Original negatives- underrated? Show yours

[Forever Young]

As many of you know, I am an original photo collector. That will never change as it is my hobby passion.
That said, I have recently been facinsted in original negatives(glass, acetate and slides/from camera etc. ). Perhaps it is because they are part of the photo process. They are the closest link to the photographer other than the camera. They also give me the ability to make the highest quality prints that no one else has. They are true 1 of 1s.
Anyone else find them undervalued /interesting?

The knock is that they are hard to display. I think they would actually be neat displayed with a corresponding original print.

Attached is a Burke Ruth I own. I would love to hear other's thoughts and see other examples.

[Forever Young]

I actually have an original type 1 example of this one.

[prewarsports]

Negatives are awesome and it like you said, the closest thing to holding a piece of history you can get as it was handled and touched by the photographer and was right there next to the player on the field at one point. There is nothing else in the hobby like holding an original glass plate negative.

The downside is they are very tough to display so it takes a special person to appreciate them for what they are. It would not surprise me if they made a major jump in price, but it also would not surprise me if they never really took off considering the limitations of display.

[Forever Young]

Negatives are awesome and it like you said, the closest thing to holding a piece of history you can get as it was handled and touched by the photographer and was right there next to the player on the field at one point. There is nothing else in the hobby like holding an original glass plate negative.

The downside is they are very tough to display so it takes a special person to appreciate them for what they are. It would not surprise me if they made a major jump in price, but it also would not surprise me if they never really took off considering the limitations of display.

So again, display is the only limitation? Perhaps we need to come up with something?! A display with a high Res print is cleRly the way. The key is not to damage the negative.

[btcarfagno]

That's the tough part. Exposure to normal light in a room would damage the negative over time. Would need to come up with a way to display the photo plus the negative while not damaging the negative.

Here are a few that I still have:

Ruth taking batting practice on opening day at Yankee Stadium in 1923

http://i792.photobucket.com/albums/yy203/collectiblesgains/collectiblesgains140/2682-0355-15-008C_zpsyfh45yeo.jpg

Ruth signing for a fan

http://i792.photobucket.com/albums/yy203/collectiblesgains/collectiblesgains140/2682-0355-15-097_zpsauwhempo.jpg

1912 Giants on field before first game of World Series

http://i792.photobucket.com/albums/yy203/collectiblesgains/collectiblesgains140/2682-0355-15-019C_zps88dre3as.jpg

Shot of crowd during Merkle replay game 1908

http://i792.photobucket.com/albums/yy203/collectiblesgains/collectiblesgains140/2682-0355-15-044_zpsjaxmawrw.jpg

Tom C

[steve B]

Some stuff on the care of glass plate negatives. Film negatives will differ a bit and are a bit more complex

http://www.webjunction.org/documents/webjunction/The_Preservation_of_Glass_Plate_Negatives.html

Steve B

[horzverti]

I love the fact that original negs are truly 1 of 1.

I think there is, or will be, a solid market for vintage original negs. We may see that they will become quite sought after and their prices will reflect their desirability. Although they can be fragile, prone to deterioration and can be tough to adequately display; they will still find buyers. Collectors buy many items just to stash away. Collectors don't display every photo or card they own. Negs can be acquired and then stored away just like everything else. I think that they are now collectibles in their own right and not just a means to produce photos.

I haven't heard any updates recently, but the collection of original Conlon negs (glass plates only) was slated to be sold off sometime this summer by the receivers of the Rogers' holdings. I am sure the sale has been pushed back considering I haven't heard any push leading up to the sale.

Here are a few of my original Conlons 4 x 5s on acetate safety film. He switched to acetate from glass in the 1930s. Note the company name on the envelope he stored one in. :)

[Forever Young]

I love the fact that original negs are truly 1 of 1.

I think there is, or will be, a solid market for vintage original negs. We may see that they will become quite sought after and their prices will reflect their desirability. Although they can be fragile, prone to deterioration and can be tough to adequately display; they will still find buyers. Collectors buy many items just to stash away. Collectors don't display every photo or card they own. Negs can be acquired and then stored away just like everything else. I think that they are now collectibles in their own right and not just a means to produce photos.

I haven't heard any updates recently, but the collection of original Conlon negs (glass plates only) was slated to be sold off sometime this summer by the receivers of the Rogers' holdings. I am sure the sale has been pushed back considering I haven't heard any push leading up to the sale.

Here are a few of my original Conlons 4 x 5s on acetate safety film. He switched to acetate from glass in the 1930s. Note the company name on the envelope he stored one in. :)

I can't see what they say.

[horzverti]

The white one is a The Evening Telegram mailing envelope cut in half. It seems Charlie had so many negs, he ran out of his supply of the tan, cardboard-ish storage envelopes. So he used his employer's envelopes. Cool connection between Conlon and his newspaper employer.
I don't have the negs readily available to re-photograph right now. I'll see if I can add a larger or more tightly cropped picture later.

[horzverti]

Found one

[Forever Young]

Found one

Very very cool curt! Any Ruth or gehrig? ;)

[horzverti]

Never heard of those guys. I do have a sweet Fred Haney though. ;)

[Forever Young]

Never heard of those guys. I do have a sweet Fred Haney though. ;)

Haha.. Love it. I love how his hand writing is all over the sleeves. Thank you for Sharing! Also.. Word "on the street" is that heritage is auctioning them off in their August auction. ������ hopefully I will be able to afford 1 or several.

[Lordstan]

1939 Gehrig's (Acetate)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v222/lordstan/My%20Lou%20Gehrig%20stuff/Negative/Louneg4-Composite1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v222/lordstan/My%20Lou%20Gehrig%20stuff/Negative/Louneg2Composite1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v222/lordstan/My%20Lou%20Gehrig%20stuff/Negative/Louneg1Composite1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v222/lordstan/My%20Lou%20Gehrig%20stuff/Negative/Louneg3-Composite1.jpg


1934 Gehrig by Burke(Acetate)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v222/lordstan/My%20Lou%20Gehrig%20stuff/LG-1934LouGirlBurke.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/lordstan/media/My%20Lou%20Gehrig%20stuff/LG-1934LouGirlBurke.jpg.html)

1949 Jackie (Glass)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v222/lordstan/JRneg001.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v222/lordstan/Lou/JRnegdeveloped.jpg

[thecatspajamas]

Anyone else find them undervalued /interesting?

ABSOLUTELY!!!! And to be honest, I hope they stay that way, because it's that many more that I can pick up on a limited budget :D

As others have said, I really don't care about displayability personally, though I can see how that would be a deterrent to some. If I displayed every photo or negative that I have, I'd have to cover the house inside and out (and I'm sure my boys would promptly destroy them as they have the rest of my house).

One thing I do like about them is how well they store away, since I am admittedly a bit of a hoarder (well, except glass plates, I guess). I also love the detailed images that they produce if you've got the right scanner. The 1/1 aspect is neat too, though my favorites are the ones of guys where that may well be the 1/1 image of that obscure player in ANY medium.

But seriously, who really wants to collect negatives? Everyone should just lot up what they have and sell them off cheap, or better yet, just throw them out. Just be sure to let me know which dumpster they're going in ;)

[Forever Young]

1939 Gehrig's (Acetate)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v222/lordstan/My%20Lou%20Gehrig%20stuff/Negative/Louneg4-Composite1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v222/lordstan/My%20Lou%20Gehrig%20stuff/Negative/Louneg2Composite1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v222/lordstan/My%20Lou%20Gehrig%20stuff/Negative/Louneg1Composite1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v222/lordstan/My%20Lou%20Gehrig%20stuff/Negative/Louneg3-Composite1.jpg


1934 Gehrig by Burke(Acetate)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v222/lordstan/My%20Lou%20Gehrig%20stuff/LG-1934LouGirlBurke.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/lordstan/media/My%20Lou%20Gehrig%20stuff/LG-1934LouGirlBurke.jpg.html)

1949 Jackie (Glass)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v222/lordstan/JRneg001.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v222/lordstan/Lou/JRnegdeveloped.jpg

Those top Gehrig's are really neat Mark. Very nice!

[Forever Young]

ABSOLUTELY!!!! And to be honest, I hope they stay that way, because it's that many more that I can pick up on a limited budget :D

As others have said, I really don't care about displayability personally, though I can see how that would be a deterrent to some. If I displayed every photo or negative that I have, I'd have to cover the house inside and out (and I'm sure my boys would promptly destroy them as they have the rest of my house).

One thing I do like about them is how well they store away, since I am admittedly a bit of a hoarder (well, except glass plates, I guess). I also love the detailed images that they produce if you've got the right scanner. The 1/1 aspect is neat too, though my favorites are the ones of guys where that may well be the 1/1 image of that obscure player in ANY medium.

But seriously, who really wants to collect negatives? Everyone should just lot up what they have and sell them off cheap, or better yet, just throw them out. Just be sure to let me know which dumpster they're going in ;)

Please post some of the favorites in your collection!

[horzverti]

Here is my one Gehrig negative. I am not sure of the year or who took the shot. It is not near the caliber of Mark's Gehrigs, but I like it. I used the xray photo booth mode on my iPad to make a positive image. Some clarity seems to have been lost in translation. Lance, I still haven't bought a new scanner which would accommodate these. :D

[Forever Young]

Here is my one Gehrig negative. I am not sure of the year or who took the shot. It is not near the caliber of Mark's Gehrigs, but I like it. I used the xray photo booth mode on my iPad to make a positive image. Some clarity seems to have been lost in translation. Lance, I still haven't bought a new scanner which would accommodate these. :D

That's actually a shot I have seen many times I believe in original photos. Very nice

[Lordstan]

Curt,
I own an original of that photo. It's from 1938 from Lou's 2000th consecutive game.
Nice job.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v222/lordstan/My%20Lou%20Gehrig%20stuff/LG%20-%201938%202000th%20game%20at%20bat.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v222/lordstan/My%20Lou%20Gehrig%20stuff/LG%20-%201938%202000th%20game%20at%20bat%20r.jpg

[Forever Young]

Curt,
I own an original of that photo. It's from 1938 from Lou's 2000th consecutive game.
Nice job.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v222/lordstan/My%20Lou%20Gehrig%20stuff/LG%20-%201938%202000th%20game%20at%20bat.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v222/lordstan/My%20Lou%20Gehrig%20stuff/LG%20-%201938%202000th%20game%20at%20bat%20r.jpg

Thought so.. I owned that photo at one time. Cool photo and negstive. They should be together :)

[horzverti]

Great photo Mark! Thanks for defining the moment. Now I know. This is one of those items that I always wanted to post here on Net 54 and ask for more info. I am happy I put that image up today.

[Darner]

Top: Al Simmons and son c. 1940
Bottom: Chuck Klein c. 1936-37

[ruth-gehrig]

In storage, unfortunately about 2 hours away, I have a 1927 Yankees team photo negative. Would love to get a high quality photo printed from it!

[D. Bergin]

I love original negs. Don't always know what to do with them, but think they are cool as hell.

[Bumpus Jones]

The only one I own...

