P3D Re: Stereo Tintypes

["Paul A. Lehman" <palehman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Mike K. wrote
>
> P.S. - This isn't to say that wanting to know the tintype's
>        lineage might not be interesting as well as historic.
>        I only mean to say that being stereo photograph *is*
>        intrinsic to what it is.  If the stereo photograph wasn't
>        put together as a stereo photograph until recently, then
>        it became-one recently, but still was taken (in the case
>        of the tintypes) a long time ago.  It's a stereo photograph
>        that's old, as opposed to being an old stereo photograph.
>

I fully agree with what you say. Let me clarify a little more on my opinion. To a
collector of tintypes, it matters not how the stereo image was made. To an investor
in antique photographs or an historian, how the stereo image was made is very
important. For an example, would you be willing to pay several thousands of dollars
for an 1860's photograph that appears in the style of Mathew Brady (no history) or
one that is accurately documented to have been taken by Mathew Brady? Similarly, to
claim that stereo tintypes are rare (and thus very valuable) may well be true if the
stereo tintype was taken in a stereo camera to specifically be a stereo photograph.
However, since hundreds of thousands of tintypes were taken with 4 lens cameras (not
intended to be stereo photographs, yet can be arranged into a stereo pair), the
rarity issue could be contested (as would be their value). As a collector of
tintypes, if I find a pair of tins that have good stereo depth, then that's a bonus
over and above the image itself. However, to claim rarity, and thus high value may
well be unethical without historical documentation. Again, my opinion only.

John Saddy wrote:

> If the stereo pair is in one piece, and the images are pseudoscopic, that
> indicates it to be what I call an 'accidental' stereo.

>snip<

> If, however, the images are on one piece of metal, and are in PROPER stereo
> viewing position, and with at least typical strength of dimensionality, then
> I would suspect it may well be an authentic stereo tintype, made for that
> purpose.

In my opinion,  both could well be intentional stereo photographs, but in general I
think that it is the other way around.

Regards,
Paul A. Lehman


------------------------------