about the authenticity of these items. It really does.

I re-issued a guide on baseball photos that includes a lengthy and illustrated guide on the authentication of 19th century albumen prints. It includes how to measure the paper, examine paper fibers under the microscope, look for unique aging charectoristic and paper qualities that cannot be duplicated. It's no surprise to me that the people who are claiming these items are real have not purchased copy.

I have no ax to grind. I have liked Nick for along time, and no one pays me any money for what I do. I don't have a job with any auction house or magazine or grader. I don't even collect baseball photos or cards anymore! ... I do, however, feel I know more than anybody about the authenticity of baseball photos. Along with personal observation, I use a variety of scientific equipment and tests. This is why I find it rather insulting when (with due respect to Rich) someone at Beckett says we should find someone who without ax to grind and with scientific knowledge should examine the photo.

If Sotheby's and Chistie's heard that both MastroNet and Leland's considered photos to be fake, Sotheby's and Christie's would not accept them for auction. So why should a different auction house's level of acceptance be so different?

[Archive]

Posted By: Rich Klein

I did not mean to insult you in any way for I certainly respect what you do.

I was just trying to get American to pony up and get someone in with acceptibility to all sides to make a final determination. Nothing more, nothing less. Sorry, did not mean to insult you in any way

I repeat that getting someone in who is acceptable to EVERYONE is what I meant --

Regards
Rich

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

The funny thing about this whole situation is that Nick and Bob L. are nice folks, and have also been kind to me. Some with you, Rich ... You wish these types of debates were with people you didn't like so much!

So, beyond my steadfast and vocal refusal to say these items are authentic, I don't mean to hurt anyone's feelings, and understand that this is a difficult situation for those on the other side of the fence.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Weisner

Hi all,
I haven't weighed in on this debate, because Old Judge's are not my forte,but I would be hard pressed to disagree with David anaylasis. We don't need someone who is "acceptable" to both parties, we need someone who knows what there talking about. If David has viewed these"proofs" and determined that they are not of period, and Mastro and other auction houses feel the same, than What is the debate? I have nothing against Nick, No Axe to grind against American, but feel that David has proven his expertise over time and his consistency. Personally I wish the items were legit, because I think they would look great framed on the wall, but I doubt I could outbid Jay Miller to own any. Be well to all Brian


PS This has been the most civil debate I have seen on this board in some time, which proves we are all friends seeking the truth instead of enemies seeking to destroy.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Nick--I'll be down at the Ft Washington show next weekend and I'll bring along my framed Flynn "proofs" to compare them to these. Unfortunately, my guess is that they are the same animal (no need for two sets of proofs). I'm hoping that TIK will take back the framed piece he sold me since, based on David's inspection of the items, I believe they are not period.

[Archive]

Posted By: petecld

This could be a good warning sign to us buyers:

Nick Martinez of American Memorabilia said:
"In regards to pulling the auction, I have yet to hear anything that gives me definitive proof of a problem with the items. All I hear is lore,"this person saw that, and this person did that... "

and

"... Like David said it is a good sign if an auction house protects it's customers. I just need a factual reason and I have yet to hear it."

Is this approach just for these lots or is it a overall philosophy of American Memorabilia to call a lot whatever they want to and only AFTER someone else points out they are wrong will they change a description or pull an item? Wouldn't (shouldn't) a reputable auction house do the research BEFORE offering an item?

To change his mind Mr. Martinez said he needs "a factual reason" against these prints and he specifically says that "...lore,"this person saw that, and this person did that..." isn't good enough. Well what "proof" does American Memorabilia have that they are legitimate, period "proofs" (or even prints) other then the "lore" of the consignor who has a financial interest? I have yet to hear it.

This is what they call protecting their customers?

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

We are lucky to have a 19th century photography expert available to us, though I'm surprised he hangs around considering the response he gets any time he says something that someone doesn't want to hear.

