Another Burke Question
 

Posted By: <b>Mike Peich</b><p>Thanks for the feedback on the George Burke question I posed a few weeks ago. I have another concerning the reprints he created of vintage photos/postcards.<BR><BR>I saw Burke's reprints at the last Ft. Washington Show, and I was curious as to why they were being offered at a price commensurate with his original photos. They were clearly photographs he had taken of the originals, and as such lacked the clarity and crispness of his player photos (they're even a little blurred.) Is their value based solely on the fact that Burke created them? <BR><BR>I appreciate any thoughts you care to share.<BR><BR> All best, Mike

Another Burke Question
 

Posted By: <b>hankron</b><p>On the market there are vintage 1930s Burke photos where he reprinted his own or others' images from decades earlier. These typically have Burke's name and Belmont Ave/ Chicago stamp on back. Though later generation, these photos are old (Goudey era) and scarce. When having a nice and clear image/pose of a big time early Hall of Famer, like Walter Johnson or Willie Keeler, they can fetch a reasonable price. The quality of the image will, or should, effect the financial value. <BR> <BR>After his death, Burke's images were reprinted by his business partner and fellow baseball photographer, George Brace. Most of these are easily identified as later generation, as they have Brace's stamp on back. <BR>

Another Burke Question
 

Posted By: <b>hankron</b><p>I noticed that I did everything but answer your question.<BR><BR>Beyond the players they picture, these Burke have their value based largely on the age, scarcity and that they were by Burke. I have seen on several occasions well known dealers and an auction house offer these as originals-- which was not a big issue as the sale price was consistant with their real value (If you pay $30 for a $30 fake, there's not too much to complain about).<BR><BR>I don't know what prices you saw, but, as a collector, I don't pay a lot for photos with lesser images (slightly out of focus, underexposed, other). I might pay something, just not a lot.<BR><BR>

Another Burke Question
 

Posted By: <b>mike peich</b><p>Thanks, Hankron. I'm still not certain about the genesis of these duplicates by Burke, but I'll keep digging. Cheers, Mike

Another Burke Question
 

Posted By: <b>Julie</b><p>I have a Hap Felch (sp?) which you'd either call blurry or a very soft focus. It has TWo Conlon stamps on the back (the New York and the new jersey address, in two different inks)), and that hologram from whatever magazine or auction house it is. Also his name in that rather feminine handwriting, which I've finally decided must be his, because so many of his photos have it. It came with a bunch of other Conlon photos--what was i supposed to do, send it back? Why would Conlon stamp and sign an out-of-focus photo?<BR><BR>I THINK I've seen the photo before with a sharp focus, too...<BR><BR>

Another Burke Question
 

Posted By: <b>Scott Forrest</b><p>If so, please email me - I have some information as well.