Do these look like orginals?

[yanks12025]

Just bought these from a auction, they didn't go cheap but I think they sold for under what they are worth if they're originals. To me they look like originals, but I'm not a expert. Any opinions? The yankees measrues 19 3/4 x 13 and the jackie is 29 1/4 x 22 1/2 (in Frame). the Jackie isn't in perfect shape either, has some creases, maybe some old tears that got repaired at one time and looks to be writing on the back, so not sure if I should remove it from the frame and see whats on the back? Thanks

[thecatspajamas]

The 1932 Yankees photo is the same one offered up by Legendary a few years ago and paired with the 1932 Cubs photo you asked about in your thread titled "Photo experts."

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/LotDetail.aspx?inventoryid=17818

Go back and take a look at it again. Based on the sharper appearance of the original offered by Legendary and the absence of the Burke-Koretke copyright on yours (should appear at the bottom under Brown's headshot), I would say yours is not an original. It may still be an old print (hard to tell from the photos), but I don't think that was the question you were asking.

In general, I would say that it is ALWAYS a good idea to remove photos from frames to examine them prior to purchasing, especially if the price is up there. There may be a few cases where the frame is original as-issued with the photograph where you would want to be careful with it, but to me, asking if you should remove a photo from its frame to examine before purchasing is like asking if you should test drive a car before purchasing.

[yanks12025]

Lance,
I noticed that also. But I came across this photo and it doesn't have the mark on it.

http://www.memorylaneinc.com/site/bid/bidplace.asp?itemid=5561

[thecatspajamas]

Like I said, it may be OLD, but you asked whether it was ORIGINAL. Knowing that the original was produced by Burke-Koretke WITH the copyright mark, I would say that any old print WITHOUT the copyright mark would not be ORIGINAL (1st Generation, Type 1, whatever terminology you want to use). As Legendary stated in their write-up and others have said, this photo has been reproduced more than once since 1932, and I would imagine it would be simple enough for anyone reproducing the photo to black out the "Burke-Koretke" identifier at the bottom when doing so in an attempt to sidestep copyright issues.

That doesn't mean it is without value or undesirable, as it sounds like you found out when bidding on it. In that respect, I think the Memory Lane sale you found would be more comparable to what you have, but again it's hard to tell from the photos.