I crossed over to photographs a few years ago, but pestered the hell out of David as I did so and luckily for me he was willing to answer my questions and give advice. It's got to be tough for some of you, attempting to venture out into areas outside of baseball cards, and unwilling to accept advice along the way. It's also apparent that the almighty $ is responsible for this in most cases.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I think Nick will do the right thing in the end as he has always done in the past. With that being said I do believe that an auction house has the responsibility to gaurantee something "is what it is" with substantial proof to warrant what they claim. If they don't have substantial proof then that also should be in the description of the item. Then the buyer can make their own decision.....just my 1 cent.....later

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Lemke

With due respect to those auction houses which in the past refused to handle the Flynn photos in question (every Old Judge related photo, regardless of its original intent, has become a de facto "proof" in the hobby's estimation), I spoke at length with one of the hobby's most respected auction principals (I did not seek his permission, so won't name him here) who was instrumental in bringing the original Vermont trove of OJ-related materials from the attic to the hobby market. He told me that representative samples were sent to, and authenticated by, the firm of photography experts who were prosecution expert witnesses at the O.J. Simpson trial then on-going. The Flynn photos, like the grouping held by Jay Miller were mounted in a frame from which they have since wvidenly been extricated. It is evident the cardboard on which these were mounted is not contemporary with the 1880s, but I stand by my inexpert opinion that the photos themselves ARE 19th Century production. A question: If the Flynn pictures are latter-day reproductions, where are the glass-plate negatives? They don't appear to have been part of the Vermont find, or if they were, they have been squirreled away since the dispersal. It is great that American Memorabilia is going to have these available for inspection at Ft. Washington. I hope all the experts will avail themselves of the opportunity and report back here what they see.

[Archive]

Posted By: ramram

OK, I'll say what everybody is thinking - so these were the "experts" in the Simpson trial! Where did that road lead to? I'm not trying to make comment on the "OJ's" (excuse the pun)but I don't think anybody should hang their hat on anything associated with that "farce"...oops...I meant "trial".

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

The irony for me is that I sold almost all of my baseball photos and, for over a year, my research has almost been exclusively on modern fashion industry photos. Yet the questions I always get are about Ty Cobb, Addie Joss and Yogi Berra, and never whether that Kate Moss on eBay is legitimate. It is sincere my hope that, next time, the big auction house offers some bad Jean Shrimpton or Gia Carangi so I can argue about those instead.


Henry 2 minutes ago, toenails clipped

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Bob--First,I don't understand the significance of your questioning where the glass plate negatives are if these are not period prints. No one is saying that these prints were made yesterday, or last year, or ten years ago. What people are saying is that these photos were made some time after the late 1880s. Could have been 1895, could have been 1910. Regardless, why would one assume that the negatives would still have to be around. They are quite fragile and could have been destroyed or simply thrown away long ago.

Second, why would you assume that your self described "unexpert" opinion is somehow correct when David's expert opinion is directly opposite it? I own this piece of s**t and I would love for it to be 100% authentic but I am convinced that David is correct. BTW, did you ever get the name of the expert that Rob used or find out his experience with albumen photos? As I have stated previously, these photos look nothing like the photos on N173s. If they were albumen photos made in the late 1880s why wouldn't they look the same?

[Archive]

Posted By: The other One (Julie Vognar)

were not period........yurg...

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Julie--I realize that and I'm sure Bob does too. That's not what we are talking about.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Lemke

the person who authenticated the material from the Vermont find is a former chief of the FBI forensic photography (or it photography forensics) lab. Again, since I have not sought permission to use his name, I won't.

[Archive]

Posted By: petecld

Ok, so we have an "expert" source of information that can't or won't be named.

Isn't that how the National Enquirer operates? Doesn't say a lot for the hobby does it?

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

I made an earlier list of problems, but one that is straightforeward is that it would have been practically impossible for an 1880s photographer to make a tintype that includes Old Judge style writing in the image. The primitive tintype process made this impossible. I will bet you that most avid non-sport tintype collectors on a 50 dollar a week collecting budget know this. I don't care whether they they work for the FBI or the Louvre, anyone who argues that that type of writing on a tintype is authentic is no expert.

[Archive]

Posted By: petecld

Is the writing "on" the prints?

There is no "white" ink so the writing had to be somehow tied into the negatives. Since the writing can be found on Old Judge images of various sizes - N172s and N173s - I thought the writing was on the negatives and when prints were made it appears reversed out when prints were made?

David, is that possible?

