GOOD POINT!!!! Are there two different copies? Maybe one was a trial run... and then the creator decided to get cute and age one?
GOOD POINT!!!! Are there two different copies? Maybe one was a trial run... and then the creator decided to get cute and age one?
They both have the same exact stain on them. Is it posible that we are seeing photos of the document from two completly different time frames?
Why not two copies printed on the same day, kept by different people? Used as birth announcements in the new republic?
Same document. Looks like someone just used photoshop to remove the background. It does not always come out clean when you select the piece to remove from the background. In other words, the black background one is a cropped version of the first one, not so neatly done.
My take is the top one is a photocopy of the second.
Why not two copies printed on the same day, kept by different people? Used as birth announcements in the new republic?
Someone is playing games with the second one (torn one). Ignore it.
The second appears to be exactly the same photograph. The shadows are the same, the interior detail the same. It has been photoshopped to remove the fabric backfground and whoever did that decided to enhance the aging by adding the ‘tear’ in upper edge, ‘ragged edges’, etc.
Looking at the photo of the black background CCoRoB from Kenya, I am struck by the jaggies on the edges that some have interpreted to indicate perforations of a form torn from a binder/pad. I think, however that such perforations would be only on one edge, generally the left or top edge of the form. I think that what we are seeing here is a poor, hurried attempt by someone at removing the plaid background colors using Photoshop. The papers are obviously the same, with the fold variations being identical. The jagged “tear” on the top of the right hand fold may be a slip of the mouse when wiping out the background by someone who doesn’t know how to use PS.
Plaid... no, make that striped background colors. sorry... it’s after 5AM
Bookmark..
My 2 cents:
The second image is a photo"chop" job of the first. Pay close attention to the top of the "T" in "BIRTH" in the top right corner. Notice how the light reflection is the exact same as the 2nd photo"chop" image. Also notice to the left side of the photo"chop" image, bits and pieces of the "table cloth" can be seen that were left in, as well as the roughly edited edges that still retain some of the light reflection. It is my opinion that the 2nd image is just a clumsy touch-up of the first image.
Now for "is it real?" I honestly don't know. This is just my opinion about the two images that were provided.
These are not two different versions of the same document, they are in fact the same document, with the same staple holes in exactly the same position, the same stain, the same folds, and the very same tiny tear just above the “of” in “ninth day of August” and in three other similar locations. The photos were clearly taken at different time, but except for the edges, the document does not display any significant deterioration.
I do not understand the differences in the edge conditions or the gap in the upper right, which also shows the same strange serrations. The lower photo was clearly taken at a later time. Perhaps the edge serrations and the missing piece at the top represent samples of the paper taken for authentication.
Whatever was done to the edges did not result in the loss of any significant amount of material except at the right top.
Any document authenticators out there who can shed any light on this?
The “perforated edge” (and certain other characteristics like the noise above and below the type throughout, but especially visible in the last paragraph with the witness signature) of the second image is due to artifacts from compression and/or enlargement to the point of pixillation. Both images, though, show wear on folds to the point of perforation (on the fold above the line above “August” on the bottom and on the fold in the field containing “Stanley Ann”. All the folds are the same. The tear in the upper right edge is the only real difference. This could be explained by that edge being on the outside of the folded up document and getting damaged in transit over the period of time following the time the first image was made. An almost 50 year old piece of paper folded and being smuggled out could easily be subject to damage from humidity, heat, and movement that its appearance could be slightly changed without having to appeal to an attempt to make it look older to explain the differences. As far as age goes, I’ve seen printed material that is over 300 years old that is as clean and white as the day it was printed because the paper, according to the curator at Casa del Libro in San Juan, was linen. The greater the amount of wood pulp, the greater the aging.
It looks as if the second one is an enhanced contrast version of the first. The zigzags are artifacts, not perforations. The ‘tear’ appears to be as well.
I wonder if Polarik has commented on this yet?
Could be that there are in fact two separate docs.
Very good, but is that the only explanation?