[D. Bergin]

Great shot! So much going on. The flooded field, the players warming up on the tiny stretch of unflooded outfield grass, the factories in the background, the 3 guys sitting in an otherwise empty stadium, the signage.

Love that image.

:)

[Bumpus Jones]

Thanks, Dave. I'm kind of fond of it myself:)

[SAllen2556]

I sold all my baseball ones last year through Hunt. I scanned each one and felt that the actual negatives didn't have great value to me personally, especially since they were largely no-named players. But I love having the scans of them and cleaning them up in photoshop.

I still have a couple hundred left of weird stuff like of U of Michigan sports like tennis, golf, track and field, and soccer; boxer Jackie Fields, women amateur golfers, and a bunch of Detroit area people who made the newspaper for one reason or another. Don't really think there's much interest in them, but I continue to hold out hope. You do have to be very careful with them and they do degrade over time if not stored properly.
http://i811.photobucket.com/albums/zz32/sallen2556/rogerpeckenpaugh5-29-41abb_zpsq4nyknt8.jpg

Bobby Jones
http://i811.photobucket.com/albums/zz32/sallen2556/bjonesrydercup-dgc8-22-41a_zpstc3mfzut.jpg
http://i811.photobucket.com/albums/zz32/sallen2556/UMvOSU9-12-30_zps33fndwfu.jpg

This is how they degrade over time:
http://i811.photobucket.com/albums/zz32/sallen2556/sylvester%20johnson1_zpsew6oakyw.jpg

Player's wives
http://i811.photobucket.com/albums/zz32/sallen2556/mrsnolanrichardsongeosmith5-29a_zpscikskoya.jpg

Ann Pennington - old Zigfried Follies actress
http://i811.photobucket.com/albums/zz32/sallen2556/ann%20pennington_zpstd9pwfnt.jpg
http://i811.photobucket.com/albums/zz32/sallen2556/samie%20gibson1929a_zpsravtruhv.jpg
http://i811.photobucket.com/albums/zz32/sallen2556/robertjones2_zpse7idxqqz.jpg
http://i811.photobucket.com/albums/zz32/sallen2556/johngrabowskihayworthshang1931_zpsebl4qdvx.jpg

Joe Judge
http://i811.photobucket.com/albums/zz32/sallen2556/Joe%20Judge8-14-33_zpsiin0h0sv.jpg
http://i811.photobucket.com/albums/zz32/sallen2556/royjohnson4-13-32_zpscjxio8y8.jpg
http://i811.photobucket.com/albums/zz32/sallen2556/frank%20shaughnessy%201928_zpsaa9mof4f.jpg

[horzverti]

Here are a few more original Conlon negatives:

1938 John Riddle Boston Braves
1938 Steve O'Neil Cleveland Indians
1938 Earle Brucker Philadelphia Athletics
1940 Mickey Witek NY Giants
1940-42 Taffy Wright Chicago White Sox (same batting practice session)
1939 Taffy Wright Washington Senators
1939 Earl Averill Detroit Tigers

Most of the portraits were used in the following year's Reach or Spalding guide (depending on the league).

[horzverti]

Here is the 1939 Conlon negative of Jack Kramer of the St. Louis Browns. I also attached photos of the 1940 Reach guide to show how Conlon's work was used in the guides.

Charles Conlon really was a significant part of the game for nearly 40 years of the first half of the 20th century. So much of baseball's visual history was recorded through his lens. It is too bad that during his lifetime he didn't receive the proper credit for the legend that he is.

[Forever Young]

My goodness,

One lot.. all the marbles.. one big ball of wax.. the whole sha-bang....

I sure hope someone with integrity wins this with the intention of keeping it all together and accepts the role of curator. They can also make money as they will get rights to the imagery through the 50% share of licensing.

THIS is the most important lot of baseball history for me personally and I sure wish I could afford to own/care for it.

Any guesses on how much it will go for? I am guessing 2-3 million but think it is worth more. Unfortunately, it has to be rushed to auction because of the circumstances. That will benefit the winner. If I had the money, it would be mine... all mine.. moo hoo hoo hahaha!

http://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball/the-charles-m-conlon-photographic-archive-7-462-original-negatives-/p/7160-53001.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515

[btcarfagno]

I almost fainted when I saw that. The Cobb slide photo original negative? That is likely the most famous photo in the history of the sport.

I think that your ideas seem to also be the desire of the auction house as well, as they are not splitting it up to maximize profit. Unless that is a stipulation of the sale perhaps.

Absolutely amazing.

Tom C

[Forever Young]

I almost fainted when I saw that. The Cobb slide photo original negative? That is likely the most famous photo in the history of the sport.

I think that your ideas seem to also be the desire of the auction house as well, as they are not splitting it up to maximize profit. Unless that is a stipulation of the sale perhaps.

Absolutely amazing.

Tom C

Yes.. .at first I was disappointed(for selfish reasons) as I wanted to own as many as I could afford and really wanted to own a Ruth AND Gehrig for my collection.
After the initial disappointment, I was relieved as it really does all need to stay together for historical purpose and cataloguing. Conlon is the backbone of baseball photography\imagry.
I would hate to see it split up like the Burke negatives. All of that Burke history lost/scattered and sold for peanuts/blown out. The burke negatives really could have helped grow the hobby as they were all numbered.. collectible. Almost like a baseball card set imo. Had great potential.
The former owner of these two archives really messed things up. Thank goodness these Conlons stayed in tact!! :)

[D. Bergin]

Wow, just wow.

That's gotta rank as the most significant single sports auction lot ever.

[Forever Young]

Wow, just wow.

That's gotta rank as the most significant single sports auction lot ever.

Yes Dave.. I AGREE 100 percent.

[pherbener]

Wow, just wow.

That's gotta rank as the most significant single sports auction lot ever.

^^^^^^^ This

What an incredible group of images! I often look at items and wish I had unlimited funds but this is amazing!

[Michael B]

I would have to agree that original negatives are underrated. I have been purchasing them for years. My archives includes about 25 glass plate negatives, about 150 4x5 acetates, a half dozen or so 2x2's, several hundred 35 mm. I also have several magic lantern slides and about 3,000 transparencies/slides from 1956 to 1996. All of mine are Olympic related. They go along with my 8-10,000 original images of all sizes. Here are a few slides and negatives.

1964 Olympic baseball team on their way to Tokyo. The team includes future major leaguers Al Closter, Dick Joyce, Chuck Dobson, Jim HIbbs, Ken Suarez, Shaun Fitzmaurice, Mike Epstein and Gary Sutherland

1956 Olympic boxing team at the trials - silver medalist and Boxing HOFer Jose Torres is 3rd from the right.

1984 Women's Olympic marathon - all of the U.S.women are in this image. Joan Benoit, the gold medalist is on the left in the white cap.

Steve Alford in high school - NCAA Champ and Olympic gold medal in basketball.

Horace Ashenfelter on right and other athlete in the Olympic Village Melbourne, Australia 1956. He won a gold medal in 1952

Bobby Joe Morrow in 1956. He won 3 gold medals at the Olympics. SI Sportsman of the Year in 1956 and also appeared on the cover of Life magazine.

Bill Russell in the Olympic Village in 1956. His face is in the shadows and I am asking one of my photoshop people to lighten the face.

[mybestbretts]

I don't know enough about how to prevent deterioration to know how to preserve negatives over the long haul. I have old negatives that have become brittle over time.
The only thing I don't like is so many are being bought and pictures reproduced and sold on ebay for little or nothing.

[thecatspajamas]

The only thing I don't like is so many are being bought and pictures reproduced and sold on ebay for little or nothing.

I think you will find that most of those selling for little or nothing are not actually purchasing negatives to reproduce, but rather grabbing images off the net to do so. It's easy to sell for next to nothing when you don't have any skin in the game.

I have actually had a couple of instances where I was selling some slides on eBay and another individual was selling prints of the images before my auction had even ended! In that particular case, a mention of copyright law and attorneys was enough to end his selling of those images. Normally I wouldn't care, as I don't sell reprints, so there's not that ongoing competition. In this case though, the buyer asked me to look into it.

[thecatspajamas]

Yes.. .at first I was disappointed(for selfish reasons) as I wanted to own as many as I could afford and really wanted to own a Ruth AND Gehrig for my collection.
After the initial disappointment, I was relieved as it really does all need to stay together for historical purpose and cataloguing. Conlon is the backbone of baseball photography\imagry.
I would hate to see it split up like the Burke negatives. All of that Burke history lost/scattered and sold for peanuts/blown out. The burke negatives really could have helped grow the hobby as they were all numbered.. collectible. Almost like a baseball card set imo. Had great potential.
The former owner of these two archives really messed things up. Thank goodness these Conlons stayed in tact!! :)

My sentiments exactly! While the break-up of the Burke/Brace archive enabled me to pick up a lot of their original negatives and further my research, it sickens me how that while deal went down and that the original concentration of visual history is now scattered to the winds. The fact that Mary Brace got screwed over in the deal too is an added downer.

Hopefully whoever winds up with the Conlon archive will make the images publicly viewable and enjoyable in process of making them profitable, as Rogers did for a time when he had the Conlon archive online. Unfortunately he never did the same thing with the Burke/Brace archive, so we'll probably never know what/who all was in there.

[btcarfagno]

My sentiments exactly! While the break-up of the Burke/Brace archive enabled me to pick up a lot of their original negatives and further my research, it sickens me how that while deal went down and that the original concentration of visual history is now scattered to the winds. The fact that Mary Brace got screwed over in the deal too is an added downer.

Hopefully whoever winds up with the Conlon archive will make the images publicly viewable and enjoyable in process of making them profitable, as Rogers did for a time when he had the Conlon archive online. Unfortunately he never did the same thing with the Burke/Brace archive, so we'll probably never know what/who all was in there.

Wasn't there a master list for the Burke Brace stuff? I seem to remember an auction lot with thousands of them, and I think I had a full listing of what was in there.

Tom C

[thecatspajamas]

Wasn't there a master list for the Burke Brace stuff? I seem to remember an auction lot with thousands of them, and I think I had a full listing of what was in there.

Tom C

There was a large lot of negatives that was listed several years ago that I believe was from the estate of Jim Rowe. It might have had a complete listing, but I can't recall. You've got my curiosity up now though as I hadn't considered that before.

Other than that, there are the one-sheet "catalogs" that Burke produced, but which only cover his years of activity. I have one, and have photos of another that Ben was kind enough to provide, that list the major leaguer players and team combinations that were active and who Burke photographed. They don't cover George Brace's decades of activity though, or the minor leaguers and older "old time player" photos that they reshot and reproduced. Some of the Brace era players were listed on the bracephoto website when it was active, but not all.

Presumably (hopefully) Rogers had all of the negatives scanned before selling them, but if so, the complete "catalog" of images was never made available to the public (to my knowledge), and the archive of scans may or may not be housed on one of the hard drives that he broke back into his offices to retrieve. I'm not sure if those hard drives were ever produced during the trials, or what their status is now. I'm sure that whoever wins the Conlon collection would love to not have to re-scan all of those negatives!

