Reversed image photos

[billyb]

Original Press Photos with reversed images, how much does the reversed image effect the value???

[Forever Young]

Original Press Photos with reversed images, how much does the reversed image effect the value???

It all depends on the collector.. "To each their own ". I would never even knowingly buy one period as it is not representative of the player/image which defeats the purpose IMO. So to me ... A ton.

[billyb]

Thank you Ben, I have also come across two of the same photo, one of which is reversed. Does the reversed photo enhance the sale of the correct image photo, especially if the reversed photo has the editors marks???

[thecatspajamas]

+1 to what Ben said. Basically, a reversed image is a goof. Someone ran the print with the negative flipped, and it probably should have been thrown in the trash and re-done. Sometimes goofs make it through the entire process and are published that way, particularly if there are no letters or logos in the image that make the reversal obvious, but it's not like with baseball cards where the "error" is worth more. I've seen a handful of them where, for instance, the jersey logo winds up being on the right instead of the left side, or a player known to be right-handed is throwing with his left, but as Ben said, it's always been a put-off for me more than an interesting curiosity.

How much it affects the value I guess depends on how obvious the error is. If everyone is sitting down and there are no backwards logos in view it might not even be noticed and wouldn't have as much effect on the value. If it's a star player and the team name is written backwards across his jersey, the value is going to take a bigger hit. Basically, the more it "just doesn't look right," the more it will affect the value.

In the case you're talking about where you have mirror image prints of the same shot, I think you're still looking at whatever the correct print would sell for and throwing in the other one for free or, if a very high-dollar photo, for a slight bump in price over what the correct one would sell for on its own. I don't think the editor's marks being on the reversed print will make any difference other than most buyers will be glad that they aren't on the corrected one.

That's my 2 cents on it anyway.

[billyb]

Lance,
Thanks for all the answers. Not exactly what I wanted to hear, but it is what it is. Thanks again.

[GoCubsGo32]

How common is this?

I actually only seen this once (so far). It was a original Babe Ruth snapshot with an umpire. You really couldn't tell it was a reverse image until you look hard and saw the Yankees logo on Ruth's jersey was backwards and wrong side.

Someone sold that image for $90 on eBay then I guess the person who bought it realize it, re listed and it sold for $50.

[billyb]

Thanks Go,

The Ruth photo you are talking about, if it is Ruth just finished crossing the plate(it appears), and Ruth and umpire looking back at something (fairly close image of Ruth also), I was thinking of that photo when I posted the first question. Very nice image of Ruth, content excellent, clarity great, but on back is written "reverse". What a shame.
But the photo I am talking about has never been listed.

[prewarsports]

Press photos that are reversed were done intentionally so that the photo could be engraved for the newspaper. Some people like them to have an example or two in their collections but in general they are looked at as inferior images.

Rhys

[thecatspajamas]

If fairly unique, I could see them still retaining some value as they could easily be scanned and flipped digitally for reprinting or other use. But I would think that would only apply for a scarce image that you really liked and thought you would never see again in proper form.

Otherwise, I think your primary target audience would be the budget-conscious or beginning collector who wanted a striking photo but wouldn't have been able to afford it otherwise. Unfortunately, if you're the seller, the budget-conscious collector probably is not your ideal buyer :( So maybe not worthless, but definitely worth less.

[billyb]

Thank You Rhys, its just too bad that work done by photographers may have been printed out in error by an editor. I can't see the photographer making an error like that.

[prewarsports]

The editors did not print the photos so a photographers error is highly unlikely. These photographs would have been developed by the photographer themselves (or a developer that worked on behalf of all the photographers at specific agency). You would order prints from the service and could specify whether you wanted them reversed or not as some papers were heavier into engraving. Many times the service or the receiving paper would make note that a photo was "Reversed" and sometimes there were even stamps that would say "Reversed for Engraving" on them. If it is a press photo from an agency with a stamp on the back and it is reversed, it was absolutely intended to be reversed. I get why sometimes people don't like them (if it looks like Babe Ruth is coming home from First base for example after a Home Run) but they are really interesting pieces of photographic history.

These were big in the late 1910's through the 1920's and were obsolete with newer technology that made printing photographs by newspapers easier by the 1930's (and with the wider use of Wire Photo Technology).

[billyb]

Rhys,
Thanks for all the information. Thanks to everyone for all the input.

[thecatspajamas]

The editors did not print the photos so a photographers error is highly unlikely. These photographs would have been developed by the photographer themselves (or a developer that worked on behalf of all the photographers at specific agency). You would order prints from the service and could specify whether you wanted them reversed or not as some papers were heavier into engraving.

