Jackie Robinson Photos. Please help if you can

[EYECOLLECTVINTAGE]

I got in a few Jackie Robinson Photos from ebay today.I do not know anything about photos, however they were cheap enough and looked cool. They looked shiny like a normal photo material on ebay but when I got them, they are cardboardy feeling.

Is this something that is a fake or is it right for the time. they measure in approx 5X7 each

I have included photos below. Any help would be much appreciated.

[ramram]

Have you looked under magnification to see if there is a dot pattern?

Rob M

[EYECOLLECTVINTAGE]

No I have not. What exactly is a dot pattern? I will look for it.

[ramram]

Laser printers will make a very fine dot pattern to produce the image. You can also use a black light on the paper and see if it has a dull "glow". Modern paper will produce this glow.

[irv]

In my quest to find some info, I came across some interesting items.

First one is faked pics throughout the years and the second, which will be more helpful, explains to some extent, how to distinguish them.
http://gizmodo.com/86-viral-images-f...ake-1671880787
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadshow/tip...ricphotos.html

[EYECOLLECTVINTAGE]

Thanks Irv

[ibuysportsephemera]

Not sure about the fake part...but these appear to be reproductions of real photos. I have many photos that are on a heavier stock paper.

Jeff

[EYECOLLECTVINTAGE]

Originally Posted by ibuysportsephemera

Not sure about the fake part...but these appear to be reproductions of real photos. I have many photos that are on a heavier stock paper.

Jeff

Thanks! I think I am going to return these then.

[ibuysportsephemera]

Originally Posted by EYECOLLECTVINTAGE

Thanks! I think I am going to return these then.

How were they described? You said that you don't know much about photos...so maybe they were listed correctly?

Jeff

[EYECOLLECTVINTAGE]

Jeff,

The title was: Vintage Jackie Robinson Photos Ebbets Field, Brooklyn Dodger: Lot of 3 Original

The description was: Lot of 3 Original Photographs of Jackie Robinson, Brooklyn Dodger great posing in batting stance and with fans circa 1950 at Ebbets Field, Brooklyn, NY. 4-5/8"x7-1/4", 5-3/8"x7-1/4", 5-3/8"x7-1/4". Condition: small marks in ink to backs of prints otherwise Very Good.

[ibuysportsephemera]

Originally Posted by EYECOLLECTVINTAGE

Jeff,

The title was: Vintage Jackie Robinson Photos Ebbets Field, Brooklyn Dodger: Lot of 3 Original

The description was: Lot of 3 Original Photographs of Jackie Robinson, Brooklyn Dodger great posing in batting stance and with fans circa 1950 at Ebbets Field, Brooklyn, NY. 4-5/8"x7-1/4", 5-3/8"x7-1/4", 5-3/8"x7-1/4". Condition: small marks in ink to backs of prints otherwise Very Good.

I found it already...I think that you would have a case to return these. They don't look original to me. Maybe someone else will weigh in. Good luck.

Jeff

[Michael B]

I would say they are modern reprints. At first blush they look like photos printed on fiber paper which is generally thicker than regular photographic paper. Mostly used by professional studios and fine art photographers. The giveaway to me is the extra wide margin. That occurs when the ratio between the image and the paper being used does not match. A good example is 35mm film. A 35mm negative can be printed on 8x10 paper however, the length to width ratio of a 35mm negative does not equal that of an 8x10 sheet of photo paper. It is closer to 8x12. The choice is either to crop the photo to fit on the paper or reduce the image so that it fits to the paper. Doing that gives you a print with one margin that is larger than the other three. This happens to me when I go into the darkroom and want a full size image on 8x10 paper. This person probable scanned the original images but when he went to print them the image did not fit properly and stretching the image to fit the paper/cardboard would have created obvious distortion in the photo itself.
The seller is doing what many people do. They are trying to finesse the wording. The image is vintage, but the photo is not.

[EYECOLLECTVINTAGE]

Originally Posted by Michael B

I would say they are modern reprints. At first blush they look like photos printed on fiber paper which is generally thicker than regular photographic paper. Mostly used by professional studios and fine art photographers. The giveaway to me is the extra wide margin. That occurs when the ratio between the image and the paper being used does not match. A good example is 35mm film. A 35mm negative can be printed on 8x10 paper however, the length to width ratio of a 35mm negative does not equal that of an 8x10 sheet of photo paper. It is closer to 8x12. The choice is either to crop the photo to fit on the paper or reduce the image so that it fits to the paper. Doing that gives you a print with one margin that is larger than the other three. This happens to me when I go into the darkroom and want a full size image on 8x10 paper. This person probable scanned the original images but when he went to print them the image did not fit properly and stretching the image to fit the paper/cardboard would have created obvious distortion in the photo itself.
The seller is doing what many people do. They are trying to finesse the wording. The image is vintage, but the photo is not.

