Here's an example

Archive · #1 12-03-2004, 01:32 PM

Posted By: hankron

/>

Archive · #2 12-03-2004, 01:40 PM

Posted By: Tom Boblitt

wrong with the photo?

Archive · #3 12-03-2004, 02:06 PM

Posted By: hankron

It's a nice enough photo and worth some coin, but it appears to have been printed after the 1901-2 date quoted. In part, the type of photographic paper shown wasn't manufactured until a later date (Different photo papers were made with different substances and chemicals, often giving them distinct visiable appearances that even a collector can identify).

If a collector holds a 1901 and, say, a 1925 paper photo side by side so the backs are showing, he will discover something both distinct and unexpected about the paper.

Archive · #4 12-03-2004, 02:26 PM

Posted By: Todd

that they relied at least in some part upon Marc Okkonen's book of uniforms, which, if correct, shows Matty in a uniform used by the Giants in either 1901 or 1902, and not thereafter.

Archive · #5 12-03-2004, 02:50 PM

Posted By: hankron

j

Archive · #6 12-03-2004, 03:04 PM

Posted By: Todd

although the scans themselves seem to give it away: the typed caption on the back of the item makes reference to the fact that many consider Matty one of the greatest pitchers, and that he is depicted in one of his most common poses--two statements that almost certainly would not have been made his first full season of 1901 or the following year either. It also has a hand-writen notation of 1909 in plain view. Still, I agree that it would not hurt if Mastro would note that the print was generated several years after the shot.