[bgar3]

In the early 1990's there was a large group of original glass plate negatives, possibly even more than one lot. A friend of mine purchased them all, I think. They were all identified, in glassine envelopes, and stored in original wooden crates. Not sure of the exact number, but I believe there were several hundred, including multiples of all the major stars, circa 1910 to 20. I am not sure of the date, but it is possible it was the Leland auction that featured Harry Stevens' collection. If someone has a run of older Leland's catalogues they might be able to get greater details. We believed at the time, they included the work of all the motor photographers. My friend is a very private collector, but I will try to find out more details. I do not believe they were very expensive at all.

[GKreindler]

I have the Lelands catalog for the Harry M. Stevens collection, but I'm pretty sure the negatives offered therein are from Francis Burke, rather than George (though I'll double check today). It's a shame that he was replaced when they found the latter, as his work was absolutely stellar. I really think his work was on par with people like Bain and Conlon, though we'll never know whether it approached the same breadth.

And, I hate to say it, but whomever wins the Conlon negatives, well, I hope they actually do decide to have them rescanned. I know, I know, it's a monumental undertaking and seems pointless. However, I'm absolutely convinced that JR's people really screwed the pooch when they did just that. I'd say a lot of the scans turned out nicely, but there are so many that had piss-poor retouching done to them, and as a result, really detract from the overall image.

One of the harshest victims was Paul Waner:

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b158/GKreindler/173726842_zps5n2qlfae.jpg (http://s19.photobucket.com/user/GKreindler/media/173726842_zps5n2qlfae.jpg.html)

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b158/GKreindler/173726844_zpsvtyrrwt1.jpg (http://s19.photobucket.com/user/GKreindler/media/173726844_zpsvtyrrwt1.jpg.html)

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b158/GKreindler/173726847_zpsmzdrip3a.jpg (http://s19.photobucket.com/user/GKreindler/media/173726847_zpsmzdrip3a.jpg.html)

Yeeeeeaaahhh. I'm sorry, but the original negatives do NOT look like this. Perhaps there are imperfections here and there, but by I can't see why they were altered this drastically in Photoshop. And believe me, there are a LOT more where that came from (though Waner's are probably the worst).

Excuse me while I go have some nightmares.

[Lordstan]

Holy crap. Who the heck did that? Were they blind?
I did notice when looking at the Conlon collection online, I found many were not very clear. Certainly not what I expected.

I have the Lelands catalog for the Harry M. Stevens collection, but I'm pretty sure the negatives offered therein are from Francis Burke, rather than George (though I'll double check today). It's a shame that he was replaced when they found the latter, as his work was absolutely stellar. I really think his work was on par with people like Bain and Conlon, though we'll never know whether it approached the same breadth.

And, I hate to say it, but whomever wins the Conlon negatives, well, I hope they actually do decide to have them rescanned. I know, I know, it's a monumental undertaking and seems pointless. However, I'm absolutely convinced that JR's people really screwed the pooch when they did just that. I'd say a lot of the scans turned out nicely, but there are so many that had piss-poor retouching done to them, and as a result, really detract from the overall image.

One of the harshest victims was Paul Waner:

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b158/GKreindler/173726842_zps5n2qlfae.jpg (http://s19.photobucket.com/user/GKreindler/media/173726842_zps5n2qlfae.jpg.html)

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b158/GKreindler/173726844_zpsvtyrrwt1.jpg (http://s19.photobucket.com/user/GKreindler/media/173726844_zpsvtyrrwt1.jpg.html)

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b158/GKreindler/173726847_zpsmzdrip3a.jpg (http://s19.photobucket.com/user/GKreindler/media/173726847_zpsmzdrip3a.jpg.html)

Yeeeeeaaahhh. I'm sorry, but the original negatives do NOT look like this. Perhaps there are imperfections here and there, but by I can't see why they were altered this drastically in Photoshop. And believe me, there are a LOT more where that came from (though Waner's are probably the worst).

Excuse me while I go have some nightmares.

[thecatspajamas]

Yikes! Okay, forget what I said, and I'll join you in hoping the Conlons get rescanned!

[GKreindler]

It's pretty ridiculous. The fact that Getty hasn't done anything about it, while typical, is just as sad.

[thecatspajamas]

Yeah, I can imagine they pretty much just index the images with whatever info they have, dump them on a server, and start licensing and selling prints. Minimal effort for maximum catalog depth.

Wonder if Getty's deal for adding the images was with Rogers, or The Sporting News? And how that impacts the licensing deal offered with the collection being auctioned?

[GKreindler]

Well, that's kinda the weird thing. See, legally speaking, I'm not sure that JR ever got the full rights to sell his reproductions. I'm sure everything was worked out with the Sporting News, so with the IP of Charles Conlon's images, he was probably fine. However, he would run into the same issues that I do with selling reproductions: he'd probably have to pay whomever represents some of the estates of those bigger players. CMG is under contract with plenty of them, like Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Bob Feller, Christy Mathewson, Burleigh Grimes, Dizzy Dean, Eddie Collins and a bunch more.

Now, I could be completely wrong in this - and if I am, I apologize to whomever would call me out on it - but I don't think JR approached CMG when he had up that Conlon site from which he was selling his prints. Had CMG (or somebody) known about it, his company could have received a nasty cease and desist pretty fast.

Let's also not forget that Roger's archive probably should have been under some sort of licensing contract with MLB because of the teams depicted in those negatives.

And again, I could be wrong on all of this, as I never bought any of those official prints from them, but I don't think arrangements like that were made. Whomever wins, though they could do exactly what Rogers did with trying to cash in on those prints, they're probably still doing so at a big risk. That is, unless there's some language in the contracts that indemnify them from any wrong doing...which could also be the case.

Just some food for thought.

[btcarfagno]

I have three early Babe Ruth glass plate negatives up for auction in the latest Hunt monthly auction. One is Ruth talking to a reporter on the field in uniform just before the first ever game at Yankee Stadium in 1923.

http://huntauctions.com/phone/current.cfm

http://i792.photobucket.com/albums/yy203/collectiblesgains/2016/neg1_zpsrm6shg3h.jpg[/URL]

http://i792.photobucket.com/albums/yy203/collectiblesgains/2016/neg2_zps7mchehpf.jpg[/URL]

http://i792.photobucket.com/albums/yy203/collectiblesgains/2016/neg3_zpsrizmvzhc.jpg[/URL]

Tom C

[JoeyFarino]

I have three early Babe Ruth glass plate negatives up for auction in the latest Hunt monthly auction. One is Ruth talking to a reporter on the field in uniform just before the first ever game at Yankee Stadium in 1923.

http://huntauctions.com/phone/current.cfm

http://i792.photobucket.com/albums/yy203/collectiblesgains/2016/neg1_zpsrm6shg3h.jpg[/URL]

http://i792.photobucket.com/albums/yy203/collectiblesgains/2016/neg2_zps7mchehpf.jpg[/URL]

http://i792.photobucket.com/albums/yy203/collectiblesgains/2016/neg3_zpsrizmvzhc.jpg[/URL]

Tom C

Wow! Now those are awesome!

[D. Bergin]

About $1.78 million bucks over my budget, but my first impression is that somebody got a bargain on the Conlon Collection.

[Keith_Loving]

There was a large lot of negatives that was listed several years ago that I believe was from the estate of Jim Rowe. It might have had a complete listing, but I can't recall. You've got my curiosity up now though as I hadn't considered that before.

Other than that, there are the one-sheet "catalogs" that Burke produced, but which only cover his years of activity. I have one, and have photos of another that Ben was kind enough to provide, that list the major leaguer players and team combinations that were active and who Burke photographed. They don't cover George Brace's decades of activity though, or the minor leaguers and older "old time player" photos that they reshot and reproduced. Some of the Brace era players were listed on the bracephoto website when it was active, but not all.

Presumably (hopefully) Rogers had all of the negatives scanned before selling them, but if so, the complete "catalog" of images was never made available to the public (to my knowledge), and the archive of scans may or may not be housed on one of the hard drives that he broke back into his offices to retrieve. I'm not sure if those hard drives were ever produced during the trials, or what their status is now. I'm sure that whoever wins the Conlon collection would love to not have to re-scan all of those negatives!

Hi,

I also have an original Burke Checklist. My checklist is numbered from 1 - 825. I am not sure how old this one is, but my guess would be prior to 1936. I say that because a player that I was hoping would be listed on this list isn't on the list and his first Burke photo was in 1936 when he played for the Columbus Red Birds and St. Louis Cardinals.

I would be interested in knowing how high the numbers go on yours and Ben's checklists. I'd be interested in possibly trading for a more recent checklist if it has the name of the particular player that I desire to have on the list.

If there is a need, I do have my checklist scanned...

[thecatspajamas]

PM sent. The catalog list that I have is dated August 1940. The one Ben had (has?) notes that it is a "Supplement to List of August, 1940" at the top. Both of these lists are of Major League players (American and National Leagues), though if your guy played in the minors and went on to play in the majors, he likely would have kept the same catalog identification number in Burke's archive. I also have a kind of running compilation of catalog numbers not represented in these catalogs that I have accumulated over time, if you would like me to take a look. The highest ID number I have recorded is Herman Besse at 6054, but I do not know if that is the end of the catalog. Burke did have separate catalog lists for "old time" (pre-1929) players, players in civvies, and minor league players, but I have never run across any of these, and only have numbers from these based on the scattered physical prints I have run across (if anyone has one of these other catalogs, or has scans of one available, please let me know).

[TCMA]

Just going through some of my father's collection today and came across a box full of dozens of original negatives from what looks like mostly the 40's. Majority of negs were the Newark Bears and definitely shot by an amateur photographer. Took some really quick snaps so I could share some. Several more major leaguers in the box too:

Babe Ruth:
https://c8.staticflickr.com/9/8618/29589856175_f4c94d6c5e_c.jpg

Lou Gehrig:
https://c3.staticflickr.com/9/8222/29586335546_ed45ff114a_c.jpg

Yogi Berra (Newark Bears):
https://c2.staticflickr.com/9/8560/29539892001_c81a545837_c.jpg

Pee Wee Reese:
https://c4.staticflickr.com/9/8515/29539893771_25cf55bb01_c.jpg

Luke Appling:
https://c8.staticflickr.com/9/8382/29620849255_2cc09a2b9c_c.jpg

[GKreindler]

LOVE that Berra shot - he looks like such a kid!!

[D. Bergin]

LOVE that Berra shot - he looks like such a kid!!


LOL! I was thinking he looks like the oldest, smallest minor leaguer I've ever seen in my life.

I also love the shot. :D

[TCMA]

LOVE that Berra shot - he looks like such a kid!!

I also love the shot.

Funny thing was, at the time I found these I was searching our collection for negatives from our local minor league team from the 40's, known as the Peekskill Highlanders. Pulling a Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, "Larry" Berra, and other major leaguers from the same box caught me completely off guard.