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

Pete, the white writing on the N172 & N173s is legitimate and original. The Goodwin photographer wrote on the glass negatives and used the negatives to make the paper photos for the cards. The writing on the negative would in the image.

The problem is that you can't do that with a tintype. A tintype is a totally different photographic process (for starters, there is no glass negative involved) and the photographer couldn't include writing on the final tintype.

The tintype is a primitive process-- the same kind used to make the first photo in 1839--, and it had limits what it could do in the image. It's kind of like comparing a 1996 computer animation program and a 2004 animation program. You can animate with both, but the 2004 software can produce certain special effects that didn't exist with the 1996 software.

***

A second theory about the Old Judge tintypes that I suspect has been thought of is that the tintypes are photographs of actual cabinet cards. In, say 1890, some guy took a photo of a N173 he had and made a tintype. At first this might explain why there could be writing in these Old Judge tintypes-- because it's a photograph of the writing. This, however, is also not possible.

Most collectors of tintypes know that there are two big qualites about a tintype: that the photo is made of of a sheet of metal, and that the images are backwards. Left is right and right is left. Just like looking in a mirror. Again, the tintype process was old and, except in rarest sistuations, couldn't produce a foreward image. This means that if someone in 1890 made a tintype of his N173 cabinet, everthing would be backwards in the tintype's image, including the writing.

[Archive]

Posted By: ramram

Second generation tintypes also have a loss of focus and, in just about every case, the tintype image is taken from just far enough away to see the entire subject (in this case a cabinet card). That means you distinctly see the edges of the cabinet card within the tintype image. As David mentioned, the image is also reversed and it is also a unique one-of-a-kind image.

Rob M.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay MIller

Pete and David--I think we are getting away from the issue at hand. First, David we are not talking about tin types. We are talking about the images that are in American Memorabilias auction, the ones Kevin Struss showed you. There may be a problem with the writing on some tin types but there is no problem with the writing in the images that American Memorabilia has. Pete, you are correct. The player's name, team and position, and the Goodwin copyright were written on to the glass plate negative and when the photo was made from the negative they showed up on the picture. There is nothing wrong with the writing on the American Memorabilia pieces. These pieces were made from authentic period glass plate negatives. Again, the only question is when they were made. David says after the 1880s and I agree with him.

Bob--I talked to Rob again last night and he said that the FBI photo expert that he used DID NOT examine these multiple player images. He examined some images that came from the same source that were of a different size and not mounted on cardboard. In other words, he did not authenticate what David saw or what American Memorabilia is auctioning off. Thus, it is possible that what Rob had was period and what David saw was not period and there is no conflict amongst authenticators. Pete, there is no mystery authenticator. Bob just didn't want to say who he had spoken to but I do know who it is which is where I am getting the above info. I hope this clears things up a little.

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

It would be a whole lot quieter if everyone at least pretended to agreed with me. Just pretending's fine. Then I'd shut up. But each time I promise to myself to drop the issue, someone has to post that Johnny Cochrane or Jack Lalanne thinks my theories are goofy.

As my wife says, "If I say I agree with you, will be you be quiet?"

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

............

It's not AGREEING with you, David, it's respecting your judgement, since none of us can look at the things with a microscope.

[Archive]

Posted By: What if?

What if the FBI expert and our board expert disagreed on the proofs? Whose expertise should take precedence? Maybe I like our board expert and would then question the qualification of the FBI expert. Just because the person is an FBI expert doesn't make them infallible.

To be honest with you I like the darn things. Who ever gets them will more than likely be happy with them.

I've been following the thread and I'm still a bit confused of the overall issue because tin types and other stuff gets mentioned. Can someone please just list the main discrepancy with these possible proofs?

[Archive]

Posted By: David Smith

the hub bub is about whether these "proofs" are authentic or not. Some say they are and some say they are not.

Those who argue they are not say they have been around for about 10 years and that most major auction houses have looked at them and not accepted them. The argument goes that these "proofs" were made from original 1880's glass negatives of players but at a later time and NOT by Goodwin and Co.

So, the photographic images are authentic to the time period but the photos and the cabinet card backings were not made then. So, if this is correct, then these are fantasy cards and not proofs.