That is very very helpful! Thanks a lot for the information.

[Michael B]

Glad to offer my opinion. I am a bit of a dinosaur. I still shoot film and like to print black and white in the darkroom. I also collect photos, negatives and slides.

[drcy]

To me they look modern. However, it's up to you to judge if circa $15 per photo is a good or bad price. If you like the images and photos, $15 isn't exactly an outrageous price. You can frame them on your wall.

I remember a guy who had a bunch of photos on his walls for several years. He asked me about them and I said they were were reprints, but he got the buy price value in enjoyment value out of them, since he had had them on his walls all that long.

[EYECOLLECTVINTAGE]

Originally Posted by Michael B

Glad to offer my opinion. I am a bit of a dinosaur. I still shoot film and like to print black and white in the darkroom. I also collect photos, negatives and slides.

This is what the seller responded.

These photographs are by New Jersey photographer John Kowalak and are part of a collection from his estate. They are definitely original. Let me know if you still want to return them.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by EYECOLLECTVINTAGE

This is what the seller responded.

These photographs are by New Jersey photographer John Kowalak and are part of a collection from his estate. They are definitely original. Let me know if you still want to return them.

Keep in mind that with photographs, an "original" need only be a print produced from the original negative. (As opposed to a photograph produced from a duplicate negative, wire photo process, or other second-or-later generation means of production). If the photographer had the original negatives, he could have produced "original" prints in the time period that they were shot as well as decades later. Technically, he could have produced "original" prints yesterday, and the description would still be correct.

The seller's use of the term "vintage" in the title muddies the waters a bit, as "vintage" implies that the prints were also of the period in addition to being original. Many use the term "vintage" to refer to anything "not modern" though, so that term in the title could be innocent even if misleading.

Reading the description, the seller's response, and from what I can see of the photos, it sounds as if these are original photographic prints, produced by the photographer from his original negatives at some time between when they were shot and today, using true silver halide-based photographic processes on what appears to be doubleweight fiber-based paper with a silk or satin finish.

With photographs, you really have to take most sellers' descriptions with a grain of salt as to the specific terms used, and instead try to glean enough information to determine whether what they are selling is what you are looking for. The price you paid seams very reasonable to me for an original print produced by the photographer using professional methods and materials, even if the prints were produced decades later. If you were expecting that they were original of-the-period prints (i.e. Type 1) and that you had gotten them for a bargain price, it is understandable that you would be disappointed, and perhaps you should take the seller up on his offer to take them back. In either case, I would not think the seller a crook based on this one item, and would interpret any misuse of terms as mistakes/misunderstanding rather than a deliberate attempt to deceive.

As an aside, I would hazard to guess that this is the same John Kowalak noted as the source of the photographs? I could swear that I recognize that name from a photographer's back stamp, but cannot find any records of my own indicating such.

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/buf...?pid=168418775

[EYECOLLECTVINTAGE]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Keep in mind that with photographs, an "original" need only be a print produced from the original negative. (As opposed to a photograph produced from a duplicate negative, wire photo process, or other second-or-later generation means of production). If the photographer had the original negatives, he could have produced "original" prints in the time period that they were shot as well as decades later. Technically, he could have produced "original" prints yesterday, and the description would still be correct.

The seller's use of the term "vintage" in the title muddies the waters a bit, as "vintage" implies that the prints were also of the period in addition to being original. Many use the term "vintage" to refer to anything "not modern" though, so that term in the title could be innocent even if misleading.

Reading the description, the seller's response, and from what I can see of the photos, it sounds as if these are original photographic prints, produced by the photographer from his original negatives at some time between when they were shot and today, using true silver halide-based photographic processes on what appears to be doubleweight fiber-based paper with a silk or satin finish.

With photographs, you really have to take most sellers' descriptions with a grain of salt as to the specific terms used, and instead try to glean enough information to determine whether what they are selling is what you are looking for. The price you paid seams very reasonable to me for an original print produced by the photographer using professional methods and materials, even if the prints were produced decades later. If you were expecting that they were original of-the-period prints (i.e. Type 1) and that you had gotten them for a bargain price, it is understandable that you would be disappointed, and perhaps you should take the seller up on his offer to take them back. In either case, I would not think the seller a crook based on this one item, and would interpret any misuse of terms as mistakes/misunderstanding rather than a deliberate attempt to deceive.

As an aside, I would hazard to guess that this is the same John Kowalak noted as the source of the photographs? I could swear that I recognize that name from a photographer's back stamp, but cannot find any records of my own indicating such.

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/buf...?pid=168418775

Great information! This was tremendously helpful. Yes I was disappointed because I thought they were taken by a fan and on that photographic paper from the time period. They are cool never the less and I think I may hold onto them for 50 as I have never seen them before.