Original Negative collectors. Show us your 1 of 1 negatives or transparencies.

[Forever Young]

I’ll kick it off with l, arguably, the best one I own. It is the original, 1 of 1 glass plate negative of Captain Lou in college(1923).

As a photography fan, I believe there is still a huge upside as far as investment of original photos. Although on the radar, they are still undervalued IMO. Mostly because there is a relatively small group of collectors(vs say cards). I believe when PSA implements a registry of any kind, the fireworks will fly. They are on their way….

The negatives, however, are further back. They are in their infant, infancy. they are as rare as it gets for any one image- 1 of 1. They produce the highest end prints(IF in good shape). And they are totally untapped as it relates to mainstream hobby collecting and authentication. There is a huge opportunity for collectors/investors as well as an authentication outfit.
Negatives are just so cool and would love to see others post here who also enjoy them. I am totally hooked and believe in them. They are not for the faint of heart. However, if you start, it’s hard to stop. ��. They are historical relics and it’s amazing to say.. “i own the actually original, 1 of 1 negative of that image. “ “ I am going to start my own Archive.” I think the sky is the limit.

I know I know.. they are hard to display and it is scary that they might break. Anything else? ��
I will be making 1 of 1 very high end prints of each of my best pieces which i will display. Also, i have looked into getting dupes made of the originals just for displaying purposes along with the photo(keep the original locked away). This can be done at every medium.. glass, acetate, slides etc.

Anyone else love abs collect this stuff? If so, would love to hear your thoughts and see your examples. Let’s have some fun(if you want) and put funny watermarks on but still allow the beautiful image to be appreciated. I will start on my following examples.

As always, excuse and autocorrects /fat fingers as I’m on the fly on my phone.

[bgar3]

Ben, I agree with how neat these are. I no longer have any of my early glass ones, but I do have several slides and negatives of Ashburn, which I will try to figure out how to post so they can be seen. Not Gehrig, but I like them for the reasons you have stated.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by bgar3

Ben, I agree with how neat these are. I no longer have any of my early glass ones, but I do have several slides and negatives of Ashburn, which I will try to figure out how to post so they can be seen. Not Gehrig, but I like them for the reasons you have stated.

I love that you have samples in your Ashburn Collection. I Would love to see them.

[bgar3]

Ben, these are the best I can do for now, I just use my camera phone. My favorite is the one with the letter and folder, with rookie of the year Id.
Other than Ashburn, my interests are in pre 1880 photos, and I do not have negatives from that time.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by bgar3

Ben, these are the best I can do for now, I just use my camera phone. My favorite is the one with the letter and folder, with rookie of the year Id.
Other than Ashburn, my interests are in pre 1880 photos, and I do not have negatives from that time.

I can see why that is your favorite; on top of having the sleeve and wonderful description, the composition seems amazing. Would love to see the positive scans when you have time. 1880- you are greet not of the faint of heart. Yku have a link to your collection?

[71buc]

Hi Ben, great thread! Lots of Beautiful stuff love the Ashburn and that Gehrig is ridiculous. Although I have a few large format negatives of Banks and Jackie Robinson I’m sure no one is surprised to learn that my favorites are my 35mm original slide portraits of Clemente.

[bgar3]

Mike, those Clements are great. I have a few of those of Ashburn also, the colors are just spectacular.

[Lucas00]

Couple of my Nellie fox negatives.
One with the .45s in the classic kneeling bat across the body pose
And one with the '65 MVP Zoilo Versalles

[T206Jim]

Ben, how many game action shots of Matty exist? Bain to boot!

matty-negative1.jpg
Bain-negatives-watermarked.jpg

[Lordstan]

I have a few Gehrig negatives as well. Photos are composites as my scanner cannot scan 5x 7 negatives in one shot.

1930's Burke negative


1930's negative Burke also




This the envelope with the date the photos were taken and the photos from the 4 negatives from that shoot that are in the sleeve


[

[

[PSACJ]

1917 Chief Meyers / Conlon Glass Negative

[Snapolit1]

Awesome stuff. I almost pulled the trigger recently and bought a real nice one, but was wondering how in fact you know you are getting the original 1/1 negative and not a copy negative sometime later. Maybe a simple explanation I'm missing.

