Photo experts

[yanks12025]

How do you determine if stuff like this link is orginal. I know many reprints have been made of these and other teams from the 1920's/30s. Thanks

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...entoryid=17819

[thecatspajamas]

With George Burke's photos, I would typically say look for his stamping on the back. Other photographers have different "tells," whether it be a way that they typically identified the photo as theirs (stamping, handwriting, embossing, studio logos in the image, etc). Having a feel for "old" photographs and how they look, feel, and even smell can be clues as well. Of course, not all of these will be available depending on whether you are viewing a photo in person or online.

I'm puzzling over the particular photo you linked to though, as I didn't think the Burke in "Burke-Koretke" stamped photos was George Burke, but rather Francis Burke, who George Burke supplanted for the Cubs photographer position? I could be completely wrong about that though, and would be glad if anyone could explain who Koretke was and what his connection to George Burke may have been, or who the Burke in Burke-Koretke was if not George Burke. The fact that it is on a 1932 Cubs photo (with George Burke being the official photographer for the Cubs throughout the 1930s) certainly does make me rethink my previous assumptions, but other than the 2 photos shown in that Legendary auction (1932 Cubs and 1932 Yankees), I cannot recall seeing many other baseball-related photos with Burke-Koretke stamping (this is where you more seasoned collectors start trotting out your Burke-Koretke baseball photos and make me eat those words )

Edit to add: I should have done more searching beforehand, but I did find a few other examples of Burke-Koretke stampings:
http://www.mearsonlineauctions.com/L...px?lotid=21565
http://feb09.hugginsandscott.com/cgi...l?itemid=10210
http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...-Service-Photo

[Runscott]

Frances Burke and Koretke were partners - here's an example of their work from 1909. Is it possible that Burke/Koretke took this Cubs team photo because George Burke wasn't available when they needed him?

http://www.rrauction.com/past_auctio...cfm?ID=3274763

[yanks12025]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

With George Burke's photos, I would typically say look for his stamping on the back. Other photographers have different "tells," whether it be a way that they typically identified the photo as theirs (stamping, handwriting, embossing, studio logos in the image, etc). Having a feel for "old" photographs and how they look, feel, and even smell can be clues as well. Of course, not all of these will be available depending on whether you are viewing a photo in person or online.

I'm puzzling over the particular photo you linked to though, as I didn't think the Burke in "Burke-Koretke" stamped photos was George Burke, but rather Francis Burke, who George Burke supplanted for the Cubs photographer position? I could be completely wrong about that though, and would be glad if anyone could explain who Koretke was and what his connection to George Burke may have been, or who the Burke in Burke-Koretke was if not George Burke. The fact that it is on a 1932 Cubs photo (with George Burke being the official photographer for the Cubs throughout the 1930s) certainly does make me rethink my previous assumptions, but other than the 2 photos shown in that Legendary auction (1932 Cubs and 1932 Yankees), I cannot recall seeing many other baseball-related photos with Burke-Koretke stamping (this is where you more seasoned collectors start trotting out your Burke-Koretke baseball photos and make me eat those words )

Edit to add: I should have done more searching beforehand, but I did find a few other examples of Burke-Koretke stampings:
http://www.mearsonlineauctions.com/L...px?lotid=21565
http://feb09.hugginsandscott.com/cgi...l?itemid=10210
http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...-Service-Photo

I didn't see the Yankee one, but do they really sell for that much? I know it was years ago, but brought in $6,000. And I noticed alot of Yankee reprints out there also.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Frances Burke and Koretke were partners - here's an example of their work from 1909. Is it possible that Burke/Koretke took this Cubs team photo because George Burke wasn't available when they needed him?

http://www.rrauction.com/past_auctio...cfm?ID=3274763

For those who are unfamiliar with the F.Burke/G.Burke link, Frances Burke was a pretty famous baseball photographer - if you google him, you'll find great images, including a classic of Babe Ruth pitching for the Red Sox and many early Cubs team pictures. The way I remember the story is that someone from the Cubs intended to call Frances Burke for a shoot, but had to look up his number and accidentally called George Burke, who was a photographer, but didn't do sports. George showed up and did a great job, so they continued to use him. I don't know if the Cubs continued to use Frances or not.

[thecatspajamas]

Scott, that is much more in line with other Burke-Koretke images I was seeing. Lots of western-themed photos, and a few large-group shots of different organizations, but not so many baseball-related.

The Yankee one that I mentioned is not nearly as elaborate as the Cubs from the same year, and yet went for 4x as much in the same auction:

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...entoryid=17818

It's hard to tell from the small image for the Cubs montage, but I would hazard a guess that Burke-Koretke created the montage, but not necessarily took all the individual standing photos themselves that were used to create the piece. If I had a larger scan of the composite, I could maybe match up some of the individual standing photos to known George Burke images.

Then again, given that nobody could remember Frances Burke's full name in 1929 to call him in to take some photos of the Cubs (which is how George Burke got his break and became the Cubs' official photographer for the next 2 decades), who knows what kind of confusion could have resulted in those 2 composites being created? Either way, it seems the confusion still persists now 80 years later!