[rjackson44]

very cool

[GoCubsGo32]

Just going through some of my father's collection today and came across a box full of dozens of original negatives from what looks like mostly the 40's. Majority of negs were the Newark Bears and definitely shot by an amateur photographer. Took some really quick snaps so I could share some. Several more major leaguers in the box too:

Babe Ruth:
https://c8.staticflickr.com/9/8618/29589856175_f4c94d6c5e_c.jpg

Lou Gehrig:
https://c3.staticflickr.com/9/8222/29586335546_ed45ff114a_c.jpg

Yogi Berra (Newark Bears):
https://c2.staticflickr.com/9/8560/29539892001_c81a545837_c.jpg

Pee Wee Reese:
https://c4.staticflickr.com/9/8515/29539893771_25cf55bb01_c.jpg

Luke Appling:
https://c8.staticflickr.com/9/8382/29620849255_2cc09a2b9c_c.jpg


Whoa! Cool! I've actually seen those snapshots over the past year or so...and I may have one of them in my collection.

[TCMA]

Whoa! Cool! I've actually seen those snapshots over the past year or so...and I may have one of them in my collection.

Are you saying you have seen these images before? I don't know how that would be possible :confused: .

[GoCubsGo32]

That is correct. I know I've seen the Pee Wee on eBay in a Dodgers lot and the Lou I think I can pin point as well. I'll see if I can find them.

[TCMA]

That is correct. I know I've seen the Pee Wee on eBay in a Dodgers lot and the Lou I think I can pin point as well. I'll see if I can find them.

Hmm, very interesting. Definitely let me know if you find something.

[Joe_G.]

My collecting focus is narrow with a focus on 19th century Detroit items which can be tough to come by so I take interest in anything that might surface, negatives or otherwise. I have a 1888 game in process negative, Detroit vs Philadelphia in Philly, and several Old Judge glass plate negatives. I've written about them HERE (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=200961), the thread includes several scans.

[TCMA]

That is correct. I know I've seen the Pee Wee on eBay in a Dodgers lot and the Lou I think I can pin point as well. I'll see if I can find them.

Well, Gary is 100% correct. Not only has he seen the Gehrig... there's an original photo from my negative up for auction right now! What are the chances I'd find this neg last week and here is a print currently at auction? Makes we wonder who the photog was:

https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball/circa-1930-lou-gehrig-original-photograph/p/7165-326005.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515

[Chris Counts]

A few years back, I bought a batch of Reds' negatives from the 1939-40 era off eBay. A couple weeks later, I noticed they were smoking (no joke!). Soon, they had melted into a puddle of goo. I was never very good at chemistry, but I figured some kind of chemical reaction was going on. At this point, I decided to give up collecting negatives, but I did get a couple nice prints made from them before they self-destructed.

[horzverti]

A few years back, I bought a batch of Reds' negatives from the 1939-40 era off eBay. A couple weeks later, I noticed they were smoking (no joke!). Soon, they had melted into a puddle of goo. I was never very good at chemistry, but I figured some kind of chemical reaction was going on. At this point, I decided to give up collecting negatives, but I did get a couple nice prints made from them before they self-destructed.

Chris, that is a terrible that your negs were destroyed. Sorry to read that. May I ask how you had stored the negatives? Were they in individual sleeves? If so, what material were the sleeves made of?

[Keith_Loving]

You need to be careful to avoid high heat. Don't store them in an attic where the temps can get really hot and partly melt and warp the negatives. I have a hard time believing they were smoking, but I am no expert on this topic. Just a skeptic. Hopefully you had prints made before the negatives were toasted.

[yankeeno7]

I used to have a Ruth in a Red Sox uniform and then also had a Marilyn Monroe professional photograph (with not much clothes on).

I dont know enough about original negatives and was weary of the legitimacy of them being original so I sold them about 7-8 years ago.

[mikejanesphotography]

I sold all my baseball ones last year through Hunt.
This is how they degrade over time:
http://i811.photobucket.com/albums/zz32/sallen2556/sylvester%20johnson1_zpsew6oakyw.jpg

I bought those, most - if not all - were restored.

Brearley Collection negatives originally.

[h2oya311]

Here's a few of mine - all Burke/Brace:

1936 Walter Alston:
http://photos.imageevent.com/derekgranger/hofrookies1/websize/1936%20Alston.jpg

1967 Johnny Bench:
http://photos.imageevent.com/derekgranger/hofrookies1/websize/1967%20Bench%20Negative.jpg

1961 Lou Brock:
http://photos.imageevent.com/derekgranger/hofrookies1/websize/1961%20Brock.jpg

1939 Pee Wee Reese:
http://photos.imageevent.com/derekgranger/hofrookies1/websize/1938-39%20Reese%20-%20Dugout.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/derekgranger/hofrookies1/websize/1938-39%20Reese%20-%20Standing.jpg

1940 Phil Rizzuto:
http://photos.imageevent.com/derekgranger/hofrookies1/websize/1939%20Rizzuto.jpg

1960 Billy Williams:
http://photos.imageevent.com/derekgranger/hofrookies1/websize/1960%20Williams.jpg

I could certainly use some help getting better digital images of the Alston, Bench, and Brock.

[mikejanesphotography]

Love seeing Johnny in a Buffalo uniform, grew up going to the new stadium. Hoping to see him in a couple weeks. What do you mean better digital?

[horzverti]

Charles Conlon negatives - here are various years of longtime St. Louis Cardinals coach Clyde "Buzzy" Wares.

[horzverti]

Awesome shots Derek. The Rizzuto and Reeses are super!

[Forever Young]

Rookie

[mikejanesphotography]

Maybe someone knows the answer here, but with negatives from Charles Conlon, how did they end up on the market? I know from when John Rodgers bought the collection from The Sporting News and they were recently re-sold hundreds of them came up missing, are the ones out there the missing ones? If that's the case, was Rodgers legally allowed to sell them to begin with? Same with Brace/Burke, apparently Rodgers sold them off violating the agreement, so were those negatives on the market before Rodgers did that? He's being sued for selling them and missing payments, along with dozens of other things!

Just goes to show the damage one guy can do...

[horzverti]

Maybe someone knows the answer here, but with negatives from Charles Conlon, how did they end up on the market? I know from when John Rodgers bought the collection from The Sporting News and they were recently re-sold hundreds of them came up missing, are the ones out there the missing ones? If that's the case, was Rodgers legally allowed to sell them to begin with? Same with Brace/Burke, apparently Rodgers sold them off violating the agreement, so were those negatives on the market before Rodgers did that? He's being sued for selling them and missing payments, along with dozens of other things!

Just goes to show the damage one guy can do...

The Rogers' fraud story is a huge black eye on our hobby. I believe there was an ≈800 unit discrepancy between TSN's figure of 8300 Conlon negatives sold to Rogers in 2010 and the ≈7500 negs sold earlier this year as part of the liquidation of Rogers' assets. Rogers, via distributor(s), sold at least 75 individual 4 X 5 acetate negs around 2010 or 2011 if I remember correctly. I don't know if TSN's 8300 figure was a high estimate or if Rogers sold all 800. Rogers owned the Conlon negs, so I believe that he did have the legal right to sell them.

[Forever Young]

Millers

[thecatspajamas]

Maybe someone knows the answer here, but with negatives from Charles Conlon, how did they end up on the market? I know from when John Rodgers bought the collection from The Sporting News and they were recently re-sold hundreds of them came up missing, are the ones out there the missing ones? If that's the case, was Rodgers legally allowed to sell them to begin with? Same with Brace/Burke, apparently Rodgers sold them off violating the agreement, so were those negatives on the market before Rodgers did that? He's being sued for selling them and missing payments, along with dozens of other things!

Just goes to show the damage one guy can do...

With regard to the Burke/Brace archives, Rogers struck a deal with Mary Brace, George Brace's daughter, to purchase the archive for an up-front lump-sum payment (sort of a down-payment) plus periodic payments to follow. Per the deal, he had the ability to sell the original negatives before all of the payments had been made. I do not know if he was supposed to return a percentage of those sales to Mary as they happened, or what the specific terms of the repayment following sales were. He was also to be scanning the originals and returning an archive of scans to Mary that could be used to continue to produce prints. From what I understand, he either did not return scans to her, or the scans he did produce were sub-par, and after the initial lump-sum payment (and possibly one or two of the periodic payments?) he failed to make the periodic payments to follow up. There was a news article that quoted Rogers lawyer talking about unanticipated difficulties they had with copyright and marketing the images, and that they might have to unwind the deal. By the time he was missing payments though, the "key" images of HOFers were long gone, and the bulk of the archive had been sold, so there really was no way to unwind the deal and return the negatives. I'm sure Mary would have much preferred to get the archive back, but by the time Rogers was missing payments, it was much too late. That there was a deal that essentially allowed Rogers to sell off the collateral before having paid for it boggles my mind, but perhaps there are nuances to the deal that I am not aware of. Whatever the case, the last I heard, Mary had joined the line of creditors and business partners suing Rogers, and nothing usable (either negatives or scans) had been returned to her.

That said, Rogers was not the only one who released Burke/Brace negatives into the collecting community. There was a large grouping of negatives (several thousand, if memory serves) that proceeded from the estate of Jim Rowe that were sold through either Mastro or Legendary (it was either one of the last Mastro auctions or one of the first Legendary auctions, can't recall offhand which). I do not know if these were ever broken up and resold, or if they remained together in some other archive. It would be difficult to discern if they did hit the market now.

There are also anecdotal accounts of Brace himself having sold or bartered negatives over the years. (One story I heard had him trading negatives for help changing a tire on his vehicle.) So all of that is to say that there were some Burke/Brace negatives on the market prior to Rogers getting them, but clearly he did the most damage in terms of breaking up the archive and scattering it to the winds. That this was done without producing a comprehensive catalog of scans for later use and reference is, to me, the biggest tragedy of the whole story.

[thecatspajamas]

Here's a few of mine - all Burke/Brace

I could certainly use some help getting better digital images of the Alston, Bench, and Brock.

Derek,
Sweet grouping of images! I am especially fond of the minor league images of players who would go on to major league greatness. If by "getting better digital images" you mean finding a way to scan them at higher resolution than the images that were posted when you purchased them, please feel free to send me a PM for some suggestions.

[thecatspajamas]

Rookie

SUPERB shots of Joe and Ted, Ben, which goes without saying but I'm saying it anyway!

[mikejanesphotography]

horzverti & cats - thanks for those responses.

Thought had read he was not supposed to sell any of the negatives for one of the archives, probably misread something, but it would be interesting to know what the agreements allowed. This would be especially true in terms of the copyrights, since he violated the agreement, if he ever had them to begin with, etc. I did not know that some had been on the market from Brace/Burke before Rodgers took the archive, explains a lot really!

Conlon is mostly together still, Brace/Burke though, you're right, it's a shame they were not scanned properly and a catalog was made before being sold! Do not see a way it could ever be done either - unless those who own Burke/Brace prints/negs scan and fans create a central website to house them, kind of put them together backwards. Expensive and massive though.


Also see who outbid me on those auctions Forever_Young!!

[thecatspajamas]

Thought had read he was not supposed to sell any of the negatives for one of the archives

That may well have been the case with the Conlons. I know he had some sort of shared profit agreement with The Sporting News for the marketing of the Conlon images. That may have required him to keep the Conlon collection intact as well, but I just don't know.


