MY newest Gehrig pick up and a question for the photo guys.
 

First a huge shout out and thank you to Joey F for not only making this available to me, but working with me on the deal allowing it to happen. This immediately becomes one of the best Gehrig photos I own and, IMHO, is one of those "cream" pictures Ben was speaking about. I am about as giddy as a grown man can be about owning a photograph of a dead baseball player.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...1930sBurke.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...30sBurkebk.jpg

Ok, now that I am finished being emotional, here is the question. Should I send it to a conservation place to have it restored/preserved or not? I am torn about it. On one hand the condition of the picture is part of it's history and I wouldn't want to ruin it in any way. On the other hand, restoration can do incredible things for an item's beauty. While "value" is not the reason I collect, it is not lost on me the fact that the condition of the photo is part of the reason Joey could purchase it for the price he did and I could purchase it from him for the price I did. As with many posters and prints in other auctions, I think that a well done restoration would definitely enhance the value of the photo as well.
So what do you think? If I decide to send it for restoration, can anyone recommend a restoration place they have experience with?

Thanks everyone for your opinions.
Best,
Mark

My 2 cents:
I would have the tape residue/soiling cleaned/removed from the front and leave it at that. It looks like there is some surface loss around the periphery, but little that intrudes into the image area, so I personally would be more inclined to mat out most of the loss areas and frame it rather than doing some sort of infill/repaint (not sure what exact process they use for photos) to recreate those areas. To me, that's the difference between restoration (cleaning and working with what is there) and recreation (for parts that are no longer there). Others may feel differently.

And FWIW, I have not personally had any photos cleaned, restored or recreated, so this is all academic where I am concerned. I'm sure others can speak more from personal experience.

Beautiful photo, by the way. If you ever wondered what it would look like in color, this was Brace's later interpretation that he used for his Bra-Mac photo series:

My pleasure mark! Its always good talking to you and I know the photo found a good home! Just dont forget about me when you come across any nice ruth photos! :)

If you can get the tape/tape reside removed, especially from the image, that would be good. As with most I'm sure, I don't like tape, especially on the images. I wouldn't worry about the other damage. Old photos almost always have wear, and wear/damage in the white border areas and back shouldn't be something to lose sleep over. Pre-War photos almost never come in Mint condition.

As i opened this thread, a huge smile came across my face seeing the image of the photo load...then when i started reading your post/question, i cringed. i'd leave it exactly as-is. i recently saw a rare baseball program that had been restored (not a great job) and it was just heart-breaking. i'd leave it alone. my 2 cents.

Edited to add: i'd simply have it matted and framed, using museum quality materials to give it the presentation and importance it deserves.

I'd frame it like how i did these T206 cards; 8-ply white matte, and burl wood frame (everything acid-free and UV glass):

If you chose to leave it, that's fine by me. I've never had a photo restored and, as I said, it's normal for old photos to have wear.

Mark,
I would leave it as is, FWIW. Terrific pickup.
Joey, way to help out another avid collector! ;)

Oh Mark...that is one heck of a pickup. Nicely done my friend. I agree that it should be left alone and not restored in any way.

gehrig
 

Great Photo Mark. I have had that photo in my collection for years! One of the truely best gehrig shots ! In my opinion. Here is what it would look like . Might be worth the time and money. My photo has Jimmys name on it but as of lately Im not so sure now!:eek::eek: Looks like the Beatles have consumed his life!;);) Funny to that I always thought that there was some (loss) on my photo around his arm, you can see it ,but looking at yours the loss is the same so it was in the photo to beguin with!

Lance great picture! Its also intresting to see that you can see his elbow resting on his hand,and a bat, and the yankee logo on the uniform! Makes you wonder why Burke cropped all that out of his photo!

I really love this image of Lou. When they become available, what price range are they in? i just saw a really nice example at the Heritage preview, it was signed by Lou, so the price was huge.

