Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/07/31[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Richard, I have read the Sexton commentary..... he does not say thet were NOT made by AA, just that it is possible they were not. BTW, for those not on John's newsletter, he has stated that he has not inspected any of the negs. He makes one very important argument... the plate holders markings ( or shadows, if you will) would be unique to each and every plate holder, and "embedded" in each plate. An examination of known negatives of AA and these of question, by someone who knows about such things, would say if they were exposed by known AA plate holders. But, even if they were, there is no known way to proove that AA did actually expose the negs..... and never will be. But, if you want to own a "Earl or AA" print (or is that "AA or Earl" print?) , $7500 will get you one....and if it were an authentic AA neg, it would probably be worth it, and if you actually like the image, it definitely be worth it......and a digital print at $1000 or 1500 is certinly worth while...... Frank BTW, as far as I know, these are the only negs attributed ( by anyone)to AA that exist outside the Trust.....or the Center where his negs now reside...... > >John Sexton, who was assistant to Ansel Adams, just sent out a newsletter >disputing the validity. From the sound of it, it looks like he wrote that >before the Uncle Earl revelation. His biggest argument? Adams would have >made prints, but none exists for these 65 plates, which is uncharacteristic >of Adams. > >I think Case Closed. I wonder if "Taken By Uncle Earl" will become a new >photography lexicon.