If this is true, then the auction company should either A) pull the cards from the auction or B) make 100% sure these are the real deal and if not, then at least give a disclaimer to the fact.

As far as the tin type goes, that is a totally different subject but related in that it, too, might have been reproduced at a later time using the old, original glass negatives.

I think that is what this is all about...

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

...

[Archive]

Posted By: Anthony

FWIW they were at the Hollywood Park show tonite. If you're in the area take a look and draw your own conclusions.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ambo

Greetings,
I enjoy reading this forum.
I do not collect Baseball items but like to look at them.
I have practiced the Wet Plate Process of Photography for about six years and you may see some samples of my work by looking under the seller AMBRO on e-bay and looking at my "Me" page.
I can add the following facts on some of the comments about this Process in this thread.

"This type of 'in the image writting' 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".

A Paper Photograph Printed with the negative reversed(thus the letters would appear reversed in the print) could be used to produce a Tintype copy with the writting in the proper Direction,a Tintypist of the day(or today!) would know this was required of a copy print.

"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."

With a multi lens camera it was possiable to produce many similar images at once, of course the more images the smaller the size of each image.


"The tintype is a primitive process-- the same kind used to make the first
photo in 1839."

The Daguerrotype,that was introduced to America in 1839 is an image on a Copper plate with a thin coating of Silver that is fumed by various chemicals and developed by Mercury Vapors. The Wet Plate Process from which Ambrotypes(Glass Plates) and Tintypes(Iron Plates) were made is completly different.
It uses Silver Nitrate in solution in conjuction with Salted Collodion to produce a light sensitive surface.

"Second generation tintypes also have a loss of focus"
A poorly executed copy will be out of focus,however with a very sharp lens(and they had some fine ones!) it was easy to make a copy image that is every bit as sharp as the original,so much so that it can be hard to tell each of them apart.It was also possiable to leave out all traces of the edges of the Image being copied.
I would add that there has been a resurgence of the Wet Plate Process in the last 10 years,from less than twenty persons worldwide doing the old process to many hundreds today. So it goes without saying that the number of Fake Ambrotypes and Tintypes is going to increase in the future.
Hope that info helps.
Tim Parson
Ambrotypist

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

They describe the differences between Dags, tintypes, ambrotypes, etc., various plate sizes, and also the processes used to create the Old Judge and other baseball cards that we are discussing here.

Very good reading and I think a necessity for anyone who has your interests, especially since you are interested in baseball and some of his books relate the photographic processes to that subject.

It might also give you a better idea, not just of the technical possibility of these images having been created in the 1800's, but also the actual "likelihood".

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

After a 80 something post thread, I think I need a vacation.

I stand by my opinion on the autheniciy, but am going to drop the issue. If collectors wish to beleive that Goodwin & Co was making Old Judge tintypes as proofs or to insert into packs of smokes, that's fine. If a collector who has considered the arguments wishes to purchase one of these proof cabinets, it's their money to spend. I have seen the proofs in person and won't argue that they will make pretty display pieces.

I know most of the people on the other side of the argument-- Nick, Bob Lemke and I think I know who is the 'FBI-Guy'-- and they are honorable people who I respect. And that's as good a note as any to end my posting on the subject.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Lemke

Please allow it to sink in that the items being discussed are NOT tintypes. They are photographic prints. For those new to the thread, the discussion is whether the prints were made within hours, days or months of the original glass-plate negative, or years or decades later.
Those who have access to a Robert Edward/Mastro auction catalog for the March, 2001, sale, might wish to refer to Lot 138 where a virtually identical item of a different player from the same "find" as the Flynn was offered. That lot included a stamped, dated envelope used to send the photo from "Wendel Photographic Art Studios" of NYC to the pictured player, Thomas Doran of Omaha. While it is not specified in the auction description nor pictured, I am told by the catalger the envelope was dated proximate to the original issue period for the Old Judge cards, i.e., circa 1888. (The lot sold for $3,537.)