Mike Good question I know the signed ones go for big $$$$ but the unsigned ones dont come up for sale that often. I know there are many factors that determine price for these and condition is one of them. I dont know what Mark paid for his , and also was a trade included but would love to hear from some others on what this photo is worth! Ben and a few others might know better! Also I know the (forgers) love to get this photo and do their (Magic) with it so maybe thats why you dont see many unsigned ones!!!!

Thanks everyone for the kind words and suggestions.
After hearing the opinions so far, I am leaning towards either leaving it alone or just having the tape and debris removed.
I think I read in a post somewhere that a member here, though I don't remember who, sends his to be "stabilized" or something like that. I'd love to hear from him on this as well.
Mark

Unsigned come up for sale less often that signed ones. I hate to put values on photos as it can change from moment to moment and everyone has a different opinion depending on how important the image is to them/if they collect or not/what the setting is.. ect ect.
I will tell you that I turned down 5k for my Ruth and Gehig pair below. It took me 7 years to find them. That said, mine ar ein very high end condition. However. a Ruth just sold in HYEE auction for 1300. I thought it would go for double. Also NOTE, I pay more for photos than the average Ben.:)
That Ruth in HYEE would have been a good Ruth for someone looking for some "cream" IMO.

The burkes are not as rare in theory as Conlons, Paul Thompsons, Bains, even single shot news service photos as Burke produced to sell to players as well as fans as we all know. However, I can tell you.. unsigned examples of these two shots are very rare as it relates to the demand. They are two of the most well known portraits of these two giants. I would say an 8x10 in the condition as my example could fetch 1500-2000 unsigned very easily at auction. If two serious photo guys are on it, probably more. The condition of Mark's example clearly hurt it. What did it sell for again?

Again.. I hate to put prices on photos as there is no way to know. Someone could come on here and pull 600 out of the air and I would be like.. ok... sold in the wrong setting.. maybe. I am going off what I would have paid when I wanted one and what I have been offered(facts).

Regarding the photo in question.. How much are you in it? You spend more money on top of that.. then how much are you in it for a re-conditioned one?
My point is, it is not that bad... maybe get tape removed or just frame and matte out. If you have as much in it or close to one unconditioned it makes no sense.. especially if you are fine with it as is IMO.
It just depends on what it is worth to you as you really are not going to be hurt either way as far as value goes.

Photos are like art in that reconditioning is acceptable if done well. If one is altered and looks the same as one unaltered.. yeah. .it is worth less but still can bring high value. It doesn't automatically make it a psa "altered" worth less than a psa 1 card :)
There I go... a ramblin man again. :)

Ben,
Thats what I would have figured 1500-2000 . But yes as we know if you get 2 people who want it bad enough maybe 2500.

Sorry if this is a "duh" question to the experts, but as a beginner (to vintage photos) I am trying to understand things.

Ben yours show the extra image that Al referenced. Could this be another reason yours are getting higher offers? Also Al mentions that his photo and Mark's both show wear on the arm. So are these later copies or a wire photo of the original image, and Ben's a "Type 1"?

They can do some amazing things with regard to restoration these days.

The tape residue would bug me personally. And I bet it does, you, to a certain extent as well (or you wouldn't have posted/posed the question). I would check with a few companies up-front, and ask if they can remove/eliminate the tape residue without compromising the photo.

If they exude confidence, you feel comfortable, and their pricing is in-line, then I say do it! But, as others have eloquently stated, I would limit it only to the tape residue removal.

Just my 2 cents... classic and beautiful image!

Well now, that is odd. Especially since the original negative that sold in Legendary's auction last year (shown below) did not have the blemish that would have produced those white areas. You're right though, the apparent "loss" on his arms matches up exactly in both (side by side images not to scale with each other). Perhaps they came from the same run of prints back in the day and the white areas are a result of dirt or some other opaque residue or soiling on the negative that has since been removed? Curious indeed.

http://legendaryauctions.com/ItemIma...80_new_lg.jpeg

Andy,
Some I can answer no these arenot copies of wire photos. Thats why I copied the back. You can see the back stamp from george burke and the refference # typed on top. so no these came from burke studios. Ben I also would like to see what the back of your photo looks like. Does it have different markings?

