NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. When you click on links to eBay on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
T206s on eBay
Babe Ruth Cards on eBay
t206 Ty Cobb on eBay
Ty Cobb Cards on eBay
Lou Gehrig Cards on eBay
Baseball T201-T217 on eBay
Baseball E90-E107 on eBay
T205 Cards on eBay
Baseball Postcards on eBay
Goudey Cards on eBay
Baseball Memorabilia on eBay
Baseball Exhibit Cards on eBay
Baseball Strip Cards on eBay
Baseball Baking Cards on eBay
Sporting News Cards on eBay
Play Ball Cards on eBay
Joe DiMaggio Cards on eBay
Mickey Mantle Cards on eBay
Bowman 1951-1955 on eBay
Football Cards on eBay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Main Forum - WWII & Older Baseball Cards > Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-04-2017, 09:55 AM
EYECOLLECTVINTAGE's Avatar
EYECOLLECTVINTAGE EYECOLLECTVINTAGE is offline
Stephen
Stephen Abb.ondandolo
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: NY
Posts: 2,367
Default Jackie Robinson Photos. Please help if you can

I got in a few Jackie Robinson Photos from ebay today.I do not know anything about photos, however they were cheap enough and looked cool. They looked shiny like a normal photo material on ebay but when I got them, they are cardboardy feeling.

Is this something that is a fake or is it right for the time. they measure in approx 5X7 each

I have included photos below. Any help would be much appreciated.









Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-04-2017, 10:51 AM
ramram's Avatar
ramram ramram is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,264
Default

Have you looked under magnification to see if there is a dot pattern?

Rob M
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-04-2017, 10:53 AM
EYECOLLECTVINTAGE's Avatar
EYECOLLECTVINTAGE EYECOLLECTVINTAGE is offline
Stephen
Stephen Abb.ondandolo
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: NY
Posts: 2,367
Default

No I have not. What exactly is a dot pattern? I will look for it.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-04-2017, 11:04 AM
ramram's Avatar
ramram ramram is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,264
Default

Laser printers will make a very fine dot pattern to produce the image. You can also use a black light on the paper and see if it has a dull "glow". Modern paper will produce this glow.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-04-2017, 11:33 AM
irv's Avatar
irv irv is offline
D@le Irv*n
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Ontario, Canada.
Posts: 6,662
Default

In my quest to find some info, I came across some interesting items.

First one is faked pics throughout the years and the second, which will be more helpful, explains to some extent, how to distinguish them.
http://gizmodo.com/86-viral-images-f...ake-1671880787
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadshow/tip...ricphotos.html
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-04-2017, 12:34 PM
EYECOLLECTVINTAGE's Avatar
EYECOLLECTVINTAGE EYECOLLECTVINTAGE is offline
Stephen
Stephen Abb.ondandolo
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: NY
Posts: 2,367
Default

Thanks Irv
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-04-2017, 12:48 PM
ibuysportsephemera's Avatar
ibuysportsephemera ibuysportsephemera is offline
Jeff G@rf!nkel
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posts: 1,496
Default

Not sure about the fake part...but these appear to be reproductions of real photos. I have many photos that are on a heavier stock paper.

Jeff
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-04-2017, 01:32 PM
EYECOLLECTVINTAGE's Avatar
EYECOLLECTVINTAGE EYECOLLECTVINTAGE is offline
Stephen
Stephen Abb.ondandolo
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: NY
Posts: 2,367
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ibuysportsephemera View Post
Not sure about the fake part...but these appear to be reproductions of real photos. I have many photos that are on a heavier stock paper.

Jeff
Thanks! I think I am going to return these then.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-04-2017, 02:08 PM
ibuysportsephemera's Avatar
ibuysportsephemera ibuysportsephemera is offline
Jeff G@rf!nkel
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posts: 1,496
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EYECOLLECTVINTAGE View Post
Thanks! I think I am going to return these then.
How were they described? You said that you don't know much about photos...so maybe they were listed correctly?

Jeff
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-04-2017, 02:11 PM
EYECOLLECTVINTAGE's Avatar
EYECOLLECTVINTAGE EYECOLLECTVINTAGE is offline
Stephen
Stephen Abb.ondandolo
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: NY
Posts: 2,367
Default

Jeff,

The title was: Vintage Jackie Robinson Photos Ebbets Field, Brooklyn Dodger: Lot of 3 Original

The description was: Lot of 3 Original Photographs of Jackie Robinson, Brooklyn Dodger great posing in batting stance and with fans circa 1950 at Ebbets Field, Brooklyn, NY. 4-5/8"x7-1/4", 5-3/8"x7-1/4", 5-3/8"x7-1/4". Condition: small marks in ink to backs of prints otherwise Very Good.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-04-2017, 02:20 PM
ibuysportsephemera's Avatar
ibuysportsephemera ibuysportsephemera is offline
Jeff G@rf!nkel
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posts: 1,496
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EYECOLLECTVINTAGE View Post
Jeff,