Conlon is mostly together still, Brace/Burke though, you're right, it's a shame they were not scanned properly and a catalog was made before being sold! Do not see a way it could ever be done either - unless those who own Burke/Brace prints/negs scan and fans create a central website to house them, kind of put them together backwards. Expensive and massive though.

Even with fan/collector participation, such a project would never approach replicating the original archive. Even if one could contact every collector who has a portion of the archive, there are too many with the "1/1" attitude of wanting to be the only one who has a particular image that would not participate. The early negatives are also large enough that most desktop scanners cannot accommodate them, meaning the vast majority of collectors do not have a way of scanning the negatives, even if they are inclined to contribute to such a project.

[Forever Young]

Even with fan/collector participation, such a project would never approach replicating the original archive. Even if one could contact every collector who has a portion of the archive, there are too many with the "1/1" attitude of wanting to be the only one who has a particular image that would not participate. The early negatives are also large enough that most desktop scanners cannot accommodate them, meaning the vast majority of collectors do not have a way of scanning the negatives, even if they are inclined to contribute to such a project.

Maybe we should try anyway. Even if 1/10 were scanned, it would be great. I mean.. I will contribute my 6! :)

[mikejanesphotography]

That may well have been the case with the Conlons. I know he had some sort of shared profit agreement with The Sporting News for the marketing of the Conlon images. That may have required him to keep the Conlon collection intact as well, but I just don't know.

Even with fan/collector participation, such a project would never approach replicating the original archive. Even if one could contact every collector who has a portion of the archive, there are too many with the "1/1" attitude of wanting to be the only one who has a particular image that would not participate. The early negatives are also large enough that most desktop scanners cannot accommodate them, meaning the vast majority of collectors do not have a way of scanning the negatives, even if they are inclined to contribute to such a project.

Conlon - could be, never did see much of a follow up on the story to know more.

Brace/Burke - definitely, that's what would make it extremely expensive. Plus you couldn't just rely on negatives but would have to scan prints as well because those negatives may be lost in private collections or just gone (or 1/1 attitude). Guess that's kind of what the LOC did with the Bain collection, they have if it was scanned from the original negative or a print since some of the negatives ended up in collections. Even with a large amount of them scanned/restored and on a site, not sure what could do with it...except list who owns the original negative, or the print that it came from, if for sale, etc. Mary Brace probably still owns the copyrights to them all is my guess.

[TCMA]

I'm currently working with an archive containing hundreds of original glass plate negatives from the 30's. You may have seen some of my posts about this but here's a sampling:

Typical neg from the archive. Leo Durocher, St. Louis Cardinals:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8132/29251724130_67abce6c8f_z.jpg

Professionally cleaned and restored image of Sam Leslie, NY Giants in our proposed postcard size:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/752/33197461221_27a9318c85_c.jpg

[certainteed52]

Jackie Robinson 1945 original negatives.

[h2oya311]

Jackie Robinson 1945 original negatives.

I've got a Type I photo with this same image...it's a classic shot! Nice one!

[koufax1fan]

Hello:
Can anyone tell me the value of a color Sandy Koufax negative from April 1962 at Wrigley Field.. Koufax had 18 strikeouts in this game ...

[jefferyepayne]

Only have a few:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/XDB4r0UNhiOYiX7zDTFd1LiRNUV2bTcEFReP0vnJQWqiNhqcwK 0URCiEwbfxbIfTJZQiyGDVAJBSd0_0AOZdsQxLuXnVT7vTF_2C xlgRbuLfMq8i2hVolSAgxtxxLhh3HagsrSSVraqrR0tyg1wjXu mCY5tRG6cyldSmcn8UAPUHoPIPNfa2gx6FFYAKoE6DPBHxA8ii _Q7SDvzycL7I2REQUBEOA7Rei8DJ30ayLKi6YB-SYry5JLCE74jxzkQUKame9oyHuxuymTyRd9CovesAFp4PMNkQ0 nrotZuRhGjswcYzuXEadkuC9KQywhAD0w4E8ivh0hg4ykLSzd6 J-KwrXIhAWWnQI9XMJx74yW67ORkcJZ_6tonl2hPR9VIpG37-o_JaERBJ5ZanuQ_cWGaMkQJOtqVnvlhzySTUJ0Ata50JdQhvxi n0ludINod6OD3JAc9RrlqGwEBp8iUG7nLFmFaVawVndFxFzDFp 4qwDK5AxP3amhsZB4mDgP3R3ipSOXWQCrjYSAzVugnIaz8F7UV z662im40vXK5bRq7jAE06OxHcTnvdJwm2J-lj-TL_JTfuKimG2ShVagVe58hOUy3sLVecYcudsrEZAlWa3LyWjFl ysCPUIShkxA-hqHq6q2cWql3p531qBr3Pr2K28PkOxkmSNfHF6OqkISA=w640-h510-no

1916 Thorpe at bat.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/wTL6D-ubtGuKL0CNhS8tuqKddBaZXnede4EZsqTr8N8kvLzEQDCSMSQX v6aCX75Qlk8Qfqr7jX2N57PkgKA9aE8sptkYwyw_WAkdtJyUWz 1Ie0qRkQapkLkoqFoLsbQ3i0u10xwuaZYP-BNZT2COdTTnLDsNgzqqnQl0WO_TGdt-PP8GEEpuwKXzZU6oRdfbFk5Lo0A0osPeOC2RmRyquzJN_CuyAt grBhN44efERU8yGsoUO_fV8EKGt9F5jM9bpvfj1ZIQpZWjWe64 VjCRaVcS1zw3Uc0RnpV9nRaD_QAFFEk5Mp370h34ZaiVSXDBQy IB_GFW52x44RQNFqED1ZpuYaLwthocR3DH7HGeGvlO7IvsAnOm kZXTxDdXK3M72Y5mCPib9-5dNRn4ZaDusq23Ei8s2dmYrYoG_H9gkDNTLzLfU3N126SjVQ7w OjPKy0bRGmDgCQXXO78IobVGk71yjrr323Qo0iJXXn2K_J2H6a _VoxRRYocUnVq2YLwoPJQhK51MaZIF4kKt7YOaPRF1W1DY2I6B rncq40kKWCpVq4nQ83L5DYjMAvyy_gZFn1vP80CJm5YzEJPVQR 1CS1-m7z84S3uB7ZlaLxTnCp7cFk_XBUQi6FiYdGoreId3JLgEeEhNp ffslnw2HrriHjqXfRl1BzSbLyiFCJjKsQ=w420-h342-no

1925 Grange during his first pro football game.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/nC9lyjYXARseqEXv7PRj17_ro7EoKPGCTxlkxjOdI2QFDhjQKi MwC0vBS1eFNR8W6sTEtwEM3Jb9RqsDj3Fkj9WOk5TtxEDSQkjG nwixio-uNI8ckXfRBAPUUtfIP_WtQQB4OnvW6HUuSNQj3Mxg66v7RMm6W-FwyxrcB7-J3mezQ-dx1CTFQmdAXZbCYP93zYjFcn6naLuBNBb7vaf0SS9rxMFHArFt o4qRI8aT9dQVCFdPSN0N14FNWMik4MqFkTCx9sVtr8pz4zweyh TJJOP_T3Luv1jJSp1kliYqqPijiY2EaDATOkmMNZw1_eloPZ3T 4DSLsSU_WQt6kpM9Td-kundJFVl0_ioeB32dyOK0sUPKY12GBr-3bIDar_DUhFgQevoqWifLsKT18ggask-nptpuPMojyXJHY46y75htlD8uEst5EAC1a7bQpMUpTPJ04ceNn I8VDU9YUcx3r3CJJ4d49ZwI_RZvWOvIMbtD3Cy_ZxXgqHEE9AE lz54lfBfwEwU0KE1kd_gTx09O0ZgYuTMbSVHLeS1h262YFhfuy NdZhztGSBmY6fL8VbxlnUpQsXvHZc9Qzn87tHfX1O87j-XLXcFtr8hU5MNX4EhhiUDVIGBCR8rE2O0iTc2c9GGdl8dG2IcH 8ueQkDhEnCvCeZcdnaLAGPruOa3glg=w339-h415-no

1924 Grange at Illinois

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/sf9K_aGI-U1ZQ-nClQm8XnTPqCY1iJMngOqUAFi1I8PImJC2y0rpQC5m1IvnJmPj L5kc0_nD9veL-eOVLUyWuPSXx1yopKeyCkkfi1FrnG9kBEMWut7vVfE6vs-sB50NWegO2_I73utPdl77B9YysfbeJmh9RqlRVJkSkwmBALcKD o1MibdQLvO2ouD7bz4gNkkOO2xacvbVLqnxHIwHVzQ1jbqaZVl TjjiVXA0UEaS1alsUXNOu8EBCio37NGT2EM-wcgxcZq3ozVW0_kH16s1jZ99V5c-76u5USMEuLSX6qMP3jUUz1yx-ZtHx8_PLBh-yDzma2tE-BIqWnbEPKm91E9ITxv3_UXjDvtg1uczXXhXyy-3WeoYGKwth1_8CavfVYzkGf4wHMGVifDl-82sKpTGlcRzZ83EOlLAK5Gu3TWYv3kYeS95SopHZz3kIzYgWQi VFRaiZ8DKnpsgQOPX2F7xjkO92DUL2_RDmL-oZkeirLTcO62g9r3w6XtbsxZ6gopMIZfxBKpeKcO_xzA1kqGdz X1TqORg8MWpwZqXMte9E7dpmlJR3oHTPBH-raIigYuvIJ9fCVrtAOTN1G9mQWi3qFPmvqXW9V8Fclf-m5MYMeF9YUsjEGcWhNIi4h2JsJDM2vR5P8O58zqXINJpZpKn7-qNdtgdd27FifA=w278-h360-no

1928 Grange with kids

jeff

[MVSNYC]

Pretty awesome thread. What struck me, was that Al Simmons photo with his son...if his son is alive today, he's probably around 80!

In that Thorpe photo, looks like he tore the cover off the ball, man.

[Keith_Loving]

Maybe we should try anyway. Even if 1/10 were scanned, it would be great. I mean.. I will contribute my 6! :)

I bought three (3) original 5x7 George Burke negatives recently and I already have them scanned. At 2000 DPI resolution, the file size in PNG is 232MB and in JPG is 38.6 MB

I sent them off and had them professionally scanned and they turned out even better than I could have imagined. Cost was $105 for the company I picked online.

On a side note, there is a new owner in Illinois who picked up many many boxes (about half of the Burke negatives) from an auction, he was able to get them for around $45,000. I have made one attempt at contacting the company in search for a one particular player from the Cardinals, but I never got a response. I can link you to the article if anyone is wanting to read about this transaction. I had to "pay" for the article and so I probably will need to take a screen shot of it of you want to read it, else you will have to pay to read the article online.