[Archive]

Posted By: John Freeman

I looked at the card that was offered by Robert Edward auctions in March of 2001. I have never physically held the item in the auction, but it is not "virtually identical" to the cabinets that American Memorabilia has. First the one in the Robert Edward auciton has advertising in the photo reading "PH Mayo & Brother Tobacco Co." Also the mount that it is on is much different than cards in the American Memorablia auction. Just because the photo contains "Goodwin & Co." advertising does not make them "virtually identical." There are hundreds of generic cabinets out there that made use of Goodwin and Company photos.

Lastly, even if the American Memorabilia cards are genuine, I highly doubt that these are proofs. First, they seem to be cut from an uncut sheet of four pieces. Why would proofs need to be mounted on generic cardboard? It would make them difficult to handle. Second, another poster said that he has the exact same four cards in uncut form. Proofs are usually not made in duplicate form. Obviously, these cards are not unique, as reported.

I would suggest that the cards be taken to a photography expert at a museum and see if they are albumen prints or not.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

which will set you back $80. And you can look at all your early cards and photos and see if they're period or not.
And be delighted that almost all, if not all, of them are!

You're looking for fibres, probably a crackled surface, and NO DOTS in an albumen photo. The PRINT, not the negative...

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Bob--To echo what John has said the item from the Robert Edwards auction is not the same as the American Memorabilia lots. Second, a photographic expert already examined the American Memorabilia lots and said they are not period. That should be the end of the story. The RE Auction card could not have been from the Vermont find. It was supposedly mailed to Nebraska. The other material came out of a basement in Vermont.

BTW, I'm not aware of any photographic expert examining the lot in the RE Auction. Would be interested to see what the result was there. I always thought that it was interesting that this lot was associated with a Wendel Photographic Art Studio envelope. N173s were mailed out in Goodwin & Co. envelopes. I have a few that came from a find of N173s about 7 years ago. Also would have liked to see an expert verify that the postmark on the envelope was in fact put on in 1888.

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

I've talked to Julie a good number of times and I've long known that Julie is no dummy and does her homework. I also know she owns her own super power microscope that she was used to examine her MastroNet winnings.

The albumen process was used to make almost all 19th century paper baseball photograhs, from the 1869 Cincinnati Reds trade card to Old Judges to Four Base Hits to that 1870 CDV of a kid holding a baseball. One of the keys (I said one) to authenticating 19th century albumen photographs is by examining the photographic image under a strong microscope (prefer 100x power or more, but 50x may do. I think Julie has a 600x power microscope!). Under a microscope, you can see the paper fibers in the albumen image. Looks like hay or little worms ... If you put your N173 or N172 under the microscope, you will be able to see the paper fibers.

This may seem dumb and obvious at first, but with 99.9 percent of 20th century photographs-- from that original 1910 Ty Cobb to the Kodak snapshot of you at 5-- you cannot see paper fibers, even under highest magnification. This is because most 20th century paper photographs put a thin clear substance (for example, the gelatin in gelatin-silver photos) on the photograhic paper. This substance was used both to hold the photograhpic chemicals to the paper and for its chemical properties (gelatin allowed for better development that earlier substances). Though transparent and not effecting the image from normal view, these substances make it impossible to viewe the paper fibers. They prevent your microscope from focusing on the fibers below.

These microscopic details have been well documented and known for years in academic circles. They were discussed in the standard academic book, "Care and Identification of 19th Century Photographic Pritns," Published by Eastman Kodak Company and written by James Reilley, Professor and Director of the Image Permanence Institute at Rochester Institute of Technology.

Using other techniques including general obvservation, the key is that one can look look through the microscope at a questioned photograph and and say, This is a legitmate 1880s photograph. Or, there's no way this photograph was made in the 1860s.

This technique takes some practice, but it is something that the average collector can do. A handheld microscope of power is 100x power is surprisingly inexensive (We're talking $15) and it often takes 20 seconds to look for paper fibers. When someone has me look at their 15x15" 1880s baseball photo, I take out my trusty little microscope and give the quick look over. "I see the paper fibers. Looks good. Nice photo."

Duly note that this is one technique, and there are a vareity of other microscopic things to look for on albumen prints.