The title was: Vintage Jackie Robinson Photos Ebbets Field, Brooklyn Dodger: Lot of 3 Original

The description was: Lot of 3 Original Photographs of Jackie Robinson, Brooklyn Dodger great posing in batting stance and with fans circa 1950 at Ebbets Field, Brooklyn, NY. 4-5/8"x7-1/4", 5-3/8"x7-1/4", 5-3/8"x7-1/4". Condition: small marks in ink to backs of prints otherwise Very Good.
I found it already...I think that you would have a case to return these. They don't look original to me. Maybe someone else will weigh in. Good luck.

Jeff
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-05-2017, 12:51 PM
Michael B Michael B is offline
Mîçhæ£ ßöw£ß¥
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,828
Default

I would say they are modern reprints. At first blush they look like photos printed on fiber paper which is generally thicker than regular photographic paper. Mostly used by professional studios and fine art photographers. The giveaway to me is the extra wide margin. That occurs when the ratio between the image and the paper being used does not match. A good example is 35mm film. A 35mm negative can be printed on 8x10 paper however, the length to width ratio of a 35mm negative does not equal that of an 8x10 sheet of photo paper. It is closer to 8x12. The choice is either to crop the photo to fit on the paper or reduce the image so that it fits to the paper. Doing that gives you a print with one margin that is larger than the other three. This happens to me when I go into the darkroom and want a full size image on 8x10 paper. This person probable scanned the original images but when he went to print them the image did not fit properly and stretching the image to fit the paper/cardboard would have created obvious distortion in the photo itself.
The seller is doing what many people do. They are trying to finesse the wording. The image is vintage, but the photo is not.
__________________
'Integrity is what you do when no one is looking'

"The man who can keep a secret may be wise, but he is not half as wise as the man with no secrets to keep”

Last edited by Michael B; 01-05-2017 at 12:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-05-2017, 04:27 PM
EYECOLLECTVINTAGE's Avatar
EYECOLLECTVINTAGE EYECOLLECTVINTAGE is offline
Stephen
Stephen Abb.ondandolo
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: NY
Posts: 2,367
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael B View Post
I would say they are modern reprints. At first blush they look like photos printed on fiber paper which is generally thicker than regular photographic paper. Mostly used by professional studios and fine art photographers. The giveaway to me is the extra wide margin. That occurs when the ratio between the image and the paper being used does not match. A good example is 35mm film. A 35mm negative can be printed on 8x10 paper however, the length to width ratio of a 35mm negative does not equal that of an 8x10 sheet of photo paper. It is closer to 8x12. The choice is either to crop the photo to fit on the paper or reduce the image so that it fits to the paper. Doing that gives you a print with one margin that is larger than the other three. This happens to me when I go into the darkroom and want a full size image on 8x10 paper. This person probable scanned the original images but when he went to print them the image did not fit properly and stretching the image to fit the paper/cardboard would have created obvious distortion in the photo itself.
The seller is doing what many people do. They are trying to finesse the wording. The image is vintage, but the photo is not.


That is very very helpful! Thanks a lot for the information.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-05-2017, 09:14 PM
Michael B Michael B is offline
Mîçhæ£ ßöw£ß¥
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,828
Default

Glad to offer my opinion. I am a bit of a dinosaur. I still shoot film and like to print black and white in the darkroom. I also collect photos, negatives and slides.
__________________
'Integrity is what you do when no one is looking'

"The man who can keep a secret may be wise, but he is not half as wise as the man with no secrets to keep”
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-07-2017, 09:54 AM
drcy's Avatar
drcy drcy is offline
David Ru.dd Cycl.eback
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,466
Default

To me they look modern. However, it's up to you to judge if circa $15 per photo is a good or bad price. If you like the images and photos, $15 isn't exactly an outrageous price. You can frame them on your wall.

I remember a guy who had a bunch of photos on his walls for several years. He asked me about them and I said they were were reprints, but he got the buy price value in enjoyment value out of them, since he had had them on his walls all that long.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-07-2017, 07:44 PM
EYECOLLECTVINTAGE's Avatar
EYECOLLECTVINTAGE EYECOLLECTVINTAGE is offline
Stephen
Stephen Abb.ondandolo
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: NY
Posts: 2,367
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael B View Post
Glad to offer my opinion. I am a bit of a dinosaur. I still shoot film and like to print black and white in the darkroom. I also collect photos, negatives and slides.


This is what the seller responded.