Good point, and I hadn't considered the engraving angle and reversed prints actually being used as part of the printing process in some instances. Can I recant my earlier statement about all reversed prints being goofs? :o

[Lordstan]

I have one. I got it pretty inexpensively.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v222/lordstan/My%20Lou%20Gehrig%20stuff/LG-1936Reverseatfirstbase.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v222/lordstan/My%20Lou%20Gehrig%20stuff/LG-1936Reverseatfirstbasebk.jpg


As has been stated already, I think in most cases the value would be less than the correct print.

I guess this guy disagrees...
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Babe-Ruth-Lou-Gehrig-Type-1-1932-World-Series-Error-Reverse-Photo-PSA-DNA-/291070223343?pt=Vintage_Sports_Memorabilia&hash=item43c52323ef&nma=true&si=2lgZJpoASKXOuZazPiW1kYcdMag%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

LOL:D

[billyb]

Mark,
That is a nice photo. I understand that the reverse image is not valued much at all, but a photo like that is hard not to throw a few dollars in that direction. Mark, I don't blame you al all for grabbing that one.

[JoeyF1981]

I definitely disagree that reverse image photos are considerably less valuable. The image is still original and depicts an actual event. For instance a reverse image of let's say Joe Jackson where maybe the team logo was reversed would still sell for thousands. I guess it's all up to the buyer. I don't believe they're for beginners or someone on a budget. It's a original image from the period.

[billyb]

Joey,
I know how you feel, but these above experts have been at it for a while and have given good advice. Although some were done for a purpose, seeing Gehrig or Ruth bat and throw right handed, just seems wrong. They may have some value, depending also on the content. Not so sure of in the thousands. I know that some may say, a Ruth is a Ruth, a Gehrig is a Gehrig, but when the player himself is altered, by reversing the image, then it just is not a true Ruth or Gehrig. It would show well if you hang a photo like that across from a mirror.
The above Gehrig has great content, and I would throw some money at that photo anytime.

[JoeyF1981]

Joey,
I know how you feel, but these above experts have been at it for a while and have given good advice. Although some were done for a purpose, seeing Gehrig or Ruth bat and throw right handed, just seems wrong. They may have some value, depending also on the content. Not so sure of in the thousands. I know that some may say, a Ruth is a Ruth, a Gehrig is a Gehrig, but when the player himself is altered, by reversing the image, then it just is not a true Ruth or Gehrig. It would show well if you hang a photo like that across from a mirror.
The above Gehrig has great content, and I would throw some money at that photo anytime.

I just recently bought one that I just posted on the pickups thread which shows Ruth crossing home plate and has gehrig and some other guys there to celebrate. It only shows the numbers on the back of the jerseys as reversed. That to me is no big deal at all

[Runscott]

Here's one I have from the 1927 World Series, and the corrected version - looks to be a Yankee sliding into the Pirates catcher.

[JoeyF1981]

Here's mine

http://i450.photobucket.com/albums/qq224/Blackitalian/_3-3_zpszil2jwfc.jpeg (http://s450.photobucket.com/user/Blackitalian/media/_3-3_zpszil2jwfc.jpeg.html)

[Forever Young]

I just recently bought one that I just posted on the pickups thread which shows Ruth crossing home plate and has gehrig and some other guys there to celebrate. It only shows the numbers on the back of the jerseys as reversed. That to me is no big deal at all

It is, then, in the hands of the right collector. You said you got a "great deal". There is a reason for that. The reason is, you spent significantly less money for the reversed image(I would imagine) as one would sell for otherwise(and this difference does not bother you so you think they should be equal). It makes sense.

KROY WEN on the front of Ruth's jersey doesn't bother you? It does not only show the numbers reversed Joey. Perhaps the images below will help put things into perspective.

These things might not bother you(which is great as the photos will find a home and you will be able to pick them up cheap). However, the fact of the matter is, there is a reason you will be able to buy them cheap.

[JoeyF1981]

Ben you're right and I'm glad they're cheap so people who really want them can save money and enjoy the photo. The reverse doesn't bother me one bit. It is what it is. It's a original image of Ruth crossing home. Maybe I just see it differently than some. It's a great image

[billyb]

This is the photo why I was asking about reversed photos. Scanner down, so this is a poor copy, the photo is actually very clear, but reversed. It is written on back, "Reversed", so was probably done in reverse for a reason.
It sickens me that this great photo is reversed, but it is what it is.


138125

[JoeyF1981]

It's just too bad Ruth wasn't upside down or I would've paid more...lol