150 year old print of slave children found in attic and sells for $30,000

Discussion in 'Ethics and Philosophy' started by Derek Lofgreen, Jun 11, 2010.

  1. Derek Lofgreen

    Derek Lofgreen Subscriber

    Messages:
    786
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2006
    Location:
    Montana
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I can't imagine them finding too many prints with this historic significance 150 years from now, considering most people shooting digital don't print. Something seeming so ordinary at the time might just be deleted never to be seen again.

    link to story here...
     
  2. TimmyMac

    TimmyMac Subscriber

    Messages:
    308
    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2010
    Location:
    Guelph, Onta
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Nice find. That's amazing.
     
  3. mr rusty

    mr rusty Subscriber

    Messages:
    754
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Location:
    lancashire,
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
  4. Mainecoonmaniac

    Mainecoonmaniac Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,958
    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Amazing photos, but those poor kids eyes seem to show resignation. So I'm wondering if the photo is considered an art piece or a piece of ethnography?
     
  5. cowanw

    cowanw Member

    Messages:
    1,288
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Location:
    Hamilton, On
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    By Wilson or Brady, that is the 30,000 dollar question.
     
  6. ic-racer

    ic-racer Member

    Messages:
    7,470
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Location:
    Midwest USA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Purchase by Keya Morgan, a "noted scholar, historian, and entrepreneur."
    I suspect the image was purchased for anticipated resale value.

    A 'real' Brady they have. No price listed. The "Brady" lettering does look similar.
     
  7. ic-racer

    ic-racer Member

    Messages:
    7,470
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Location:
    Midwest USA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Picture in question from e-bay said to be a Wilson:
    [​IMG]


    Original Wilson from National Archives (front and back):
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 11, 2010
  8. ic-racer

    ic-racer Member

    Messages:
    7,470
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Location:
    Midwest USA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Or a Brady?? Here is the $30,000 "find":
    [​IMG]

    And a real Brady:
    [​IMG]
     
  9. ic-racer

    ic-racer Member

    Messages:
    7,470
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Location:
    Midwest USA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    My own personal and biased opinion. The "Brady" is a fake.

    1) Why fake a Wilson? No monetary gain.
    2) You can't fake a stereo photograph, but you can easily take one of the stereo images as a non-stereo. (that is a real stereo pair).
     
  10. cowanw

    cowanw Member

    Messages:
    1,288
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Location:
    Hamilton, On
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Brady, as well as all the other commercial photographers of the day, thought nothing of copying another's print and putting thier own name on it.
     
  11. John Koehrer

    John Koehrer Subscriber

    Messages:
    6,377
    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Location:
    Montgomery,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    curiouser and curiouser ain't it? Same kids & background but a narrower frame. Did Brady's studio copy Wilson's work?
     
  12. ic-racer

    ic-racer Member

    Messages:
    7,470
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Location:
    Midwest USA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Rhetorical question, so if it were faked by Brady's gang for Brady is it still an original Brady...?

    I guess years from now historians will be trying to figure out "is it Richard Prince or Jim Krantz?" whenever someone finds an old cigarette ad in the attic... :D:D:D
     
  13. ic-racer

    ic-racer Member

    Messages:
    7,470
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Location:
    Midwest USA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    In keeping with true internet speculation and non-substantiated opinion, I wonder who got the $30,000, the deceased owner??

    And why fake a sale? Well, maybe a museum would pay you what you have invested in a piece: