Vintage Photo Purchase

[Archive]

Posted By: Nickinvegas

Time to play...Did I pay too much?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2784885644&category=24440&sspagename=STRK%3AMEBWN%3AIT&rd=1

I really wanted the photograph, I have never seen another photo featuring Chance(HOF). Can anyone give me an idea what a photograph of a pre-war Hall of famer sells for? Also, the uniform he is wearing does not look familiar. Any ideas?

Regards,
Nick

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

If the image is clear and detailed in person, your price is not unreasonable. The pose and expression of Chance is top notch, and that is where a large part of the value rests. If you ever choose to remove the back paper (optional), you may find that it was shot by a famous photographer. Oridinarilly, only a professional photographer would have that kind of field accesses. The photo is small, but many from the period were that size.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff O

Nick - the bottom line, as always, is that if you are happy with the photo and what you paid for it then it was a good buy. It's not like you're going to find an identical one in a few weeks or anything...

Jeff

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

I'm slowly building a collection of "t206" press photos, and that's one I would have liked

I didn't want to start a new thread for this, so here's a postcard-sized tobacco advertising card I recently received - it has a glossy surface, which was a surprise:

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I think they got the slogan backwards.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: Nickinvegas

Another Q:
When I get the photo I was hoping to have the paper removed. Can anyone suggest a photo restoration expert that could safely remove the paper without effecting the image?

Regards,
Nick

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

Personally, I agree with your decision to locate an expert; however, if you decide to do it on your own:

1)Find a crappy photo with scrapbook residue to practice on.
2)Pour some luke-warm water in a bowl and gram a dishcloth (something with some texture, but not as rough as terry cloth).
3)Dab the cloth in the water and then dab at the residue near the edges of the residue, soaking it completely but avoiding "extra" soaking. Occasionally rub at the edges to see the effect it is having on the photo paper beneath.

I have done the above and it worked fine - took the residue right off the back of a Babe Ruth photo, and also off the back of one of those "real photo" silver gel Cuban cards from the 1910's. The big danger you run is if you get some water on the table and the front of the photo comes in contact with it - then you can kiss the whole project goodbye, curse my name, and promise not to beat me when we meet at the National this year.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

The black paper of old photo albums is usually soft and the photos were often glued via a few dabs of glue. This means that sometimes most of the black paper can carefully be pealed away without much trouble. Water tricks will help on the tougher spots.

Also, it in't neccesary to remove all the black paper, glue or other probelems on the back. A few minor glue spots or even a small portion of leftover black paper will have little to no effect on the value. In other words, there isn't a requirement that a photo be clean as a whistle, and I've sold some expensive photos that had a few black paper dots on the back.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

1947 (that's the J.R. set, not the many stars set). Watch out--I'll post one!

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

Why is the 1949 Bowman considered his rookie? Because it was a National issue?

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

For modern cards, rookie cards supposedly have to have a national distribution. Regional issues, even if they feature MLB teams, don't count as rookie cards under this rule.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Thomas

This issue is 1 year earlier although it was issued in 48 & 49 and would be his rookie card