G. Brace vs Burke Studios photos???

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>Hello to all photo afficianados,<br />I would like to see if I can get som confusion cleared up for me...It would appear that there was a photogrpaher named George Brace who took photos of all the players that passed through the Chicago ballparks from about 1930 to 1990 or so...there's a nice website run by his daughter that sells prints of his negatives.<br />There are also photos out there that are known and sold as Burke Studio photos....typically 4x6s, I think. <br /><br />Here's my questions:<br />1) Are these the same images?<br />2) Can they be the same images (i.e., taken by Brace and printed/sold through Burke?)<br />3) does anyone know the backgrounds of these collections that I am talking about in such an awkward fashion?<br /><br />reason for asking: <br />I have seen images from both collections and some of them would appear to be identical....<br /><br />thanks in advance for any help or explanation.<br />Jason L

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jodi Birkholm</b><p>Burke was Brace's mentor and, later, his business partner. Brace retained some of Burke's images, as well as some others from an even eariler time (sources unknown to me). Most of the photos offered by Brace's daughter are the work of her father.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>As Jodi noted, Brace and Burke were business partners and both notable baseball photographers. Burke died I think in 1951 and the younger Brace just a few years ago. Brace owned all of Burke's negatives and reprinted many of Burke's old photos over the years, typically stamping 'Burke & Brace' on back. Any post 1951 images-- ala Willie Mays or Sandy Koufax-- would be Brace's images and will usually just be stamped 'Brace.' I'm sure Brace's family owns negatives for both Brace and Burke, explaining the image duplication you noticed.<br /><br />If a photo has Burke's name and 847 Belmont Ave Chicago address stamped, it's a vintage George Burke. Burke's 1930s originals of Ruth, Gehrig, etc will have this stamp so are easy to identify as the real deal. The address is key, as later reprints will have a different address.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>that while you may be able to obtain the same images via George Brace's daughter's website, newly printed from the original negative, the more valuable piece, from a collectable standpoint, would be the Burke photo, probably printed many years ago?<br /><br />-because you would be correct in thinking that those Burke Studios photos are thought of as original prints?<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>The vintage originals will have the most value. Also, Brace's reprints were of varying quality-- sometimes rough or too light--, while Burke's originals are usually of the highest image quality. Even just from an aesthetics standpoint, Burke's originals are superior.<br /><br />The reprints by Brace have some collector's value, as Brace was Burke's business partner and official owner of the negatives, a notable photographer in his own right and the reprints are often a few decades old.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>we were writing at the same time, so my post immediately after yours was before I had the benefit of reading yours...<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jodi Birkholm</b><p>Indeed, Burke's originals exhibit a masterful artistry as compared to the often uneven tones of Brace's work. The first generation Burke prints age with a beauty and grace not dissimilar to a piece of Georgian furniture.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>I hesitate to post these only because my scanner and I cannot come close to doing them justice--they are incredible in hand.<br /><img src="http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff265/nolemmings/burke.jpg"><br /><img src="http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff265/nolemmings/burke2.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Tom Boblitt</b><p>"Indeed, Burke's originals exhibit a masterful artistry as compared to the often uneven tones of Brace's work. The first generation Burke prints age with a beauty and grace not dissimilar to a piece of Georgian furniture."<br /><br />Jodi........you need to hit the Antiques Roadshow...........I have visions of the Keno Brothers with that statement.........<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Tom</b><p>For a comparison to the Burke originals posted above, here are a couple Brace reprints:<br /><br /><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v337/flop4/Flagstead/Photos/1920_tigers_full.jpg"><br /><br /><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v337/flop4/Flagstead/Photos/pirates_pic-1.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>Also, Burke's originals almost always have the typed cataloging info on the top back, like in Todd's pic.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jodi Birkholm</b><p>Yes, and also a small rubber-stamped identifier (either "Geo. Burke" or "RJM Studios", with address underneath), usually in purple or black ink, in the bottom right-hand corner.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>whitehse</b><p>I am a former employee of the Chicago Cubs and during the 80's I had many a opportunity to talk with Mr.Brace. He worked with workman like skill and always caught the players as they were coming up from the dugout never letting them get too far onto the field. He once told me that he tried to get all the rookies photographed and then when a player changed teams he would get them in his new uniform. He also told me he mostly made his money by selling copies of photos to the players themselves so they could send them out for autograph requests. <br /><br />He was well into his late 60's or early 70's when I met him and he only stuck around long enough each day to photograph the players he had on his list. I was and still am really into baseball history and he shared stories with me of Ruth and Gehrig. I just wish I had more time to talk with him as I found him a very nice man with a huge amount of baseball history inside that head of his.