[mikejanesphotography]

I bought three (3) original 5x7 George Burke negatives recently and I already have them scanned. At 2000 DPI resolution, the file size in PNG is 232MB and in JPG is 38.6 MB

I sent them off and had them professionally scanned and they turned out even better than I could have imagined. Cost was $105 for the company I picked online.

On a side note, there is a new owner in Illinois who picked up many many boxes (about half of the Burke negatives) from an auction, he was able to get them for around $45,000. I have made one attempt at contacting the company in search for a one particular player from the Cardinals, but I never got a response. I can link you to the article if anyone is wanting to read about this transaction. I had to "pay" for the article and so I probably will need to take a screen shot of it of you want to read it, else you will have to pay to read the article online.

Definitely would like to see it! Talk about a community project, restore the collection to the best that it can be, be interesting to say the least. The fact he has that many is interesting, thought they were gone to the wind so to speak.

I'm surprised you paid that much to get them scanned, did they restore as well? I have a negative scanner and did it myself and then sent them off to a guy overseas who did them for $2-15/each. Did an absolutely spectacular job of restoring them. It would have cost about $85/each if done though a company in the U.S. that oddly uses the same labor overseas.

[Keith_Loving]

27 double sized shoe hoxes were recovered and sold at auction. Does anyone have a link as to how many shoe boxes there was in total when Mary sold them to John Rogers? I must believe this could be around half of the collection.

http://i65.tinypic.com/21omuqg.png

I don't really collect baseball cards on a whole, nor do I collect the popular players in the game. I just focus on one player for sentimental reasons. I wasn't willing to take a risk at loosing the George Burke negatives, nor was I willing to send them out of the country. I found a website that I liked whose state is adjacent to mine, and I went with it. ^.^ Security and peace of mind comes first, price isn't an issue because I had so few to be done. If I had a box of hundreds of negatives, then price would have become an issue. But I only have just the three.

[thecatspajamas]

27 double sized shoe hoxes were recovered and sold at auction. Does anyone have a link as to how many shoe boxes there was in total when Mary sold them to John Rogers? I must believe this could be around half of the collection.

http://i65.tinypic.com/21omuqg.png

I don't know how many negatives a "double-sized shoe box" contains, but the 250,000 total negative count that the article estimates for the entire Burke/Brace collection sounds about right.

I doubt that there were any HOFers remaining in the collection by the time the assets were sold, as one of the first things that Rogers did upon acquiring the archive was to pull those out and sell them. Perhaps some stars remained, but there were no doubt many lesser-known and rarely-photographed players in the mix that will never be re-grouped in any meaningful way.

[thecatspajamas]

What would be ideal (to my mind) would be to have a wiki-type website that could serve as a repository of baseball imagery of all types wherein contributors could upload images tagged with player ID's, year/team depicted, and photographer (if known). The Burke or Conlon section of such a website could then serve as an archive as desired above, with moderators and/or users having the ability to correct misidentifications and fill in missing information as needed.

The images themselves would probably have to be watermarked or locked in some way to prevent duplication for reasons of potential copyright infringement, but such a site would be a tremendous help to those researching player IDs, dates and uniform styles in their own photos. This would be particularly true if the images were cross-referenced with a site like baseball-reference or retrosheet.

Sadly, I do not have the programming capability to set up such a website, nor would I have the time to moderate in any meaningful way, but would be happy to contribute scans to such a worthy endeavor if one ever did emerge on the web.

[Keith_Loving]

Can someone tell me is 2,965 the complete Conlon collection? Just wondering if there are more?

http://www.gettyimages.com/search/more-like-this/173654020?excludenudity=true&family=editorial&mediatype=photography&sort=mostpopular#license

[Forever Young]

Can someone tell me is 2,965 the complete Conlon collection? Just wondering if there are more?

http://www.gettyimages.com/search/more-like-this/173654020?excludenudity=true&family=editorial&mediatype=photography&sort=mostpopular#license

More original conlon images outside of neg collection? Yes.. nany more

[mikejanesphotography]

When mentioned sending them overseas I was referring to the digital files and not the actual negatives. Those never left my house.

$46,000 for those negatives,where was I when they were sold, assume it was with rights as sold to Rogers, would have jumped on it. Be nice to know their plans.

[mikejanesphotography]

The Digital Archive Group that purchased what was left over, 225,000 negatives, said they own the rights to all images now, including the ones Rogers sold off without permission as he scanned them and they have the digital copies. They're giving them away to all the teams to fill out their archives. So guess the collection is still together technically speaking.

[thecatspajamas]

So how is it that DAG have the digital copies of the negatives that Rogers scanned and sold off prior to them purchasing the remainder of the archive?

[Keith_Loving]

TDAG: http://www.digitalarchivegroup.com/

Here is their recent blog where they seek baseball club owners to contact them http://www.digitalarchivegroup.com/tdag-acquires-rare-historic-baseball-image-collection/

[mikejanesphotography]

They answered my questions on their Facebook page...


"The Digital Archive Group So, my company now holds rights to all physical and digital rights to the entire collection, regardless of what Rogers sold. The court case is officially closed."

"The Digital Archive Group Yes. He scanned the ones that were sold off and I have that digital copy."

If had known about an auctions pretty sure a bunch of people here would have been involved, wonder why it went under the radar so much?

Also thought the same thing about Mary Brace, she should have been given them back, however she was awarded over $800,000 in missed payments. Though, in the original deal she was supposed to get digital copies of everything, doesn't look like that happened but not entirely sure on that since they do not mention that. Also says the teams will get them exclusively, which think is a mistake - the Hall of Fame should have them, Mary should have them, and if it were in my possession there'd be a site dedicated to them!

Hate seeing archives disappear, and unfortunately it seems this one will - though it won't be broken up, the average person will never see these scans unless team releases them. Wish a writer would dig deeper on all this...

[Keith_Loving]

I am hoping the scanned images could be made available for purchase through a site like gettyimages. Seems like many Conlon is available on gettyimages. I've bought a dozen scans myself from gettyimages and would buy more if this archive was made available. Here is hope in a few years time, this archive and metadata can be searched and scans can be bought.

[mikejanesphotography]

I am hoping the scanned images could be made available for purchase through a site like gettyimages. Seems like many Conlon is available on gettyimages. I've bought a dozen scans myself from gettyimages and would buy more if this archive was made available. Here is hope in a few years time, this archive and metadata can be searched and scans can be bought.

I am not thrilled reading that they want to have the ball club to contact them for exclusivity of their photos. I'd say that would be a mistake. As they should make that scans available for purchase by the general public as well. I plan on e-mailing them again next week to see if I can get any information on a certain player that interests me.

I posted that as well, saying if had known would have bought and made the money back via licensing as Getty does. It's just odd that teams would be the only ones getting them, if they went to the Hall of Fame you could purchase copies and help out the HOF at the same time, teams though depends on if they have a good system in place or not, many not so sure they do.

[Keith_Loving]

Kelch Returning Brace Collection To Teams

(this was a one-on-one interview we had with Kelch on Thursday afternoon. This all original content for these pages.)

Jeffrey Kelch, CEO of Digital Archive Group, the group that purchased the remants of the massive George Brace collection in a January court-ordered auction, is finally going public with the details of that purchase. And what he had to say was remarkable.

Kelch, contacted this week, isn’t ready to spill all the details, but the headline is that the Brace collection was actually purchased intact. The auction, conducted in the aftermath of the collapse of the Rogers digital images empire, drew only $46,500 as the winning bid -- a modest amount dwarfed by the $1.8 million that the Conlon Collection (also a Rogers acquisition) had drawn the previous August.

“We have been trying to acquire the collection from Mary Brace for the last three or four years,” Kelch said. “But her asking price was a steady $2 million. She finally got someone to meet her price – even though she would only wind up getting about half that. What she didn’t get were the rights.”

Meanwhile, as authorities were closing in on Rogers, he was busily selling the elite players out of the Brace file – Robinson, Mantle, Ruth (with four different teams as a player and coach), Gehrig – seemingly stripping the massive collection of much of its value. But Rogers was no fool. He did not sell the rights, and the numerous court claims on his estate prevented them from reverting to Mary Brace, despite an agreement with Rogers.

“Rogers was all about selling as much as he could as quickly as he could to make a quick buck, and as a result a lot of the best players were gone. But they missed a lot of stuff,” Kelch said. “And the one thing Rogers did – everything he sold, he copied digitally.”

The January auction, conducted by the executor of the Rogers estate, was held to pay off claims with whatever the remaining negatives would bring. But the digital copies were also part of the lot that Kelch’s group won – a gold mine that was still there.

“We had digital copies of everything,” he explained. “Some 250,000 images, with all rights.”

But the wrinkle is that, for all the years that Kelch pursued the collection, he has had a specific destination in mind.

“I have no interest in holding onto these images,” he said. “I bought them with the idea of returning them to the original organizations – images and rights. We intend to return the entire collection back to the teams.”

One thing Kelch did almost immediately was to assure Mary Brace that the collection would not be sold piecemeal, and has kept his word in the months since.

Kelch’s Illinois-based group went about the painstaking process of organizing the collection, even as Digital Archive entered into negotiations with every major league organization separately for their own unique treasure trove. But he wisely did not merely put the Brace photos out in a vacuum.

“We want to work with the clubs to allow them to have a better understanding of the players in the photos, who they were,” Kelch said. “Like Wimpy Quinn; he pitched in five games for the Cubs, went off to World War II, never to play again. He's there.”

An admitted diehard Cubs fan, Kelch said that his beloved Cubbies were one of “seven or eight” clubs which which Digital Archive had come to terms with over the Brace images. The process is ongoing.

“We’re not in a hurry,” he said. “We’re not giving them away. There were a lot of costs involved in production and organization. But we are not selling them to individual collectors.”

For the time being, Kelch is happy to gradually return the Brace Collection to the teams. After all, their cooperation and access allowed Brace and his camera to have a unique place in the history of the sport in the 20th century. A longer term goal for Kelch is to find other such collections from Brace’s contemporaries in order to return them to the teams in order to protect their own history.

“We haven’t even talked about what we’d do if a team does not want its images,” Kelch said. “There’s always the Hall of Fame.”

SOURCE (http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/board/showpost.php?p=4200296&postcount=31025)

[TCMA]

I am hoping the scanned images could be made available for purchase through a site like gettyimages. Seems like many Conlon is available on gettyimages. I've bought a dozen scans myself from gettyimages and would buy more if this archive was made available. Here is hope in a few years time, this archive and metadata can be searched and scans can be bought.

Problem is, Getty is selling the digital image files for $500+ and they are intended for editorial use only. If someone were to sell prints of the images (legally) they would not only need rights to the images but also rights to the team logos. That's how they get ya.

[mikejanesphotography]

Problem is, Getty is selling the digital image files for $500+ and they are intended for editorial use only. If someone were to sell prints of the images (legally) they would not only need rights to the images but also rights to the team logos. That's how they get ya.

Legally a stand alone print is editorial, it's been challenged and courts have been very clear that selling a print is not commercial. If it wasn't imagine all the lawsuits against photographers and newspapers. There's photographers who sell their work today (Walter Iooss, meager starting price of $2,000 for an 11x14). Leagues of course look at it as a commercial product and require licensing, and if you don't want to cooperate they have the power to shut you down....though literally thousands, if not millions, of photos are for sale on eBay, most stolen.