Personally, I would love it if collectors bought my book on early baseball photographs, the above mentioned Reilly book if second opinion is needed, bought a handheld microscope that costs the price of a bottle of hair conditioner and learned how to make knowledgeable and intelligent opinions on the authenticity of these very OJ Proofs. I seriously would love it ... To me, the ultimate in any hobby is when a normal collector, like a retired 60 something baseball card collector and the only female board member named Julie V., takes the time and effort so she can make her own judgements about the stuff she collects. Tell me that isn't cool ... But the vast majority of collectors (and people viewing this thread) won't buy my book and a miscroscope. There's nothing I can do about this, other than to roll my eyes whenever some of these very people offer their exotic theories.

One thing this thread has shown me is that many feel people they don't have to be know about a subject in order to argue about it, and that most people don't know about this subject. Considering that perhaps 5 people on this board have ever used a microscope to look for paper fibers on an 1800s cabinet card, and perhaps 8 even own a good microscope, I rest my case.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

Boy, was I shocked when I looked at Scott Forrest's beautiful Old Judge reprints under 60X and saw symmetrical pink and green dots!

When you're dealing with a framework of time from 1885-1905, not too long a period, that's when the microscope really comes in handy. Because as sure a albumen quit about 1899, silver gelatin began about 1900. ABOUT..

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

As I said earlier, it is fine with me if collectors bid as much as they want on American Memorablia's or any other proofs (Hip Hip Hooray! and all that stuff). But, unless suffering from abnormally low i.q., the collector's level of knowledge is his choice and his responsibility.

If the bidder chooses to not learn how to make sound judgements about authenticity before bidding thousands of dollars, that is entirely his choice.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

"A fool and his money are soon seperated..."

[Archive]

Posted By: Gary B.

who does not yet own one 19th century baseball item, I would certainly stay far away from an auction like this, if for no other reason than all the controversy. My money hasn't stretched far enough to include many vintage cards as of late, so esepecially for that reason, I would always want to make sure I was getting some kind of good deal and be buying something legitimate. It's so hard to say what's really going on here, as I'm so far from being an expert, and others who are have spoken in volumes here, but it would leave enough doubt in my mind that I wouldn't touch these "proofs" with a 10-foot pole. I certainly hope that whomever does buy these doesn't pay too much, and doesn't later live to regret it. Even as someone who can offer nothing close to a valid opinoin on the matter, and couldn't afford these even if he was interested, still I find the subject and the debate quite fascinating.

Peace,
Gary

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

...

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Can I please see a scan of her bat in left hand pose?

[Archive]

Posted By: Rich Jacobs

No you can't, Jay. That's already taken, since it was Farrah Fawcett's pose in the T206 "The Monster."

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Rich--Welcome back! How about the Bat at ready, by head pose or the famous Silver(Larry) Flint pose Stooping, hands waist high, mask.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

even those of us you consider idiots...

[Archive]

Posted By: Seth Nagdeman

SOME HISTORY OF THESE PROOFS: I compared my scans of these pictures with the ones offered at American Memorabilia and they are identical - these are the same pieces I had in my collection from 1999-2004. I purchased them in December of 1999 for $1,500 from a seller on ebay from Florida: ebay id "vtholstein0esl". They were in a frame. The photos were mounted on a black background. I took them to a framer and he cut them down to cabinet card size - I thought they looked more desireable that way. I decided not to put them in the 19thCenturyOnly.com auction because I did not know enough to represent them in my auction.

I traded them in April, 2003 with one of my customers who ended up consigning them to a major vintage card auction (other than 19thCenturyOnly.com since I did not know enough about them to sell in my auction). They were returned to him because the auctioneer after reviewing them did not feel they were original. They were returned to me in September, 2003 and I refunded my customer for more than our trade because of what happened. I then showed the photos to two major auction houses, and one major 19th century dealer - in all cases nobody would handle them because they did not believe they were period and didn't know exactly why the photos were made. I then sold all 4 photos in Ft. Washington to a dealer early this year for $1000 with an explanation that three major auction houses did not feel they were period pieces.

I don't know of American Memorabilia - have never done business with them before. Their photography expert represents that he found evidence that the photos are vintage. I'm sure they were thoroughly examined by American Memorabilia and it's possible the other auctions may have overlooked something.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Thank you for a VERY informative bit of data!

If they could only track the hurricanes as accurately as you have tracked these items!!