Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/07/31

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] AA or Uncle Earl?
From: red735i at (red735i at
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 13:22:02 -0700 (GMT-07:00)

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 

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......


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 

>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.

Replies: Reply from richard at (Richard Man) ([Leica] AA or Uncle Earl?)