Jackie Robinson Photos. Please help if you can

[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.