Chick Gandil Vintage Photo?

[Archive]

Posted By: scott fandango

ANy Photo experts out there? this "photo" has a front surface similar to SPORTFLICS...if you run your finger over it, it makes the same sound...its either a plastic or coated linen surface....

any help would be appreciated...

[img][/img]
[img][/img]

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Newcomb

The typed code on the back makes me think this is a print produced by George Burke or his successor George Brace, the Chicago photographers who did so many BB player photos. It would certainly be a later print from the negative-- could be from anytime between the 1940s and the 1970s-- but it's still a nice piece from a legendary photo archive, and actually produced by the original photographers.

[Archive]

Posted By: scott fandango

Thanks for your response.....

so you think the 1916 pencilmark was placed to deceive, or was it placed to date the photo?


ps...doesnt he have an evil look in his face?

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike

The 1916 was probably not done to deceive, simply as to when the photo was taken. It is a later photo. I don't have time to check right now, but it just be from the Burke studios. Nice shot of the instigator.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Newcomb

As Mike says, the date was just written on there to date when the negative was originally taken, not to imply a 1916 print. A lot of later Burke/Brace prints from earlier negatives have penciled dates.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike

Be careful when buying Burke or Brace photos. Many of their original negatives were sold years later and their new ownwers reproduced the images. Although these prints are technically first generation photos, they are NOT considered vintage. Instead, due to the passage of time and the differing technologies of photo development, they are widely viewed as readily available, contemperary pieces with litle colletible value other than the price a souvenir reprint might bring.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

I'd have to see it in person to be sure, but it appears like the photo was physically made by George Burke. Though Burke usually stamped his name on his photos, the typing on back is exactly like the cataloging he used. I agree with Mike that it's not from 1916 but printed later. If it's by Burke, it would have been made circa 1930-40s. Burke died in the 1950s. In case you don't know, Burke is one of the most famous baseball photographers. He was the team photographer for the Cubs, White Sox and the NFL's Chicago Bears, and shot many of the images for the 1930s Goudey cards.

As far as the 'Sportflix' feel, I would have to see it in person. It could be surface cracking doe to age. Also, most of Burke's postcard sized photos have a matte finish.

[Archive]

Posted By: 1939Vintage

look time lurker, first time poster. What you are describing is referred to as a "Satin Finish." Typically this is indicative of a photo that was printed during the lifetime of Burke although it is likely not from the year noted on the back.

[Archive]

Posted By: scott fandango

the SPORTFLIC feel is defintely not from cracking or other aging...it is uniform throughout...it looks line a linen thread with a thin clear resin like coating....its NOT a traditional black and white photo with that glossy smooth sheen...

it sort of shows up on the Scan, in the matrix like apperance..

thanks for the input!

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike

Interesting story as to how Burke got his start.

In 1929, Cubs manager Joe McCarthy and catcher Gabby Hartnett were looking for the previous years photographer. They could only remember his last name, Burke, so they looked him up in the phone book. A listing creapt out at them, studio photographer George C. Burke, who's office was located near Wrigley field. Thus begun the baseball photography career of George Burke, who had no previous sports experience whatsoever, and thus ended the career of photographer Francis Burke - the Cubs time-honored official cameraman and an unwitting victim of mistaken identity.

Burke had a heart attack in 48, and died in 51.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhys

The course "sportflick" like feel if the photo is VERY common among Burke photos of the 1930's.

[Archive]

Posted By: scott fandango

just came across this....http://www.lelands.com/bid.aspx?lot=379&auctionid=603
if you look at the right border on the Leland Photo, is is cropped closer than My example (my example has more background showing) so My example could not have been copied from this photo, but must have come from the original negative of this photo by Burke...

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

I have a photo of the 1908 Army Football team on a 1909 calendar and it has that same lenticular surface. I was surprised to learn that this type of photo existed that far back, but my research shows that it certainly did. It is not out of the realm of possibility that your photo is period.

[Archive]

Posted By: scott fandango

RHYS, if they are so common, why cant i find any other examples as being sold...most of Burkes Photos that sell at the auction houses are smooth(glossy) black and white pictures and look like normal photos...many of those have signatures on the photo...this photo it would be impossible to sign because of the texture, the ink would run down the grooves and give a smeared look....


DAN, very nice piece and interesting infomation....could Burke have been experimenting with a new photo manufacturing process that "protected" and increased the durability of photo paper?

the front surface also keeps the photo from bending or staining it appears...the back surface has more of a paper stock feel....

thanks again for the input!

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Gelatin silver photos, which was the standard black and white photo of the time, has the front covered in gelatin. I'm assuming the front surface you describe on the Chick photo is the gelatin. The back would have a different texture as it has no gelatin. The gelatin was used to hold the photochemicals to the paper, and was only applied on the front surface where the photographic image would appear. All of Burke's photos were gelatin silver.

The gelatin coating is usually glossy/smooth, but can be in different textures like matte and linen. The texture is a style thing, what artistic effect/feel the photographer wanted.

I owned one of Dan's calendars (different team) and the image may indeed have had an extra, heavy coating over the top. I owned the calendar a number of years ago, but recall the photo being extra thick and having an unusual yellow tone, as if it was covered in something extra. The manufacturer may have been trying for an interesting visual effect on what was, after all, a collectible souvenir.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhys

Scott

I have at least 10 other Burke photos with this finish right now and have owned at least 100 other larger sized 8X10 examples, plus I thumbed through a collection of about 1000 postcards sized satin finish Burke photos that were at the Chicago National about 3 years ago by a dealer who bought a grouping (probably where yours came from). That would make about 1100 I have owned/handled in the last 3-5 years. I was not throwing words out there Scott, They are pretty common with this satin or "rough" finish.

I have attached a few scans of some photos with this finish I currently own, plus the Burke Die Cut items attached to wood that I posted about on this forum a few weeks back also have it.

Rhys

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Rhys, I don't think he's talking about the same kind of finish. These photos appear to have the same type of front as a Kellogg's 3D card of the 1970s. It's a lenticular print and it was first used in 1908 - invented by Gabriel Lippman who won the Nobel prize that year for a color photography technique.

[Archive]

Posted By: scott fandango

That is the best explanation so far...it looks like a linen thread covered by a plactic polyurethane like coating--would be very hard to damage image underneath, and the back is a thick paper stock.....it sounds like this may be from 1916-1920 (original vintage) , and not from a later print date?? is that an incorrect assumption?

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhys

If he is talking about the finish that feels like a sportflick baseball card, then we are talking about the same thing. Most George Burke photos have that same finish. I am 100% positive that this Gandil photo came from the collection that surfaced at the National in Chicago in 2004 as I thumbed through all of them and bought a few so I am sure we are talking about the same thing.

[Archive]

Posted By: scott fandango

that is the best i can explain it ...when you rub your nail lightly over the surface, it feels and sounds just like a sportflic....

how come the factory name stamp or the photographer name is not on the back?