Ok that is what I was wondering with the back markings. Since they both do have imperfections that Ben's don't is it yours is still a later version from the same negative (type 2) that got worn after years (and may even be the reason for the closer crop)?

EDIT: Well I see that an original negative shows it wasn't worn. Is it possible there was a copy of the negative made that has been worn down?

Lance,
What markings are on the back of the colorized photo?

Andy,
I would say mine and marks would be earlier versions just due to the fact that maybe that is the reason the photo was done again maybe they didnt like the "marks" that I pointed out and just redid the photo again. Only a guess. Kinda like a baseball card variation some photos were released before corrections were made.

Andy, the "extra image" is a result of differences in cropping of the image when the original print was produced. Think of it as projecting an image on a screen. As the screen changes shape, different portions of the image are forced "out of frame". Similarly, as you zoom in or out to focus on a particular portion of the original image captured on film, other portions of the image may fall "out of frame." Also, the aspect ratio of an 8x10 print vs a 4x6 are different, making it impossible for each to show the same portion of the same image without having fatter margins on the top/bottom or sides. As you can see, the original negative shows "more image" than any of the prints referenced above, which is typical since the original negative was 5"x7" (another aspect ratio altogether).

As far as a strict "Type" classification, that's something that is better left alone when looking at Burke photos, at least for the present. Reason being that as it stands, part of a "Type 1" designation is that 2-year window from when the photo was shot to when the print was produced. Since Burke continually produced prints from his negatives over the years, it's tough to definitively pin down a print date for most photos. There are some exceptions that I won't go into specifics here (for one reason, I'm still researching some aspects of the dating), but suffice it to say that I think for most of Burke's photos, a designation of "Original" is probably more appropriate and sufficient at this point.

White areas would not be the result of a negative being "worn". Scratches or wearing off of the emulsion surface would allow more light through the film resulting in black areas on the print. White areas on the print would be a result of something opaque blocking any light from passing through the film in that area, hence my suggestion that there may have simply been dirt or something on the film at the time the prints were produce that has since been cleaned or simply brushed away. I don't think any of the prints shown so far were produced from duplicate/copy negatives. Other than the colorized one I showed, which was produced by Brace from the original negative but at a later date, all of the others appear to have been produced by Burke. Exactly when in Burke's "reign" they were produced is tough to say.

The back only had "Gehrig, Lou" penned at the top in Brace's usual hand (I say had, because I no longer have the photo, just the scans). That particular print was done by Brace at a later date for use in production of his Bra-Mac photo series, which were smaller "colorized" versions of Burke's photos of players from the 1930's. He used 8x10 prints, sometimes original Burkes from the 1930's, sometimes more modern restrikes, that were colored by hand by painting or colored pen, then re-shot them to produce the smaller 3x5 photos that he sold in groups of 24 over a period of several years.

Hah, Now Im starting to wonder if Bens Photo is a Bra-Mac photo that was done later as the cropping on his is more like your color version! Ben what stamping is on the back of your photo?

Ben's is ORIGINAL. There is no doubt in my mind about that.

(And he'll probably kick your butt if you suggest otherwise to his face :D )


This is what the final 3x5 Bra-Mac photo looked like:
http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/l...6632_front.jpg

Lance, You might be right!:D:D

Lance,
Since Im not as versed in how the photos were made maybe you can answer a question for me then. How come on mine and marks photo the corners are rounded in the photo and the paper. But yours and bens and the Bra Mack photos have square corners? Wouldnt that indicate the possiblity of another negative for the photo. And can another negative be made of the same photo? Just curious. I do believe ALL the photos shown are the real deal just that they were all made maybe at different times.

Scott- it was my pleasure. I love the photo but I could see how interested mark was and knew it belonged in his collection and that he'd appreciate it more.