Topps got sued by Buzz Aldrin and a lower court ruled it was a historic event so they did not need permission from him, it fell under editorial because of its significance. It unfortunately got settled before the appeal happened, as many wanted to see if higher courts would also rule the same.

[mikejanesphotography]

...other question is now that the Conlon Collection was sold, does Getty still have the rights to sell them? They're still listed under the Rogers Photo Archive, if someone else owns the rights now does Getty still have the right to sell them?

[TCMA]

Legally a stand alone print is editorial, it's been challenged and courts have been very clear that selling a print is not commercial.

Please provide a source for this info. Even if that is the case, anyone selling prints online wouldn't be selling standalone prints. They'd be producing many multiples and offering them as made-to-order items. If it got big enough the leagues could take action for copyright and trademark infringement.

Trust me, I'd love to see it happen but I think there are many legal hurdles that need to be considered.

Leagues of course look at it as a commercial product and require licensing, and if you don't want to cooperate they have the power to shut you down....though literally thousands, if not millions, of photos are for sale on eBay, most stolen.

Correct. Which is why everyone involved in this lawsuit is royally screwed. Several eBay stores were obtaining images through this guy:

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/getty-images-v-walter-kowalczuk-(buyingselling-images-in-private-fb-forums)/

http://press.gettyimages.com/statement-regarding-legal-action-taken-against-mr-walter-a-kowalczuk/








Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Keith_Loving]

More original conlon images outside of neg collection? Yes.. nany more

Interesting, I wonder what happened to the other negatives for the other Conlon images. Surely, the other Conlon negatives must exist somewhere as well?

[TCMA]

Interesting, I wonder what happened to the other negatives for the other Conlon images. Surely, the other Conlon negatives must exist somewhere as well?


There are lots of original photos and several negs in the archive I work with. We have everything separated alphabetically though, so it'd be a lot of work to figure out exactly what's there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GKreindler]

Conlon destroyed a ton of negatives himself, supposedly because of the amount of space they took up. But there are definitely a lot of original photos that have survived and made their way to various auctions, even as far back as the Christie's Baseball Magazine auctions 20 years ago.

Andrew, granted I wasn't there for super long, but when I perused Photofile's archives almost ten years ago, I didn't remember seeing any Conlons. Admittedly, I was only looking for specific players though, and it was what seems like forever ago. Regardless, they do have a ton of really nice and expensive stuff.

[TCMA]

Conlon destroyed a ton of negatives himself, supposedly because of the amount of space they took up. But there are definitely a lot of original photos that have survived and made their way to various auctions, even as far back as the Christie's Baseball Magazine auctions 20 years ago.

Andrew, granted I wasn't there for super long, but when I perused Photofile's archives almost ten years ago, I didn't remember seeing any Conlons. Admittedly, I was only looking for specific players though, and it was what seems like forever ago. Regardless, they do have a ton of really nice and expensive stuff.



Graig, I think it's great you got to take a look at the archive. End up pulling anything? Lots and lots of great stuff in there. Most if not all of the archive was accumulated by my father and was his resource for creating TCMA cards in the 70's and 80's.

There are four Conlon glass negs that I'm aware of but likely more. Will post some pics later this evening :) .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TCMA]

So here is a Judge Landis, followed by a Zack Wheat with the Brooklyn Robins in 1919. Based on the handwriting I'm guessing this is a Conlon but could use some opinions on that. Either way, 1919 makes Wheat the oldest glass plate negative I've come across in our archive so far:

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4075/34842475274_74a535e808_o.jpg

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4290/34842475094_41bb4fbd41_o.jpg

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4254/35683310755_2ffc8a63d5_o.jpg

[mikejanesphotography]

I will say it probably could be challenged and would be a very interesting case to follow because a lot of legal definitions that have stood for awhile could get redefined. However, since it's a first amendment issue and always viewed pretty liberally and wide reaching, I honestly do not think a league would ever go far with the case because it could not work out in their favor, and that could open up Pandoras Box so to speak (of course it already exists kind of). I know of two photographers who challenged two different leagues, no suit, just banned.

Anyways, the case remember most you can look at is probably IPA (Illinois Press Association) vs. IHSA (Illinois High School Association). It got "settled" by the IPA getting everything they wanted, the court said the IHSA could not stop them from selling prints because it's constitutionally protected and they also could not limit access (this of course we know is different in major sporting events, they can deny anyone they want, which is a good thing!).

The leagues do not care about copyright issues, that's the photographers and agencies responsibility to worry about (unless the photo is league owned). Players Association worries about likeness, leagues worry about trademark. There's literally thousands of sellers illegally selling stolen photos on eBay, the leagues do not care one bit because it's copyright infringement, not trademark.

Alan could get a good amount of jail time, there's more on that list as well as he wasn't the only one doing it, just seems to be the stupidest one who posted it everywhere and didn't do a good job being sly about it. Two print labs that were doing most the printing of stolen pics had to turn over their order history to the feds. I hope they stick it to him and the others hard, some of the boards he was using deleted the photo sections thus destroying evidence, could get interesting.

Doesn't have much to do with negatives though, if you own the rights to an old negative and selling prints nobody is going to sue over it. If you don't own the rights then whoever does might and could come after you, and if it's an orphaned work it's illegal to even scan it. Fun world we live in.

[GKreindler]

Andrew, those definitely look like Conlons to me! What's interesting is that you don't see a whole lot of shots of his from Ebbets Field - the majority are from Yankee Stadium and the Polo Grounds (And Hilltop Park in the earlier days). Even the ones from Washington Park are few and far between, with the exception of those batting practice photos when Pittsburgh was in town.

Also, your dad had some excellent taste - there's a lot of iconic images in there. I remember getting one image of Mickey Mantle from 1957, but I think that was it. Chuck was super nice to grant access to the place, and the project we did together was fun, though I wish more came from it - I can't believe how long ago it was!!

[horzverti]

The Wheat is definitely a Conlon. No doubt. A beauty! Thanks for sharing.

I would say that the Landis is most likely not a Conlon. From what I have seen, Charlie was fairly consistent with his player/team identification and other markings on the top edge of his negatives. Much like you see on the Wheat. Then again, there is a chance that he just didn't mark the Landis neg.

Is the Landis the same size as the Wheat? The Wheat should be 4 x 5.

[TCMA]

lWhat's interesting is that you don't see a whole lot of shots of his from Ebbets Field - the majority are from Yankee Stadium and the Polo Grounds (And Hilltop Park in the earlier days).

Interesting. I do know we've got two other Dodgers that he shot: Paul Richards and Max Carey but those are from the 30's. Will have to do some more digging when I'm back in the office this week.



Also, your dad had some excellent taste - there's a lot of iconic images in there.


Thanks, Graig and I absolutely agree - great stuff. If you take a look online at the old TCMA cards (and they produced a LOT of different sets back in the day), many of those images are still in the archive either as original photos or negatives. Some are offered on Photo Files website, others are tucked away forever most likely.

Still, I'm always coming across images I never knew existed and my jaw hits the floor.

In my mind, the MOST iconic image is this Lou Gehrig that is part of our glass plate negative collection originating from The New York Sun. My father bought this collection containing hundreds of glass plate negs from an antique shop in CT in 1969:

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170704/e6e6b540a67f3ca7a88b451345e8d27c.jpg

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170704/b2cd4e69a5508c1d2436353fe0867b0b.jpg




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TCMA]

The Wheat is definitely a Conlon. No doubt. A beauty! Thanks for sharing.



I would say that the Landis is most likely not a Conlon. From what I have seen, Charlie was fairly consistent with his player/team identification and other markings on the top edge of his negatives. Much like you see on the Wheat. Then again, there is a chance that he just didn't mark the Landis neg.



Is the Landis the same size as the Wheat? The Wheat should be 4 x 5.


I believe they are both 4x5. Very possible Landis is not a Conlon but I'll have to look more closely sometime this week. Would definitely like to confirm either way.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Keith_Loving]

Interesting. I do know we've got two other Dodgers that he shot: Paul Richards and Max Carey but those are from the 30's. Will have to do some more digging when I'm back in the office this week.






Thanks, Graig and I absolutely agree - great stuff. If you take a look online at the old TCMA cards (and they produced a LOT of different sets back in the day), many of those images are still in the archive either as original photos or negatives. Some are offered on Photo Files website, others are tucked away forever most likely.

Still, I'm always coming across images I never knew existed and my jaw hits the floor.

In my mind, the MOST iconic image is this Lou Gehrig that is part of our glass plate negative collection originating from The New York Sun. My father bought this collection containing hundreds of glass plate negs from an antique shop in CT in 1969:

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170704/e6e6b540a67f3ca7a88b451345e8d27c.jpg

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170704/b2cd4e69a5508c1d2436353fe0867b0b.jpg




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Could you PM me the link to the Photo Files website? I am curious to check it out.

Thank you

[TCMA]

The Wheat is definitely a Conlon. No doubt. A beauty! Thanks for sharing.

I would say that the Landis is most likely not a Conlon. From what I have seen, Charlie was fairly consistent with his player/team identification and other markings on the top edge of his negatives. Much like you see on the Wheat. Then again, there is a chance that he just didn't mark the Landis neg.

Is the Landis the same size as the Wheat? The Wheat should be 4 x 5.

Check this out. I just found the Landis image attributed to Conlon in this auction listing. Doesn't confirm it 100% for me but it's something:

http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2006/spring/994/original-charles-conlon-black-sox-photograph-collection/

[horzverti]

Check this out. I just found the Landis image attributed to Conlon in this auction listing. Doesn't confirm it 100% for me but it's something:

http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2006/spring/994/original-charles-conlon-black-sox-photograph-collection/

Andrew,
The auction description read that all of the photos included in the lot show either Conlon writing or stamps on their backs. I would say that is a slam dunk. I was wrong in my previous post. It looks like it is a Conlon. I believe the REA auction pre-dated the Rogers shenanigans. So that makes the accurate Conlon designation even more concrete.
Nice detective work.
Your archive looks great. Please post more great images when you can.

[TCMA]

Andrew,
The auction description read that all of the photos included in the lot show either Conlon writing or stamps on their backs. I would say that is a slam dunk.

I just came across the original neg and that's definitely Conlon's handwriting. It's officially official :cool: .

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4209/35716387321_7a32b9a9ea.jpg

[TCMA]

Also found this Conlon neg of Del Bissonette of the Dodgers/Robins. Didn't want to remove it from the sleeve but there was a contact print along with it:

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4254/35038719163_b8e31ccdb3_z.jpg

[horzverti]

Wow, that is great! Have you gone through your entire archive? Is there a chance
you may find more Conlon original negs or photos?I just came across the original neg and that's definitely Conlon's handwriting. It's officially official :cool: .

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4209/35716387321_7a32b9a9ea.jpg

[TCMA]

Wow, that is great! Have you gone through your entire archive? Is there a chance
you may find more Conlon original negs or photos?