These photographs are by New Jersey photographer John Kowalak and are part of a collection from his estate. They are definitely original. Let me know if you still want to return them.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-08-2017, 01:04 PM
thecatspajamas's Avatar
thecatspajamas thecatspajamas is offline
L@nce Fit.tro
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Franklin, TN
Posts: 2,432
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EYECOLLECTVINTAGE View Post
This is what the seller responded.

These photographs are by New Jersey photographer John Kowalak and are part of a collection from his estate. They are definitely original. Let me know if you still want to return them.
Keep in mind that with photographs, an "original" need only be a print produced from the original negative. (As opposed to a photograph produced from a duplicate negative, wire photo process, or other second-or-later generation means of production). If the photographer had the original negatives, he could have produced "original" prints in the time period that they were shot as well as decades later. Technically, he could have produced "original" prints yesterday, and the description would still be correct.

The seller's use of the term "vintage" in the title muddies the waters a bit, as "vintage" implies that the prints were also of the period in addition to being original. Many use the term "vintage" to refer to anything "not modern" though, so that term in the title could be innocent even if misleading.

Reading the description, the seller's response, and from what I can see of the photos, it sounds as if these are original photographic prints, produced by the photographer from his original negatives at some time between when they were shot and today, using true silver halide-based photographic processes on what appears to be doubleweight fiber-based paper with a silk or satin finish.

With photographs, you really have to take most sellers' descriptions with a grain of salt as to the specific terms used, and instead try to glean enough information to determine whether what they are selling is what you are looking for. The price you paid seams very reasonable to me for an original print produced by the photographer using professional methods and materials, even if the prints were produced decades later. If you were expecting that they were original of-the-period prints (i.e. Type 1) and that you had gotten them for a bargain price, it is understandable that you would be disappointed, and perhaps you should take the seller up on his offer to take them back. In either case, I would not think the seller a crook based on this one item, and would interpret any misuse of terms as mistakes/misunderstanding rather than a deliberate attempt to deceive.

As an aside, I would hazard to guess that this is the same John Kowalak noted as the source of the photographs? I could swear that I recognize that name from a photographer's back stamp, but cannot find any records of my own indicating such.

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/buf...?pid=168418775
__________________
Ebay Store and Weekly Auctions
Web Store with better selection and discounts
Polite corrections for unidentified and misidentified photos appreciated. Rude corrections also appreciated, but less so.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-09-2017, 08:27 AM
EYECOLLECTVINTAGE's Avatar
EYECOLLECTVINTAGE EYECOLLECTVINTAGE is offline
Stephen
Stephen Abb.ondandolo
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: NY
Posts: 2,367
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thecatspajamas View Post
Keep in mind that with photographs, an "original" need only be a print produced from the original negative. (As opposed to a photograph produced from a duplicate negative, wire photo process, or other second-or-later generation means of production). If the photographer had the original negatives, he could have produced "original" prints in the time period that they were shot as well as decades later. Technically, he could have produced "original" prints yesterday, and the description would still be correct.

The seller's use of the term "vintage" in the title muddies the waters a bit, as "vintage" implies that the prints were also of the period in addition to being original. Many use the term "vintage" to refer to anything "not modern" though, so that term in the title could be innocent even if misleading.

Reading the description, the seller's response, and from what I can see of the photos, it sounds as if these are original photographic prints, produced by the photographer from his original negatives at some time between when they were shot and today, using true silver halide-based photographic processes on what appears to be doubleweight fiber-based paper with a silk or satin finish.

With photographs, you really have to take most sellers' descriptions with a grain of salt as to the specific terms used, and instead try to glean enough information to determine whether what they are selling is what you are looking for. The price you paid seams very reasonable to me for an original print produced by the photographer using professional methods and materials, even if the prints were produced decades later. If you were expecting that they were original of-the-period prints (i.e. Type 1) and that you had gotten them for a bargain price, it is understandable that you would be disappointed, and perhaps you should take the seller up on his offer to take them back. In either case, I would not think the seller a crook based on this one item, and would interpret any misuse of terms as mistakes/misunderstanding rather than a deliberate attempt to deceive.

As an aside, I would hazard to guess that this is the same John Kowalak noted as the source of the photographs? I could swear that I recognize that name from a photographer's back stamp, but cannot find any records of my own indicating such.

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/buf...?pid=168418775

Great information! This was tremendously helpful. Yes I was disappointed because I thought they were taken by a fan and on that photographic paper from the time period. They are cool never the less and I think I may hold onto them for 50 as I have never seen them before.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Help identifying Jackie Robinson photos bengineno9 Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used 4 12-19-2016 01:52 PM
Post your Pre-1951 Jackie Robinson type 1 / wire photos CharleyBrown Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used 15 07-20-2015 06:57 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:33 AM.


ebay GSB