The rounded/clipped corners has nothing to do with the negative at all. It is a feature of some of the standard photo stocks, similar to how you see deckle-edged prints. There are no deckle-edged negatives. Burke used a wide variety of photo stocks for his prints, including both "rounded" and "squared" corner types, glossy, silk and matte finishes, single and double-weight thicknesses, and some standard RPPC stock (though most of the RPPC's you see with the pre-printed divided backs were produced after Burke's death).

As to whether he used certain stocks during certain periods, that is very difficult to tell since he did not date his prints, and is not something that I've looked into as yet. And when I refer to Burke's "reign" as photographer, I'm talking 1929 to 1948. Prior to 1929 he wasn't photographing ball players, and in 1948 he had a career-ending heart attack at which point he turned the business over to George Brace. Any photo with George Burke's stamp on the back would have been produced in that time frame.

DUH! I should have thought about that. That is why I ask.

For those who don't know, the Burke at 847 Belmont Ave stamp is the stamp Burke used in the 1930s to early 40s. So on a George Burke DiMaggio or Ruth or whomever 1930s image, you want to look for that stamp/address. The stamp won't pinpoint a year, but is the old c. 1930s stamp. George Brace was his young assistant and later business partner who reprinted his images later-- with different stamp/address. Brace also was a baseball photographer in his own right and made his own photos. I believe Burke died in 1951 and Brace died more recently. A 'Burke & Brace' at different address or 'George Brace Photos' at different address stamp on a 1930s image will point to it being a later reprint, though I believe the Burke & Brace photos are still often old. On a more modern original photo by Brace of say Willie Mays or Mickey Mantle, Brace would stamp is own name and copyright 'George Brace.' It sounds a bit messy, because it is, but it's easy to remember that the Geo. Burke at Belmont Avenue Chicago are the vintage circa 1930s ones by Burke.

Anything with a Burke, Burke & Brace or Brace stamp will have been an 'official' photo, even if a reprint, as Burke & Brace were partners and Brace owned all the photos and negatives after Burke died. After Burke died, Brace was essentially a photo service, so his stamp on a reprint would be the equivalent of an AP stamp on a photo. In photography, an 'official' photo means it was made by a legitimate source with rights to make the photo, such as a news service, famous photographer's estate, Hollywood studio or Major League Baseball, as opposed to an unlicensed reprint by Joe Blow. If MGM re-issued Gone With The Win for theaters in 1979 and made new press photos to promote the new showings, the 1979 reprinted still images of Clark Gable and Vivien Leigh clearly won't have the value of the 1939 originals, but will still be collectible and have some value as they are official 're-issues' by the studio. For the record, Hollywood movie studio re-issue stills and press photos will have the studio's copyright text and date of re-issue somewhere on the photo, so aren't hard to identify both as re-issues and official. And, along the lines of Gone With The Wind, while clearly not nearly as valuable as Burke's originals, a Brace reprint is collectable and great for matting and framing with autographs. A collecting rule is don't invest in unofficial modern photographs, because they have no longterm value and are often illegal. If you unload your cache of unlicensed Richard Avedon reprints on eBay, his estate might sue you and block the sale. And, besides, digital reprints made on someone's home computer won't sell for much anyway.

Yes...that is correct. All of this was documented and outlined in "a portrait of baseball photography". The different stamps are in there as well as the history. Andy... Have you purchased this book? It is a must have. And yes... Mine is original al:)

Ben I never thought differently!;);) I guess the question is when were they all made. And I guess the answer to that question is Only George Burke really:D:D Knows!

Yeah... This is def a case where approx 2 years is implemented. The book shows the diff stamps and I have seen a couple diff since. Henry , I am sure has a bunch of new data as well if a 2nd edition was published.

Now I'm wishing I had kept my George Burke collection - I had Ruth, 2 Dickeys (one catching, one portrait), two of Dimaggio batting, and a bunch more. I looked for Gehrig for a while, then gave up on completing 'the set' and sold them all. The Ruth brought around $700, but that was 10-12 years ago.

Great thread, and congratulations to Lance.

I would leave it as-is.

