Posted By:
davidcyclebackIf you're talking about old news photos of Ty Cobb or Joe DiMaggio, they were often trimmed by the photographer or newspaper. It may lower the price, at least compared to an untrimmed version, but is not comparable to a collector trimming a baseball card.
I don't know exactly what kinds of photos your are talking about. For someone like George Grantham Bain, who photographed in the early 1900s, many of his photos are small and handcut, likely by Bain himself. That's just the way his photos are, and they sell for good money. On the other hand, the majority of George Burke's 8x10 photos are untrimmed by him or anyone else, so a trimmed version would likely be worth less. However, if the neatly trimmed original Burke photo is an all-time classic of Babe Ruth or rookie-year Joe DiMaggio, I'm sure the owner would have little trouble finding a buyer, even if he would get a bit more if the photo was untrimmed.
For vintage photographs used in publishing (Baseball magazine, Sports Illustrated, etc), there's a huge difference between a photo cut by the photographer or photo editor and someone cutting it 70 years later to fit into a frame.
Similarly, cropping marks and other marks are original to the photo. How they effect the value is more a matter of aesthetic taste. For wirephotos, tasteful cropping marks on a Sandy Koufax or Roberto Clemente often do not lower the value.