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

[batsballsbases]

Mike Good question I know the signed ones go for big $$$$ but the unsigned ones dont come up for sale that often. I know there are many factors that determine price for these and condition is one of them. I dont know what Mark paid for his , and also was a trade included but would love to hear from some others on what this photo is worth! Ben and a few others might know better! Also I know the (forgers) love to get this photo and do their (Magic) with it so maybe thats why you dont see many unsigned ones!!!!

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by batsballsbases

Mike Good question I know the signed ones go for big $$$$ but the unsigned ones dont come up for sale that often. I know there are many factors that determine price for these and condition is one of them. I dont know what Mark paid for his , and also was a trade included but would love to hear from some others on what this photo is worth! Ben and a few others might know better! Also I know the (forgers) love to get this photo and do their (Magic) with it so maybe thats why you dont see many unsigned ones!!!!

Unsigned come up for sale less often that signed ones. I hate to put values on photos as it can change from moment to moment and everyone has a different opinion depending on how important the image is to them/if they collect or not/what the setting is.. ect ect.
I will tell you that I turned down 5k for my Ruth and Gehig pair below. It took me 7 years to find them. That said, mine ar ein very high end condition. However. a Ruth just sold in HYEE auction for 1300. I thought it would go for double. Also NOTE, I pay more for photos than the average Ben.
That Ruth in HYEE would have been a good Ruth for someone looking for some "cream" IMO.

The burkes are not as rare in theory as Conlons, Paul Thompsons, Bains, even single shot news service photos as Burke produced to sell to players as well as fans as we all know. However, I can tell you.. unsigned examples of these two shots are very rare as it relates to the demand. They are two of the most well known portraits of these two giants. I would say an 8x10 in the condition as my example could fetch 1500-2000 unsigned very easily at auction. If two serious photo guys are on it, probably more. The condition of Mark's example clearly hurt it. What did it sell for again?

Again.. I hate to put prices on photos as there is no way to know. Someone could come on here and pull 600 out of the air and I would be like.. ok... sold in the wrong setting.. maybe. I am going off what I would have paid when I wanted one and what I have been offered(facts).

Regarding the photo in question.. How much are you in it? You spend more money on top of that.. then how much are you in it for a re-conditioned one?
My point is, it is not that bad... maybe get tape removed or just frame and matte out. If you have as much in it or close to one unconditioned it makes no sense.. especially if you are fine with it as is IMO.
It just depends on what it is worth to you as you really are not going to be hurt either way as far as value goes.

Photos are like art in that reconditioning is acceptable if done well. If one is altered and looks the same as one unaltered.. yeah. .it is worth less but still can bring high value. It doesn't automatically make it a psa "altered" worth less than a psa 1 card
There I go... a ramblin man again.

[batsballsbases]

Ben,
Thats what I would have figured 1500-2000 . But yes as we know if you get 2 people who want it bad enough maybe 2500.

[perezfan]

They can do some amazing things with regard to restoration these days.

The tape residue would bug me personally. And I bet it does, you, to a certain extent as well (or you wouldn't have posted/posed the question). I would check with a few companies up-front, and ask if they can remove/eliminate the tape residue without compromising the photo.

If they exude confidence, you feel comfortable, and their pricing is in-line, then I say do it! But, as others have eloquently stated, I would limit it only to the tape residue removal.

Just my 2 cents... classic and beautiful image!

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by batsballsbases

Lance great picture! Its also intresting to see that you can see his elbow resting on his knee, and the yankee logo on the uniform! Makes you wonder why Burke cropped all that out of his photo!

Originally Posted by batsballsbases

Funny to that I always thought that there was some (loss) on my photo around his arm, you can see it ,but looking at yours the loss is the same so it was in the photo to beguin with!

Originally Posted by Forever Young

I will tell you that I turned down 5k for my Ruth and Gehig pair below. It took me 7 years to find them. That said, mine are in very high end condition.

Sorry if this is a "duh" question to the experts, but as a beginner (to vintage photos) I am trying to understand things.

Ben yours show the extra image that Al referenced. Could this be another reason yours are getting higher offers? Also Al mentions that his photo and Mark's both show wear on the arm. So are these later copies or a wire photo of the original image, and Ben's a "Type 1"?

[batsballsbases]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

Sorry if this is a "duh" question to the experts, but as a beginner (to vintage photos) I am trying to understand things.

Ben yours show the extra image that Al referenced. Could this be another reason yours are getting higher offers? Also Al mentions that his photo and Mark's both show wear on the arm. So are these later copies or a wire photo of the original image, and Ben's a "Type 1"?

