|
Input requested for Photos, Premiums? Satchel, Feller, Ruth
4 Attachment(s)
Doing some research for a consignor and came across a few items that have me stumped. They may be insignificant but just wanted to make sure with the experts here. They are all from a stash of ephemera from a Pittsburgh area Sports Reporter named Harry Keck.
I'm usually pretty good with photos but all of these are a little odd and not on normal photo stock, sized a bit unconventionally and have no identifying markers on them. I want to make sure they aren't some type of Premium I'm unaware of. Any input or opinions would be appreciated. Thanks. - Dave Fronts and backs are both pictured below. #1. Satchel Paige in dugout. Matte-finish non-glossy type real photo. Almost cardstock type stock. Sized. 7 5/8" x 10 1/2" inches My research shows this photo was taken July 7, 1948 #2. Satchel Paige and Joe Louis. Matte-finish non-glossy type real photo. Almost cardstock type stock. Sized. 10 5/8" x 6 7/8" inches My research shows this photo was taken August 13, 1948 at Comiskey Park prior to Satchel throwing a 5-0 shutout against the White Sox. |
4 Attachment(s)
#3. Bob Feller. Looks to be a semi-glossy type real photo. Cardstock type stock.
Sized. About 7 3/4" x 10 7/8" inches. Possibly from the 1938 season or somewhere thereabouts. #4. Babe Ruth eating Quaker Puffed Wheat. Another odd piece. May be nothing more then a really old run-off, I don't know. I peeled it off an old make-shift backing board. Matt type finish. Looks like a real photo at first glance but under magnification it has the appearance of a wire photo process with some primitive color photo process mixed in. Sized. About 8 1/2" x 6 3/4" inches. |
FWIW, I believe that the Bob Feller image is from 1936. I own the exact image in an original B/W photo. I had Feller sign it a few years ago and he indicated that it was from his rookie season 1936. I asked him if he remembered what stadium it was shot in and he said he wasn't sure.
Good luck on getting more info from other members.:D |
They look like fakes to me. Artificially aged to look old. Sorry.
-Ryan |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I don't think so. They might be restrikes or reprints of some sort from the era, but there is nothing artificially aged about them. Maybe not the exact year published, but somewhere in the ballpark. The scanner does seem to exaggerate the cream colors on some of them a bit (it never seems to pick up off shades of white, exactly). They came directly out of a sports reporters collection. There was plenty of later generation photos mixed in with original press photos, wire photos, etc.., but no trickery and all vintage. I was pulling stuff off of deteriorating old photo album pages, and off old mount boards they were attached to with water-soluble glue. I'm sure the reporter could have made them up himself from the originals for reference. The card stock they are on is what makes me wonder if any of them is a known premium or giveaway of some sort. My feeling is that none of them were made any later then the early 1950's if they do happen to be re-strikes. |
Quote:
Just did. Probably should have done that first. They are late 40's or newer according to the blacklight. I still think they are in the earlier part of that timeline. Probably older reprints. I guess it's about as expected. My first instinct was they weren't anything significant. Just wanted make sure nobody recognized them as something else before I grouped them together in a lot. Thanks. - Dave |
The feel of the stock alone isn't going to tell the story. I own a picture from 1941 with a matte, almost card stock like textured finish paper that I know for certain it is genuine and from the era because I got it from the original archiver and it has the original stamps on it. I've also owned various movie stills on a similar textured paper that I could definitely date to the 1920s because they were autographed (and in some cases dated) by the silent film stars depicted and I got them from the estate of the recipient, who was a make-up artist for the movies in the era. Also, there were many publicity photos made by various entities that weren't necessarily on "standard" glossy photo paper; the ones that come to mind most readily are the H815 Adam Hats pieces, which are on a very heavy creamy (now) stock with a matte finish that feel a lot like cards.
http://www.americasgreatboxingcards....z_scan0002.jpg |
Dave,
Age aside, the Feller shot is DEFINITELY from Yankee Stadium. And most likely, if we're going by the uniform alone, it should be from '37. Apparently, though the uniforms from '36 were very similar, the socks had only two stripes as opposed to the three seen here. Graig |
Hey Greg,
Thanks for the info on the Feller shot and where it was taken. Good to know since I own the vintage photo. |
Thanks guys.
- Dave |
The rarest thing about that Feller photo is that it's not autographed by him. I, too, have one signed to me by him that I got at a show back in the 80s. Probably the most famous image of Feller, I think.
Did I understand correctly that you're still going to auction these? -Ryan |
Feller
Yeah that Feller pic is a classic. I have seen that many times, and I am a pretty novice collector.
Luke |
Quote:
Yes, I have them all up as a group lot of older, later generation photos. Is there a problem with this? |
No, they r cool photos.
|
Update
Update:
Wow! I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. In order to make my shame public and hopefully close the cycle out on these photos/prints/reprints/older reprints...........whatever the hell they are, I offer the following anecdote. I've already said that I did list them up for auction, as probably later generation older prints. A fellow Net54 member actually won them for a modest sum. As I'm preparing the lot for shipment this morning I discover to my horror that one of our cats took the opportunity of seeing unprotected photos out in the open, to hurl a dirty hairball onto them. I launched into recovery mode quickly, taking a hand towel to them, thinking for a split second they could be salvaged before it's too late. I know almost immediately it's a lost cause, but like a surgeon trying to revive a lost patient, I keep at it a bit longer hoping for a different outcome. Granted, it didn't totally ruin the photos. Just made them look like somebody spilled a couple drops of coffee on one of the bottom corners..........but I know where those stains came from. I then sent the buyer a full refund, an apology, a mea culpa and an offer to send him the photos for free if he still wants them given the circumstances. I just hope the buyer understands and isn't too disappointed. I'm pretty hard on myself when errors/mistakes like this occur, kind of a feline version of "The dog ate my homework", I guess. :( |
I hope it wasn't Munch. I can't think that cat would do such a vile thing. ha.
Just one of those things, sadly. And props for honesty, which in this "hobby" or business, is sometimes a rare thing. |
Quote:
|
same thing sort of...
Quote:
|
Quote:
Thanks. Wonder if there's any other pet disaster stories out there. The wife likes to keep a zoo around here, so I'm surprised this doesn't happen more often. |
Quote:
I didn't feel right about that and asked him to just take better care of the photos then I did. LOL!! Granted, it's an easier decision to make when it's lower end stuff you're dealing with. I'm sure I'd be less prone to give something away if my cat had hairballed on a 1919 World Series ticket or something similar. Then again, hopefully I'd be smart enough not to keep something like that out in the open. :o |
please feel free to send the freebee 1919 ws stub my way...even if it's been used in the cat box.:eek:
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:49 PM. |