Quote:
Originally Posted by thecatspajamas
Hey Ben,
Nice pick-up! I've got a few Burke negatives that I picked up a year (or two?) ago when a number of them were being sold through eBay seller "sfxarchive", though none as "high profile" as yours. I'm still not 100% sure where that hoard originated (as in, from a private collection, or an early testing the waters from the main Burke/Brace archive, or perhaps even from the negatives that made their way into the hands of Jim Rowe). I'm also still not sure how to deal with them. All will be re-sold eventually, but I'm leaning towards having a modern print made from each to better show the quality and pairing that with the original negative. Someday. When I get around to it.
As for copy negatives, I'm sure it varies from one photographer to the next, but I have a strong suspicion that Burke just took multiple shots if he needed multiple negatives rather than making copy negatives. I say this because there have been a number of instances where I spotted a negative that I recognized the player/pose as one of the ones commonly found, but upon close comparison, there were subtle differences. Definitely the same session, but not the exact same one used elsewhere. This also happens pretty regularly when comparing the shots used for photo postcards ordered from Burke/Brace vs. those used for Goudey and Play Ball card issues that used almost the same shot.
I wouldn't consider myself an expert though, and this is all based on observation rather than direct questioning of anyone with first-hand knowledge (which at this point, I suppose would be Mary Brace (George's daughter), or perhaps whoever it is with John Rogers' group who is handling the archive).
|
Lance, no doubt that is the case with Burke. I also own an original TYPE 1 photo that is very similar to the negative I just purchased below.
I was hoping, however, that there was science to determine original negatives from dupes created later. There are a lot of suspect "original acetate negatives" that cycle through ebay that I doubt are original. I think many are made later from a photo. I am guessing acetate didn't change as much as paper did(determine age of photos). It would be tough to determine even if it did. There are indicators on the Burke negs so I am assuming your right in that it varies from photographer to photographer. I would love to see your examples.