Andy,
Some I can answer no these arenot copies of wire photos. Thats why I copied the back. You can see the back stamp from george burke and the refference # typed on top. so no these came from burke studios. Ben I also would like to see what the back of your photo looks like. Does it have different markings?

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by batsballsbases

Andy,
Some I can answer no these arenot copies of wire photos. Thats why I copied the back. You can see the back stamp from george burke and the refference # typed on top. so no these came from burke studios. Ben I also would like to see what the back of your photo looks like. Does it have different markings?

Ok that is what I was wondering with the back markings. Since they both do have imperfections that Ben's don't is it yours is still a later version from the same negative (type 2) that got worn after years (and may even be the reason for the closer crop)?

EDIT: Well I see that an original negative shows it wasn't worn. Is it possible there was a copy of the negative made that has been worn down?

[batsballsbases]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

Ok that is what I was wondering with the back markings. Since they both do have imperfections that Ben's don't is it yours is still a later version from the same negative (type 2) that got worn after years (and may even be the reason for the closer crop)?

Andy,
I would say mine and marks would be earlier versions just due to the fact that maybe that is the reason the photo was done again maybe they didnt like the "marks" that I pointed out and just redid the photo again. Only a guess. Kinda like a baseball card variation some photos were released before corrections were made.

[batsballsbases]

Lance,
What markings are on the back of the colorized photo?

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

Sorry if this is a "duh" question to the experts, but as a beginner (to vintage photos) I am trying to understand things.

Ben yours show the extra image that Al referenced. Could this be another reason yours are getting higher offers? Also Al mentions that his photo and Mark's both show wear on the arm. So are these later copies or a wire photo of the original image, and Ben's a "Type 1"?

Andy, the "extra image" is a result of differences in cropping of the image when the original print was produced. Think of it as projecting an image on a screen. As the screen changes shape, different portions of the image are forced "out of frame". Similarly, as you zoom in or out to focus on a particular portion of the original image captured on film, other portions of the image may fall "out of frame." Also, the aspect ratio of an 8x10 print vs a 4x6 are different, making it impossible for each to show the same portion of the same image without having fatter margins on the top/bottom or sides. As you can see, the original negative shows "more image" than any of the prints referenced above, which is typical since the original negative was 5"x7" (another aspect ratio altogether).

As far as a strict "Type" classification, that's something that is better left alone when looking at Burke photos, at least for the present. Reason being that as it stands, part of a "Type 1" designation is that 2-year window from when the photo was shot to when the print was produced. Since Burke continually produced prints from his negatives over the years, it's tough to definitively pin down a print date for most photos. There are some exceptions that I won't go into specifics here (for one reason, I'm still researching some aspects of the dating), but suffice it to say that I think for most of Burke's photos, a designation of "Original" is probably more appropriate and sufficient at this point.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

Ok that is what I was wondering with the back markings. Since they both do have imperfections that Ben's don't is it yours is still a later version from the same negative (type 2) that got worn after years (and may even be the reason for the closer crop)?

EDIT: Well I see that an original negative shows it wasn't worn. Is it possible there was a copy of the negative made that has been worn down?

White areas would not be the result of a negative being "worn". Scratches or wearing off of the emulsion surface would allow more light through the film resulting in black areas on the print. White areas on the print would be a result of something opaque blocking any light from passing through the film in that area, hence my suggestion that there may have simply been dirt or something on the film at the time the prints were produce that has since been cleaned or simply brushed away. I don't think any of the prints shown so far were produced from duplicate/copy negatives. Other than the colorized one I showed, which was produced by Brace from the original negative but at a later date, all of the others appear to have been produced by Burke. Exactly when in Burke's "reign" they were produced is tough to say.

Originally Posted by batsballsbases

Lance,
What markings are on the back of the colorized photo?

The back only had "Gehrig, Lou" penned at the top in Brace's usual hand (I say had, because I no longer have the photo, just the scans). That particular print was done by Brace at a later date for use in production of his Bra-Mac photo series, which were smaller "colorized" versions of Burke's photos of players from the 1930's. He used 8x10 prints, sometimes original Burkes from the 1930's, sometimes more modern restrikes, that were colored by hand by painting or colored pen, then re-shot them to produce the smaller 3x5 photos that he sold in groups of 24 over a period of several years.

[batsballsbases]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

White areas would not be the result of a negative being "worn". Scratches or wearing off of the emulsion surface would allow more light through the film resulting in black areas on the print. White areas on the print would be a result of something opaque blocking any light from passing through the film in that area, hence my suggestion that there may have simply been dirt or something on the film at the time the prints were produce that has since been cleaned or simply brushed away. I don't think any of the prints shown so far were produced from duplicate/copy negatives. Other than the colorized one I showed, which was produced by Brace from the original negative but at a later date, all of the others appear to have been produced by Burke. Exactly when in Burke's "reign" they were produced is tough to say.



