MY newest Gehrig pick up and a question for the photo guys.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by bgar3

for my 2 cents, or 50 dollars i would much rather have a reference or historical book than an authentication for a single photo.

That is the wisest thing I have read in this forum in a long time - nicely put!

Years before the Yee/Fogel book was written, I purchased hardcopies of ALL of David's books and studied them intently. Later, I was lucky enough to meet David and we have shared photos/thoughts for many years now.

I haven't read the Yee/Fogel book, but based on what others have said (and especially Ben, as I very highly respect his opinion), my thinking is that if you ('you' being anyone who reads this post) got hold of that book, read David's books and continue to read the posts on this forum and handle a lot of vintage photos yourself, you are going to be just fine.

I also feel certain that a copy of the Yee/Fogel book would help me personally, and if I had one I would certainly spend hours studying the material. But I haven't needed to, so I haven't looked for a copy.

[Lordstan]

Wow. Great thread guys. I've been busy at work, so I haven't gotten to reply until now. I want to thank all of you for the congrats and the advice.

This photo sold in Henry's last auction for $630 or so. Joey was kind enough to make it available to me for a small profit, that I was happy to pay. I think Ben brought up something that I hadn't considered in detail and that is the cost of repairs. Obviously, it would be foolish to spend another $1k to remove the tape and clean it a little. I guess I was figuring it wasn't going to cost that much, so price wouldn't be a significant issue.

It doesn't surprise me that there are more of these signed than not. I think it is likely that a higher percentage of Burke's sales were to the players than to the casual fan. I can definitely see Gehrig, Ruth, or even Christy Walsh ordering these to have signed and give out as gifts to friends and business associates. I think that probably far fewer were ordered by the casual fan to hang on their wall.

I am curious as to the size of Ben's prints. I say this as his seem much more rectangular than either mine or Al's copy. Certainly the more vertical rectangular shape would explain why Ben's copies have much more of the whole photo at the top and bottom. Perhaps, Burke decided to crop it down on the bigger prints to increase the focus on the face. Perhaps some of these different crops came at the request of the ordering player?

Thanks to all who have contributed so far and I hope more info continues to be added.

Mark

[Runscott]

Mark, the smaller ones I owned that show the heavy silver halide hints are 5x7.

This is probably in Burke's book, but the players had their favorite photos that Burke took, and they would order them from him. So the ones that you see most often may not be the best Burke image in our opinion, but it was to the players.

[Lordstan]

Well. After reading all the various opinions, I think I will either have the tape marks and some dirt removed, if it's reasonably priced, or nothing at all if it's expensive or I don't find a place I feel comfortable with. No retouching or repairing of the nicks and tears.
One last question...Does anyone have any recommendations of any companies they have used for this type of repair work?
Thank you all for your help.


Lance,
Based on your research, can you tell what year the image was likely taken?


Al,
Our images appear to be siblings. Does that make us in-laws?


Scott,
the smaller ones I owned that show the heavy silver halide hints are 5x7.

Most of the Burke's I have seen have been smaller in size as well. I have seen the larger ones, but they definitely seem much less common.


Mark

[batsballsbases]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

Well. After reading all the various opinions, I think I will either have the tape marks and some dirt removed, if it's reasonably priced, or nothing at all if it's expensive or I don't find a place I feel comfortable with. No retouching or repairing of the nicks and tears.
One last question...Does anyone have any recommendations of any companies they have used for this type of repair work?
Thank you all for your help.


Lance,
Based on your research, can you tell what year the image was likely taken?


Al,
Our images appear to be siblings. Does that make us in-laws?


Scott,
the smaller ones I owned that show the heavy silver halide hints are 5x7.

Most of the Burke's I have seen have been smaller in size as well. I have seen the larger ones, but they definitely seem much less common.


Mark

I believe distant cousins on my mothers side at best!!

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by batsballsbases

I believe distant cousins on my mothers side at best!!

I'm crushed. I figured we would be way closer than that. Well, I'll feel better if this means that I get to inherit the rest of your Gehrig pictures? :-)

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[Runscott]

Most of my larger Burkes had/have the rounded corners - they were of equal quality to the smaller ones.

[batsballsbases]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

I'm crushed. I figured we would be way closer than that. Well, I'll feel better if this means that I get to inherit the rest of your Gehrig pictures? :-)

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

I will work on that but Im closer with my cousins on my fathers side !

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

Well. After reading all the various opinions, I think I will either have the tape marks and some dirt removed, if it's reasonably priced, or nothing at all if it's expensive or I don't find a place I feel comfortable with. No retouching or repairing of the nicks and tears.
One last question...Does anyone have any recommendations of any companies they have used for this type of repair work?
Thank you all for your help.


Lance,
Based on your research, can you tell what year the image was likely taken?


Al,
Our images appear to be siblings. Does that make us in-laws?


Scott,
the smaller ones I owned that show the heavy silver halide hints are 5x7.

Most of the Burke's I have seen have been smaller in size as well. I have seen the larger ones, but they definitely seem much less common.


Mark

From what I can see, I would say it was shot somewhere in the 1931 to 1937 time frame. That's just by looking at the meager uniform details that can be seen, and cursing under my breath at the Yankees for keeping practically the same uniform style for decades. Perhaps there is some nuance that I am overlooking, but there's not a whole lot to go on for a tighter date it was shot.

Also, not to throw Scott under the bus, but I think he misspoke regarding the smaller photos being 5x7. I don't think I have ever seen a 5x7 original Burke photo, as his smaller prints were almost exclusively 4x6. I have seen a handful of 3-1/2 x 5-1/2 RPPC's that he did, but those seem to be very rare (with his proper stamping that is. Brace and Jim Rowe produced thousands of RPPC's them later on using Burke's negatives). Scott was right though that most of the 8x10's Burke produced have the rounded corners. And the 8x10's are far more rare than their 4x6 counterparts, likely because they were more expensive. The players would primarily order those as gifts for family and friends and use the smaller prints for autograph requests, and though both sizes were available to the public, the average collector would rather have more smaller photos than one big one. I think I've posted the price list below previously, but it seems appropriate to post again. This was circa 1940.

P.S. I'll pay good money for any of the 5 catalog lists he mentions being available upon request, or even for a scan or photos of them. I've never seen anything other than his main player catalog lists.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Also, not to throw Scott under the bus, but I think he misspoke regarding the smaller photos being 5x7. I don't think I have ever seen a 5x7 original Burke photo, as his smaller prints were almost exclusively 4x6.

Lance, I'm sure you are right - the exaggeration I gave was in line with other size lies I tell.