Garage Sale Find! Ansel Adams Plates!!!

[Mitica100]

Wow! Someone got to be instant millionaire:

CLICK

 

[AverageJoe]

Great find, now if only they can recover Robert Capa's Normandy beach negatives we'll be set.

 

[Mike_E]

LOL It wasn't instant. That guy spent years trying to get those plates recognized as AA's.

 

[Derrel]

Ruh-roh, as Scooby Doo says!

A woman has come forward, and she has told sources in California that the plates were shot by her uncle, Earl Brooks, a Fresno,CA photog who often shot at Yosemite...and she happens to have a print that appears to have been shot just a few minutes after one of the newly found "Adams" plates was exposed, based on the landmark in the photo and the cloud formations shown in her print, and in the newly-found plate...

At this time, the "find" appears to be somebody else's old plates...time will tell...

The Online Photographer: Mystery Solved! They're by Uncle Earl

 

[compur]

From the CNN news article claiming the plates were by Ansel Adams:

"I have sent people to prison for the rest of their lives for far less
evidence than I have seen in this case," said evidence and burden of proof
expert Manny Medrano, who was hired by Norsigian to help authenticate
them. "In my view, those photographs were done by Ansel Adams."

Thanks a lot for your opinion, Manny. Give my regards to your
friends spending the rest of their lives in prison on your testimony.

 

[bigtwinky]

So what, some dude was following Ansel Adams around taking all the images he was, only a few minutes later?

Man, if I were Adams, I would of been pissed and bonked them with my tripod a few times..

 

[oldmacman]

Ruh-roh, as Scooby Doo says!

A woman has come forward, and she has told sources in California that the plates were shot by her uncle, Earl Brooks, a Fresno,CA photog who often shot at Yosemite...and she happens to have a print that appears to have been shot just a few minutes after one of the newly found "Adams" plates was exposed, based on the landmark in the photo and the cloud formations shown in her print, and in the newly-found plate...

At this time, the "find" appears to be somebody else's old plates...time will tell...

The Online Photographer: Mystery Solved! They're by Uncle Earl

That's interesting.

The thing I don't get is why two shots minutes apart? Those plates and processing couldn't have been cheap (even in 1920s pricing). Was somebody giving lessons? "Ok, so here's how you take a photo. Now you try."

 

[compur]

Bracketing? Insurance?

 

[Mike_E]

I know I wouldn't carry all of that gear up those hills and only take one shot. Especially if I was worried about the gear not being exactly right. (and I think that gear in the '20s was still a little iffy)

 

[oldmacman]

Did you happen to read Matthew Adam's (grandson) blog on the subject. He provides a very detailed analysis of why the negatives would not belong to Ansel.

His blog.

I was just reading up on the glass plate history and the first GP photo was taken in 1839.

 

[IanG]

They were shot by an lady's Uncle Earl

The cheep skates trying to pass them off as St Ansel's are Charlatans

Ian

 

[NateS]

I'm a little confused on one point....how can he make any money from the negatives? I mean, put into today's terms, if somebody finds my SD card (especially if it's proved to be mine) then they don't own the copyrights to do anything with those images. Is it different with negatives that are known not to belong to this guy (copyright at least)? Is there a time period on the copyright of negatives or photos? I would think that if it was proved to be ansel adams' negatives (the only way they'd be worth money) then that money would go to his descendants who would own the copyright??

 

[compur]

I'm a little confused on one point....how can he make any money from the negatives? I mean, put into today's terms, if somebody finds my SD card (especially if it's proved to be mine) then they don't own the copyrights to do anything with those images. Is it different with negatives that are known not to belong to this guy (copyright at least)? Is there a time period on the copyright of negatives or photos? I would think that if it was proved to be ansel adams' negatives (the only way they'd be worth money) then that money would go to his descendants who would own the copyright??

If they were Adams' original plates they would have monetary value in and
of themselves. Just like if you found a painting by Picaso. It has nothing
to do with copyright because they aren't copies. They would be originals
allegedly made by Ansel Adams.

 

[Derrel]

I have a $45 yard sale painting....I found it at a Fresno,California yard sale in a box...I am sure it is a painting by Renoir....the guy I hired to authenticate it says it's a Renoir...the lawyer I hired says it's a Renoir. And just like the plates Mr. Norsigian bought, it has some mis-spelled words, like "Ren-wah" on the signature, and "panted in Franse" on the back of the canvas...but still I am positive it's a genuine Renoir...it's worth $200 million, according to my lawyer and my authenticator...you know, the people I hired...

Would you like to buy my $45 find for, say $150 million? I know, I know, some absolutely KEY, critical words are misspelled...but hey...who does not occasionally misspell the place names of places from where they grew up, like Shicago, Illanois or Rigley Field or Lake Mishagan... (read the blog articles to understand that the place names on the negative filing notes are misspelled by a woman who GREW UP in the Yosemite area.)

 

[compur]

I'll trade you my Ansel Adams Baseball Card for it. It's very rare. Most people
don't know Ansel played center field for the Dodgers in 1933 under an
assumed name: Huckster McBluff.