View Full Version : George burke Gehrig
JoeyFarino
05-28-2017, 10:20 AM
Saw this on ebay and it didnt look right to me. Seller claims the owner knew Gehrig personally. Arent the originals sepia toned?
http://i450.photobucket.com/albums/qq224/Blackitalian/20170528_091538_zpseya08m2m.png (http://s450.photobucket.com/user/Blackitalian/media/20170528_091538_zpseya08m2m.png.html)
http://i450.photobucket.com/albums/qq224/Blackitalian/20170528_084532_zpslcpdxgk4.png (http://s450.photobucket.com/user/Blackitalian/media/20170528_084532_zpslcpdxgk4.png.html)
http://i450.photobucket.com/albums/qq224/Blackitalian/20170528_091517_zpsel6rjuvy.png (http://s450.photobucket.com/user/Blackitalian/media/20170528_091517_zpsel6rjuvy.png.html)
batsballsbases
05-28-2017, 11:03 AM
Photo looks good as for the autograph I wont comment....
JoeyFarino
05-28-2017, 11:05 AM
Photo looks good as for the autograph I wont comment....
I thought they were sepia toned though?
Lordstan
05-28-2017, 11:08 AM
The auto is probably Eleanor. I think the photo is probably good.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
batsballsbases
05-28-2017, 11:13 AM
Here is the photo I had years ago. Stamping from burke is the same. I to believe the sig is not his.
Lordstan
05-28-2017, 11:14 AM
But I will say that I am always suspicious of someone listing autos for sale with COAs that doesn't show them or even list their names.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
David Atkatz
05-28-2017, 01:01 PM
Signed by Eleanor. No doubt.
sporteq
05-28-2017, 04:00 PM
Signed by Eleanor. No doubt.
+1 and Original period Lou Gehrig Burke
JoeyFarino
05-28-2017, 04:39 PM
Full back
http://i450.photobucket.com/albums/qq224/Blackitalian/20170528_123943_zpsulmwimv2.jpg (http://s450.photobucket.com/user/Blackitalian/media/20170528_123943_zpsulmwimv2.jpg.html)
They are usually sepia, but I've seen gray toned ones before.
thecatspajamas
05-29-2017, 05:52 PM
I thought they were sepia toned though?
Depends on when the print was produced and what photo stock Burke was using at the time. Gehrig photos were produced by Burke (and later Brace) over a wide range of years, and the photo stock will vary somewhat.
Here is the photo I had years ago. Stamping from burke is the same. I to believe the sig is not his.
Similar, but not the same. The stamp on yours is about twice as wide as the one on the photo Joey posted. Both appear authentic though (the stamps, that is).
JoeyFarino
05-29-2017, 08:17 PM
So not all are Type 1's then? How would u know since the stamp was used for awhile?
This photo has the circa 1930s stamp. The later ones have different stamping with different street address.
thecatspajamas
05-30-2017, 05:34 AM
Both stamps shown date to the 1930's. I haven't tracked Burke's photo stock used vs when the prints were produced, so no comments on the specific print date based on the stock used, but both appear to be of the type he commonly used. Neither was produced by George Brace after Burke's passing.
With photos like these, "Type 1" classification is not so clear-cut as looking up specific dates that a stamp was used vs. when the photo was shot. This would be a case where "approximately" would necessarily be used in the Type assessment. Both photos shown previously in this thread are "original Burke photos" produced by him during his working days. Use your best judgement and go from there.
None of what I have said should be taken as an analysis of the signature, which I will leave to others more knowledgeable about such things.
Yes, you can't pinpoint an exact year (for you two year window Type I folks), but can tell the ones made in the 1930s by Burke instead of the later ones made by Brace. See article below.
Guide to George Burke's Photos (http://www.sportscollectorsdaily.com/guide-george-burkes-baseball-photos/)
thecatspajamas
06-15-2017, 07:08 PM
Since Joey pulled his usual move of posting via Photobucket link, then removing the photos from his Photobucket after-the-fact, I thought I would re-post his images for him. Despite numerous attempts to get him to use the board software to post images for posterity, he consistently refused to do so, and consistently removed the images he posted, rendering any help or insight that board members lent to his posts useless for posterity. The only thing that can be gleaned now from the vast majority of his previous posts is a glimpse of his character, which is what ultimately got him banned. Again.
Forever Young
06-15-2017, 09:48 PM
Since Joey pulled his usual move of posting via Photobucket link, then removing the photos from his Photobucket after-the-fact, I thought I would re-post his images for him. Despite numerous attempts to get him to use the board software to post images for posterity, he consistently refused to do so, and consistently removed the images he posted, rendering any help or insight that board members lent to his posts useless for posterity. The only thing that can be gleaned now from the vast majority of his previous posts is a glimpse of his character, which is what ultimately got him banned. Again.
Well.. he "won" it.. drove up the price.. then didn't pay for it. So thank you for posting it. It was relisted. It is an iconic photo. Beautiful history with wife sig.