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Awesome stuff. I almost pulled the trigger recently and bought a real nice one, but was wondering how in fact you know you are getting the original 1/1 negative and not a copy negative sometime later. Maybe a simple explanation I'm missing.

Perhaps one of the biggest tells is the quality of the image the negative produces. A photo from an original negative should be crystal clear and razor sharp in contrast, IMO.

[Scott Garner]

Ben & friends,
Super cool thread & congrats on all of your beautiful negative images!

I no longer own this original slide from Sandy Koufax's career high 18K game in April, 1962 @ Wrigley, but I do have the photo print displayed that I made from this slide.

BTW, I have a few original slides of Nolan Ryan, but so far have never taken the time to make prints of any of them...

I look forward to seeing what others have in their collections....

[milkit1]

Screenshot_20211211-215437_Chrome.jpg

[ruth-gehrig]

Some real positive looking negatives out there

My sole contribution to this thread is my 1927 Yanks negative. I really need to get a print made off this to check the quality.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Awesome stuff. I almost pulled the trigger recently and bought a real nice one, but was wondering how in fact you know you are getting the original 1/1 negative and not a copy negative sometime later. Maybe a simple explanation I'm missing.

Steve,

Is there an easy explanation for anything anymore?
“if it were easy, everyone would do it. It’s the hard that makes it great”!
Jimmy Dugan

Mark pointed out clarity.. obviously if you had a dupe and a original to compare prints against each other, this could work. Unfortunately, there are some really bad photos out there that were shot out of focus. Out of focus or not, the original would be an original. Ps: mark.. those are great Gehrig Original Negs.

Several quick points:

1) Obviously the film or medium has to be period.

2) A lot of the information comes around the edges. For example, if the negative itself(not the positive) has black borders all around it, that would be cause for concern. Black makes white .. so if was a photo of a photo, that could mean it prob was a dupe from a photo border.

3) provenance- love that Koufax Scott. Although 35mm can be removed and reholdered- the fixings on the mount is a good start. The other info is on the neg edge inside. Plus.. this came from Hyee so… money in the bank.

There are several examples posted here that i hate to say are not original. They are dupes. Here are a couple of the examples.

A) n. Fox
Attached is the positive. You can see the photo placed on a drafting table. It was then shot from a camera. It is a photo of a photo.

B) the 1927 Yankees


This is also a dupe -neg. it is a photo of a underwood and Underwood photo. Not a photo taken of the team itself. Notice how the white bordersfrom the photo look on the dupe negative(black). You can even see some waviness of the photo itself on the positive.

The point is, there are ways to tell. Before buying, you always need to get a picture of the negative itself as if you were holding in your hand. That way you can see the edges etc. Negatives could def be added to an authentication company’s money making list. They are amazing 1 of 1 artifacts that have huge potential. In the meantime, I’ll buy and build my personal archive.

On phone again so sorry if stuff is lost in translation or autocorrected wrongly. Is that an oxymoron?

[ruth-gehrig]

Great info Thanks!
The 1927 Yankee negative came from Yee about 15 years ago and I dont remember the description he had along with it. I just thought it was cool.

[Lordstan]

Unfortunately, I had the same suspicion about the 1927 Yanks photo. Bummer.

Thanks Ben. Yours is pretty sweet as well.

I found one more original that I had scanned. Jackie Robinson. I think its 48 or 49, but hard to tell for sure.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by T206Jim

Ben, how many game action shots of Matty exist? Bain to boot!

Attachment 507388
Attachment 507385

Jim,

Nothing like this one. What an amazing shot!

Andy, that conlon glass i was underbidder on I believe on eBay awhile back? It was early on when lelands was selling so I didn’t set snipe high enough. I think I got pissy and won a lefty O in the same night(conlon glass) for a bunch. 😂 The glass is my favorite.

Sean.. all those glass blacksox?

[Snapolit1]

Ben - thanks for the amazing insights. Much appreciated. Exactly the sort of information I was completely lacking.

You heading east in July?

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Jim,

Nothing like this one. What an amazing shot!

Andy, that conlon glass i was underbidder on I believe on eBay awhile back? It was early on when lelands was selling so I didn’t set snipe high enough. I think I got pissy and won a lefty O in the same night(conlon glass) for a bunch. 😂 The glass is my favorite.

Sean.. all those glass blacksox?