No. I am not going to pay Amazon prices. I have had a saved search for this on ebay, and just pointed out to my wife the other day how frustrated I was seeing one in the completed listings from just this month that I never saw.

I really have been planning on getting a copy if I can find it for under $40.

Yes, lots of different stamps. At least 8 different main stamps just for the George Burke years 1929-1948, plus some variations of added text above and below. After Burke's heart attack in 1948, the stamp changed to "Burke & Brace, Photo" for the top line and the address changed to Brace's home address on Drake Ave. From what I understand, Burke basically turned the business and all of his negatives over to Brace at that point in return for Brace covering his hospital bills. Following Burke's death in 1951, the stamp changed again to just "Brace Photo" at that address, and underwent many more changes through the years to follow that I haven't attempted to document/date. Brace was still actively photographing players up through the 1993 season, and passed in 2002.

As has been said, there is a lot of overlap between some of the stamping styles as to when they could have been used. I started last year compiling information from examples I have had, but am far from finished. I think I can safely say that some stamp styles can be narrowed down to definite periods of usage as some patterns have started to emerge when I plot the dates, but it would be reckless of me to put definitive dates out there at this point. Documenting everything properly takes time, and unless someone wants to pay me a salary to do that rather than other paying work, it'll be a while yet before it's done and presentable.

I did want to clarify, I wasn't doubting the stamp or if they were original to the original photographer. My questions were regarding if even he, Burke, may have duplicated at a later date for other reasons.

The put is out of print so it is expensive. Look at it as a textbook. All I know is that many of your questions would be answered. I don't know how much they are on Amazon but you might be waiting long for 40 or under. Like I said.. It is put of print.

For those who don't know, the Burke at 847 Belmont Ave stamp is the stamp Burke used in the 1930s to early 40s. So on a George Burke DiMaggio or Ruth or whomever 1930s photos, you want to look for that stamp. George Brace was his young assistant and later business partner who reprinted his images later-- with different stamp/address. Brace also was a photographer and made his own photos. I believe Burke died in 1951.

Not all of us have a copy. Any time I answer a question here, I'll warn you in advance that I haven't read Henry's book, and it's possible that I happen to have the knowledge anyway.

For what it's worth, I checked Abebooks to see if Andy could find a cheap copy there, and it's not going to happen.

AMAZON is at $145.00

The recent one that I missed on ebay sold Feb 9th (long after I had put it as a saved search) for 29.99.

Prior ebay sales:
Dec 14 - $32.99

Dec 12 (along with 2 other books) - $35

So I will be patient. For $145 I could buy a few photos from reputable sellers (Like RMY) and learn through experience instead.

They usually run between $30-45 on eBay when they turn up. They don't usually turn up that often though. I would say maybe once every 2-3 months on average? If I ever see one under $30, I buy it whether I currently have a copy or not, so if you want one cheaper than that, you'll have to catch it before I do :) If I didn't already have a copy, I wouldn't have any problem spending $50 for one. I do agree $145 is a bit steep though unless you need the info right now or are too lazy to keep watch for a cheaper copy.

(FWIW, I'm not sitting on a hoard of these. I just think that the book is a very good all-around reference for new collectors of sports photography, and they make great gifts, which is why I'm not sitting on a pile of them.)

Great my birthday is Sept 4. Or if you want to do it a baby gift our child is due July 8th. I can give you my address. I am looking forward to this gift. :D

I have been slowly reading through Cycleback.com.

Sorry that I hijacked this thread slightly from the original intent about cleaning or not cleaning the photo. I was just reading through and your photos just brought up some questions.

Somehow I knew that was coming... ;)

Oh, Lance, sure you're not hoarding them. :rolleyes: :p
I know you're trying to corner the market on these bad boys. This reminds me of the Hunt Brothers trying to corner the silver market in the 1980's.
That worked out pretty well for them. LOL

book vs authenticator
 

for my 2 cents, or 50 dollars i would much rather have a reference or historical book than an authentication for a single photo.

Dang Mark!!!!


Congrats!!!! What a beauty!!