Going through the entire archive I'm sure would take weeks if not months :( . Definitely more Conlon's to be found. I also went ahead and posted a few prints in the Conlon photos thread.

[Forever Young]

High end, single Gehrig on GLASS is very tough for some reason. 1927-30

[TCMA]

High end, single Gehrig on GLASS is very tough for some reason. 1927-30



We’ve got a few. The one I posted previously, plus the one used to create the TCMA postcard below. I believe we have the glass neg used to create the shot below that but would have to confirm:

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171118/687168f5b6cf6a7dcfd33a0c8613ffba.jpg

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171118/4d8aeca1a843e75c5edab81683b3c272.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Forever Young]

We’ve got a few. The one I posted previously, plus the one used to create the TCMA postcard below. I believe we have the glass neg used to create the shot below that but would have to confirm:

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171118/687168f5b6cf6a7dcfd33a0c8613ffba.jpg

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171118/4d8aeca1a843e75c5edab81683b3c272.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Very nice. So they are all Glass vs acetate?

[TCMA]

Correct. Those are glass but we have several acetate as well. Will try and get a few shots posted when I’m back in the archive on Mon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Forever Young]

Correct. Those are glass but we have several acetate as well. Will try and get a few shots posted when I’m back in the archive on Mon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This one is Nice. Would love to see

[TCMA]

Yep, great shot. I’m 90% positive that’s glass but I’ll confirm and if so will post.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Forever Young]

Ruth

[Forever Young]

Notebook

[Exhibitman]

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/boxingphotographsandephemera/large/Ketchel%20negative%201.JPG

I have the glass plate neg of this Stan Ketchel image. Probably from the Dana Studio in SF.

I have no idea why I bought it or what to do with it. So it sits in a drawer.

[thecatspajamas]

I have no idea why I bought it or what to do with it. So it sits in a drawer.

This could describe half of what I own :D

[mikejanesphotography]

This could describe half of what I own :D

Ditto!

Literally have a drawer next to me right now full of glass plate negatives (and 200,000 other types behind me).

[TCMA]

Yep, great shot. I’m 90% positive that’s glass but I’ll confirm and if so will post.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yep, it’s glass. A little distortion here as I’ve got it in a plastic sleeve sitting on a stand:

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171120/bd0492710b26e01cc64cf19a565fd8a6.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Runscott]

I have some large glass slides of Willie Hoppe. Has anyone figured out a good way of getting positive images from these? These two images came from the original auction, but I don't have images of the other three slides.

[TCMA]

I have some large glass slides of Willie Hoppe. Has anyone figured out a good way of getting positive images from these? These two images came from the original auction, but I don't have images of the other three slides.


Yes. Take a shot of the neg with your phone, then use an app like Photoshop Express to invert the colors. That’s what I do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[thecatspajamas]

Has anyone figured out a good way of getting positive images from these?

Depends on whether you're just wanting the images to show off, or use them for reprinting or other purposes that would require a better quality / hi-res image. If just showing off here, the method Andrew offered, or placing the negative on a light box and photographing. Placing a light source over the negative on a flatbed scanner could work as well, though the results were mixed the few times I've tried that (hard to get even backlighting across larger negatives).

Otherwise, there are a handful of flatbed scanner models that will handle larger negatives, though most are out of production (I believe Epson's V800 model, a slight update from the V700, may be the only mid-level flatbed scanner still in production that is capable of handling larger-than-35mm negatives and transparencies?) Depending on how many you have to scan, investing in specific hardware for the task may or may not be worth it.

[Jobu]

Here is a whopper of a post on the few that I have:

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=247848

[Runscott]

Depends on whether you're just wanting the images to show off, or use them for reprinting or other purposes that would require a better quality / hi-res image. If just showing off here, the method Andrew offered, or placing the negative on a light box and photographing. Placing a light source over the negative on a flatbed scanner could work as well, though the results were mixed the few times I've tried that (hard to get even backlighting across larger negatives).

Otherwise, there are a handful of flatbed scanner models that will handle larger negatives, though most are out of production (I believe Epson's V800 model, a slight update from the V700, may be the only mid-level flatbed scanner still in production that is capable of handling larger-than-35mm negatives and transparencies?) Depending on how many you have to scan, investing in specific hardware for the task may or may not be worth it.

I would like to create high-quality prints and frame them for my man-cave. I hate to spend $700 on a scanner when I already have two scanners, but it sounds like this is the only solution.

Is there anyone here who is capable and would be willing to create hi-res scans of glass-plate negatives, in exchange for some service I could offer? (like the deal in 'the Godfather')

[Michael B]

Scott,

There are not too many flatbed scanners being made anymore designed for film. I have an old Microtek pro film scanner which can do flatbed scans up to 8x10 negatives, including glass. I would suggest calling B&H Photo in NYC as they may be able to find this type for under $400.00. Most of the popular scanners now are set up to scan 35mm negs, transparencies (slides) and medium format of regular film but not glass. I was at a photo expo in NYC last month where I saw a scanner that will handle glass, but it was $1800.00.

You could also pick up a copy of Shutterbug magazine and look at the ads in the back for lab services. You may find one that can do glass. I know of one in Belmont, MA that could probably handle them, but you may be able to find one closer to home.

[Runscott]

Scott,

There are not too many flatbed scanners being made anymore designed for film. I have an old Microtek pro film scanner which can do flatbed scans up to 8x10 negatives, including glass. I would suggest calling B&H Photo in NYC as they may be able to find this type for under $400.00. Most of the popular scanners now are set up to scan 35mm negs, transparencies (slides) and medium format of regular film but not glass. I was at a photo expo in NYC last month where I saw a scanner that will handle glass, but it was $1800.00.

You could also pick up a copy of Shutterbug magazine and look at the ads in the back for lab services. You may find one that can do glass. I know of one in Belmont, MA that could probably handle them, but you may be able to find one closer to home.

Thanks. I have a great scanner (Canon 9000F) that does everything BUT large format glass negatives, so I understand what you are saying. I thought for sure I could make the Canon work, but anyone who has ever gone through this will understand the frustration and the impossibility of the task.

I do not collect glass negatives or negatives of any type. I purchased these five because I collect billiard memorabilia, especially if it is related to Willie Hoppe. I had never seen these particular images (nor has anyone else), so I sprung for them at auction about five years ago, and still do not know what the other three look like quality-wise. They were taken in a natural pool room environment (as opposed to professional staged shots or publicity photos), so they are especially appealing to me. I figured I could get some huge prints of the better ones for my pool room, but gave up and put them on ebay.

Now I will remove them and resume the project.

[Michael B]

Scott,

I just dropped a note to a pro-lab I use for developing. I will let you know what they say.

[Michael B]

Scott,

I am posting this just in case there are others that may wish to use their services. They are a great company that does high quality work. Their specialty is taking digital files and printing them on silver halide fiber paper aka real photo paper with chemicals. Their website is fairly self explanatory, but they are always available to answer questions.

Hello Michael,

We are able to make prints from glass plate negatives. The largest size we can scan at the studio being 11x17. This being said we are very willing to do both the scanning and print of the images at whichever size your friend sees fit. Let us know if you have any other inquiries or questions.


Looking forward to working with you,

Hannah



Digital Silver Imaging

9 Brighton Street

Belmont MA 02478

info@digitalsilverimaging.com

617-489-0035

www.digitalsilverimaging.com

[SAllen2556]

I would like to create high-quality prints and frame them for my man-cave. I hate to spend $700 on a scanner when I already have two scanners, but it sounds like this is the only solution.

Is there anyone here who is capable and would be willing to create hi-res scans of glass-plate negatives, in exchange for some service I could offer? (like the deal in 'the Godfather')

I went to a local photo studio - the kind that does high school graduation photos. I was told that they can scan 4 x 5 negatives and turn them into high quality prints - exactly the same quality as if they had the original negative. You should be able to find someone local. I just had too many to go that route. I had an old canon scanner that worked great, but I can't get the damn thing to work right anymore.

And, if you can find someone who has a darkroom in their basement, most of the old enlargers came with a 4 x 5 negative holder. Many high schools still use film cameras in their classes and still use enlargers. You might actually contact a local high school. The only issue is you won't be able to clean up the image using photoshop, so any scratches, etc. will appear on the print.

A third, and maybe best, option is a place that does fine art printing - a place where a professional photographer would go to have large prints made. There are still photographers who shoot 4 x 5.

[Runscott]

Lots of great ideas - thanks.

[mikejanesphotography]

Have scanned thousands of negatives, glass in the hundreds. Have a restoration guy as well that is cheap ($1-15), overseas.

[Exhibitman]

here's a simple hack for a flatbed scanner: get a piece of 1/4" white Plexiglas, put it over the item on the scanner bed with the lid up, and shine several lights on it. You may have to run it a few times to figure out any hot spots of too intense light but you should be able to get a nice scan of the neg. Then use a 'negative' function in photo software and you will have a positive image.

[Jobu]

I bought an Epson 4990. It is an older model but does a great job, though it took some tweaks to make the software work. You can find them on eBay for $125-$175 shipped, though there isn't always one listed so it might take some time.

[ruth-gehrig]

I do not own a scanner but 1927 Yankees. Came from Henry Yee 10 years ago

[mikejanesphotography]

I do not own a scanner but 1927 Yankees. Came from Henry Yee 10 years ago

Nice pic!

[ruth-gehrig]

Had no idea that was possible Mike from a picture of a negative. Thank you!:)

[ruth-gehrig]

What's the significance of a glass negative compared to what I posted above of the 1927 Yankees?

[mikejanesphotography]

What's the significance of a glass negative compared to what I posted above of the 1927 Yankees?

What you posted looks like a copy negative from a glass plate, they used to do it all the time to archive them (bought an archive from the 20/30's and have several very similar type shots) - take a photo of a photo. Glass was just the format widely used until they switched over.

[steve B]

Almost for sure a copy negative.

The notches at the top right are a code identifying what sort of sheet film it is. (From what I see, "commercial ortho" )

While I'm not as familiar with sheet film as I am with movie film, the figures after Kodak look like a circle followed by a triangle. That should be a datecode for 1923, 1943 or 1963 As they recycled codes every 20 years.

[thecatspajamas]

I haven't found anything that definitively indicates whether Kodak sheet film followed the same edge code dating system for their sheet film as they did with 35mm (much more documentation for 35mm, perhaps due to an active movie film preservation community), but did find the article below regarding notch codes for nitrate vs acetate sheet film. From what I can see in the image posted, the "U" notch code identifies the film base as acetate (which correlates to what appears to be word "safety" after Kodak on the edge printing). After that, it looks to me like two triangular notches, which IF they match up to 35mm edge codes, would indicate possible years of 1941 or 1961 for the manufacture of the film itself.

After those mental gymnastics, if anyone knows of a definitive guide to dating sheet film, or can verify at least that Kodak followed the same protocol as with 35mm but with the addition of the notch for acetate vs nitrate, I would very much appreciate a point in the right direction. I've handled a lot of sheet film over the years, but unfortunately haven't kept good enough notes to easily research the answer myself.