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Ben - thanks for the amazing insights. Much appreciated. Exactly the sort of information I was completely lacking.

You heading east in July?

You betcha! Def should catch up if you’re going.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by ruth-gehrig

Great info Thanks!
The 1927 Yankee negative came from Yee about 15 years ago and I dont remember the description he had along with it. I just thought it was cool.

If from Yee .. I know he has offered both dupe negs as well as original negs in his auctions but clearly marks them. Just like he does with photos. I have been bidding in his auctions forever. This one looks like it could be a Burke/Brace dupe neg. I know he handled and auctioned some off back in the day.

When it comes to negatives, he is one of the few photography experts in the hobby that can distinguish originals and dupe/copy negs across the majority of film formats. He is my go to with any questions/ helped me countless times. His photographic knowledge is second to none in my book.
If reading this.. i am hoping he and PSA will start authenticating negatives! Wink wink ��

Mike- those drakes are amazing. Thanks for turning me on to the grouping i added. They are so Beautiful

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by ruth-gehrig

Some real positive looking negatives out there

My sole contribution to this thread is my 1927 Yanks negative. I really need to get a print made off this to check the quality.

According to "The Acetate Negative Survey" by David G. Horvath of the University of Louisville Ekstrom Library Photographic Archives finished in February, 1987 this is a 3A notch reference negative. This is Kodak Commercial Pan negative film used 1929-1933, 1942 and 1947. It was either film #1108 or 5108 which were both discontinued. No. 5108 was discontinued in 1940. This is based on information provided by the Patent Office of Eastman Kodak and surveys of the large photographic archives in the U.S. The distance from the upper right hand corner to the first notch should be ¼" These notches were there so a person working in a darkroom would know which side was the emulsion side, the side that should face down. In the case of the image shown, I believe it is backwards and the notches would be in the upper left when printed.

Most of us would believe that all of the early negative were glass plate. Nitrate and safety film was also used this early and before. The Caulfield and Shook Collection at the University of Louisville has several hundred thousand negatives from 1925-1955. Most of them are 8x10 sheet film. The Charles L. Franck Collection at The Historic New Orleans Collection contains sheet film negatives from 1915 t0 1955.

Both nitrate and acetate sheet film can degrade over time. When possible the archives will transfer the images to safety film and store the original negatives.

[mrreality68]

never collected them and never thought about it but these are pretty interesting

[SAllen2556]

Having grown up in a family with two newspaper photographers I have inherited thousands of negatives from as far back as the 1920's. Unfortunately, neither covered sports very often. I had a bunch of baseball, but I sold them in a Hunt auction. I have no clue what to do with the rest of them.

IMG_2433.jpg
IMG_2436.jpg

I would add that it is possible to create a negative from a photo. There once was a thing called a "copy camera" that made 4 x 5 negatives from a photo, but as others have said, it's pretty easy to tell. The photo below is original, but the negative is not!

IMG_2443.jpg

Good old "Hooks Dauss" from the ones I sold.
IMG_2442.jpg

My dad also spent a day in 1976 with Mark Fidrych, covering him from morning 'til night. I have slides from that assignment.
IMG_2445.jpg

Last thing I'd add is that glass negatives can really degrade quickly - moisture is poisonous. I think this one is of a car crash - poor tree.
IMG_2438.jpg

[Lucas00]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Steve,

Is there an easy explanation for anything anymore?
“if it were easy, everyone would do it. It’s the hard that makes it great”!
Jimmy Dugan

Mark pointed out clarity.. obviously if you had a dupe and a original to compare prints against each other, this could work. Unfortunately, there are some really bad photos out there that were shot out of focus. Out of focus or not, the original would be an original. Ps: mark.. those are great Gehrig Original Negs.

Several quick points:

1) Obviously the film or medium has to be period.

2) A lot of the information comes around the edges. For example, if the negative itself(not the positive) has black borders all around it, that would be cause for concern. Black makes white .. so if was a photo of a photo, that could mean it prob was a dupe from a photo border.

3) provenance- love that Koufax Scott. Although 35mm can be removed and reholdered- the fixings on the mount is a good start. The other info is on the neg edge inside. Plus.. this came from Hyee so… money in the bank.

There are several examples posted here that i hate to say are not original. They are dupes. Here are a couple of the examples.

