Vintage Photo Experts - Blank Backs
 

So what do those of you who collect photos think when you know (or are pretty sure in your mind) the photo is vintage, but there is absolutely nothing stamped or written on the back.

A specific example I'm thinking of was of Josh Gibson. I will try to research and see if I can find it, and what it went for. Also, a recent Gehrig one on Ebay. I'll post that one too.

But if you see a photo with nothing on the back, what are your thoughts? Do you stay away from?

Also, some vintage photos can be be glued to a backing so you cant see the back, do you shy away from or not at all?

Many old original have blank backs, including snap shots and Hollywood movie stills. Though it is always nice to have a stamp of some sort. You just have to be more competant at photo dating.

Beyond cabinet cards and such, which by original design are supposed to have a backing, it is harder to authenticate photos glued to backing. But you can often be confident it is vintage anyway. Antique photos often have physical deterioration signs that show it's old. If you are talking about cabinet cards and CDVs, they certainly can be authenticated, and there are various methods for authenticating. That's different that a later photo that someone glued to a piece of cardboard-- which sometimes happened with news photos.

Obviously it is nice to have a photographer's, photo service's or such's stamp or tag on back. That makes things more straight foreword and most collectors would prefer it. If the photo is supposed to be a famous photographer, you'd want his stamp on back.

One thing is with an online sale or auction, you don't have the photo in hand to inspect and the stamping can a great aid. That's what is so nice about stampings and tags.

still buy them if they have obvious signs of being oold and the paper type is correct. But one thing that sucks about blank backs is the majority you obviously cant say with certainty theyre within the 2 year Type 1 window

Here's a Gehrig one, this one I'm not so sure was a Type 1, doesn't look all that crisp

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Original-Lou...p2047675.l2557


http://www.ebay.com/itm/Original-Lou...p2047675.l2557

and I have no idea what reserve he has on this.......5K?

all of this sellers stuff has reserves and never meets it

this one looks better to me:


http://www.ebay.com/itm/Original-Lou...p2047675.l2557

but again not sure what price he is hoping for, he hasn't responded to my inquires asking that question, so this seller is perhaps a lil' odd. I don't like when Red flags start to pop up.

I saw it too and bid, but once I knew his reserve was high, I backed off the third time around and it appears he sold it off ebay to someone. The second group is good to 1922-23 no doubt, the team photo is tough. It looks ok, but I have only seen one other and it was a re-strike from the 1930's. This is why PSA with photos (or any service) is a fantastic resource, but is only an opinion as to exact age with these types of photos. Henry has given some pretty good leeway with obviously old images (especially on photographers like Conlon and Burke) as long as the photo paper and style are correct to the age (which he should) so my guess is we see that photo with full PSA authentication soon back up for sale on a bigger venue.

Rhys -

Is the 1930's restrike team photo the one where there is an asterisk under Gehrig's name as well as a date somewhere on the photo? The team photo on eBay just didn't look "vintage" enough to me. The other one looks good, but it scared me because the other Gehrig photo by the same seller didn't appear to be period.

Also, how do you know it (the team photo, I presume) was eventually sold outside of eBay? I was certainly surprised to see such a high reserve. I was wondering if he was bidding it up with another account to see how high someone was willing to go (hidden reserve).

I might have gone higher if I "knew" it was a type I photo. For full disclosure, I did not bid on either due to the red flags. Perhaps we will see it again as you mentioned (w/ authentication).

I just assumed it was sold because he tried to relist it for the third time then immediately pulled it. Rumor is its going to a bigger auction house, but if this is true (and the venue) they wont have an outsider look at it for an opinion so we will be just as speculative when it comes back up for sale later this year than we were when it was on ebay. It might be good, but its a big gamble from a scan and a seller who does not seem to know a ton about vintage photography at 3k+.

Just going by the pics, the two Gehrigs definitely look old. The tone of the paper on back is helpful in determining age. The paper consistently is darker the older it is, and most modern reprints are obviously modern because the paper is too bright white.

Assuming for the sake of argument that you don't trust the seller to know WTF they are selling, sometimes you just have to gamble. Usual eBay rule applies: if the seller says might be a reprint it is. If the seller is ignorant and the scans look good, you just have to decide whether it is worth the time and effort to take a shot at it.

I'd say I get burned about 3-5 times a year on photos that aren't vintage but are sold as such. I never pay much for them if I have a question and I always send them back if they are bad.

What I am seeing more of are laser printed copies of tough photos. I got burned last year on a rare premium that turned out to be a laser copy. Thought I really scored with that one. The refund isn't the issue as much as the disappointment when it is something I really wanted to get.

That's pretty much how it is.

I bought a really cool early motorcycling photo on Ebay for what I thought was a great price. Turned out to be a modern reproduction. But the image was still really cool, and it looked like an actual photographic print. The price was ok for a modern repro too something like 5 or 10 bucks, so I just kept it.

There are a few photos that I'd pay a pretty good price for even if it was a repro. Mostly stuff I want that probably doesn't exist or is in a publishers archive in another country. And I wouldn't have a clue as to whose archive or how to ask.
Lets just say of anyone has good contacts for photos in Argentina that's where one of the photos is if it was even taken, and I wouldn't mind hearing from you

Steve B