A) n. Fox
Attached is the positive. You can see the photo placed on a drafting table. It was then shot from a camera. It is a photo of a photo.

B) the 1927 Yankees


This is also a dupe -neg. it is a photo of a underwood and Underwood photo. Not a photo taken of the team itself. Notice how the white bordersfrom the photo look on the dupe negative(black). You can even see some waviness of the photo itself on the positive.

The point is, there are ways to tell. Before buying, you always need to get a picture of the negative itself as if you were holding in your hand. That way you can see the edges etc. Negatives could def be added to an authentication company’s money making list. They are amazing 1 of 1 artifacts that have huge potential. In the meantime, I’ll buy and build my personal archive.

On phone again so sorry if stuff is lost in translation or autocorrected wrongly. Is that an oxymoron?

What a strange thing to do.
I got it from Nellie's estate so now I'm even more confused.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

What a strange thing to do.
I got it from Nellie's estate so now I'm even more confused.

Hey Lucas, I know it seems strange in today’s world but it was actually very common. If a high end print wasn’t needed or if they say…misplaced the negative, didn’t have the original neg altogether or it was damaged… this is how they made more prints.. off dupe Negs. They didn’t have high res scanners. They were not creating these thinking there would be value down the line. The sole purpose was to have the ability to get more prints made.

Scenarios stated above might be why there are some great images where type 1s just don’t exist(just type 3s) for example. Maybe the original neg was destroyed or lost and all they had was 1 print to make a dupe of. After that, the 1 print was lost/thrown away but they didn’t care because they had the dupe neg to print more. Every image has a story.. a mystery until it’s not/figured out(which i love). There are so many possibilities and it all starts with the negative.

Also, Nellie’s family most likely didn’t take these photos. So the provenance isn’t from the photographer stating they are originals. The babe ruth estate had many photos that were not originals. They were maybe gifts etc who knows Whatthe exact history was..It just means they were in the estate. The piece itself is either original or it is not. Facts don’t lie.

Another interesting example/potentially confusing are George burke dupes. He was a wonderful photographer but he made many dupe negatives off of other photographer’s prints and sold them(ie conlon, Horner). Things were loose back then. He also made dupes off his own work if he say lost the original. So.. although provenance is very important, it doesn’t always tell the whole story.

I hope that makes sense and it less confusing.��

[mrozie21]

Found these in my father in laws collection

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by mrozie21

Found these in my father in laws collection

Interesting. I wonder why someone would take a photo of a card. Maybe for a catalog or something.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

Interesting. I wonder why someone would take a photo of a card. Maybe for a catalog or something.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

Yes.. it’s hard to imagine things before cell phones and color scanners. But..there was a time. ��

[chalupacollects]

Here's Stan in spring training of his rookie season.

[UKCardGuy]

I don't have many but I'll happily pick up more if I see them at good prices. Here's a couple of Charles Conlon Cellulose Negatives from 1936.

Max Butcher and Ed Brandt

[TCMA]

Grabbed this 5x7 neg of the Brooklyn Tip-Tops recently:

[canjond]

Ruth at spring training…

[PSACJ]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Jim,

Nothing like this one. What an amazing shot!

Andy, that conlon glass i was underbidder on I believe on eBay awhile back? It was early on when lelands was selling so I didn’t set snipe high enough. I think I got pissy and won a lefty O in the same night(conlon glass) for a bunch. 😂 The glass is my favorite.

Sean.. all those glass blacksox?

@ Forever Young: That Chief Meyers is a Cracker Jack Player and the image is from the 1910’s and in action which is exactly what I collect. I was super happy to have won it!⚾️

[LOUCARDFAN]

Great thread and lots of great negatives already shown. Here is my favorite 1 of 1 original negative from my collection. Circa 1910 Brown Bros. Ty Cobb original 5x7 glass negative. I absolutely love this image.

[pherbener]

Originally Posted by LOUCARDFAN

Great thread and lots of great negatives already shown. Here is my favorite 1 of 1 original negative from my collection. Circa 1910 Brown Bros. Ty Cobb original 5x7 glass negative. I absolutely love this image.

Wow Todd! That's amazing! Great stuff so far. Great thread Ben!

Here's a couple of mine by Francis Burke. 1912 WaJo and 1905 Matty used for his Max Stein and PC796 postcards.

I need to get a better scanner to get better images!