The back only had "Gehrig, Lou" penned at the top in Brace's usual hand (I say had, because I no longer have the photo, just the scans). That particular print was done by Brace at a later date for use in production of his Bra-Mac photo series, which were smaller "colorized" versions of Burke's photos of players from the 1930's. He used 8x10 prints, sometimes original Burkes from the 1930's, sometimes more modern restrikes, that were colored by hand by painting or colored pen, then re-shot them to produce the smaller 3x5 photos that he sold in groups of 24 over a period of several years.

Hah, Now Im starting to wonder if Bens Photo is a Bra-Mac photo that was done later as the cropping on his is more like your color version! Ben what stamping is on the back of your photo?

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by batsballsbases

Hah, Now Im starting to wonder if Bens Photo is a Bra-Mac photo that was done later as the cropping on his is more like your color version! Ben what stamping is on the back of your photo?

Ben's is ORIGINAL. There is no doubt in my mind about that.

(And he'll probably kick your butt if you suggest otherwise to his face )


This is what the final 3x5 Bra-Mac photo looked like:

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

White areas would not be the result of a negative being "worn". Scratches or wearing off of the emulsion surface would allow more light through the film resulting in black areas on the print. White areas on the print would be a result of something opaque blocking any light from passing through the film in that area, hence my suggestion that there may have simply been dirt or something on the film at the time the prints were produce that has since been cleaned or simply brushed away. I don't think any of the prints shown so far were produced from duplicate/copy negatives. Other than the colorized one I showed, which was produced by Brace from the original negative but at a later date, all of the others appear to have been produced by Burke. Exactly when in Burke's "reign" they were produced is tough to say.

DUH! I should have thought about that. That is why I ask.

[drcy]

For those who don't know, the Burke at 847 Belmont Ave stamp is the stamp Burke used in the 1930s to early 40s. So on a George Burke DiMaggio or Ruth or whomever 1930s image, you want to look for that stamp/address. The stamp won't pinpoint a year, but is the old c. 1930s stamp. George Brace was his young assistant and later business partner who reprinted his images later-- with different stamp/address. Brace also was a baseball photographer in his own right and made his own photos. I believe Burke died in 1951 and Brace died more recently. A 'Burke & Brace' at different address or 'George Brace Photos' at different address stamp on a 1930s image will point to it being a later reprint, though I believe the Burke & Brace photos are still often old. On a more modern original photo by Brace of say Willie Mays or Mickey Mantle, Brace would stamp is own name and copyright 'George Brace.' It sounds a bit messy, because it is, but it's easy to remember that the Geo. Burke at Belmont Avenue Chicago are the vintage circa 1930s ones by Burke.

Anything with a Burke, Burke & Brace or Brace stamp will have been an 'official' photo, even if a reprint, as Burke & Brace were partners and Brace owned all the photos and negatives after Burke died. After Burke died, Brace was essentially a photo service, so his stamp on a reprint would be the equivalent of an AP stamp on a photo. In photography, an 'official' photo means it was made by a legitimate source with rights to make the photo, such as a news service, famous photographer's estate, Hollywood studio or Major League Baseball, as opposed to an unlicensed reprint by Joe Blow. If MGM re-issued Gone With The Win for theaters in 1979 and made new press photos to promote the new showings, the 1979 reprinted still images of Clark Gable and Vivien Leigh clearly won't have the value of the 1939 originals, but will still be collectible and have some value as they are official 're-issues' by the studio. For the record, Hollywood movie studio re-issue stills and press photos will have the studio's copyright text and date of re-issue somewhere on the photo, so aren't hard to identify both as re-issues and official. And, along the lines of Gone With The Wind, while clearly not nearly as valuable as Burke's originals, a Brace reprint is collectable and great for matting and framing with autographs. A collecting rule is don't invest in unofficial modern photographs, because they have no longterm value and are often illegal. If you unload your cache of unlicensed Richard Avedon reprints on eBay, his estate might sue you and block the sale. And, besides, digital reprints made on someone's home computer won't sell for much anyway.

[drcy]

For those who don't know, the Burke at 847 Belmont Ave stamp is the stamp Burke used in the 1930s to early 40s. So on a George Burke DiMaggio or Ruth or whomever 1930s photos, you want to look for that stamp. George Brace was his young assistant and later business partner who reprinted his images later-- with different stamp/address. Brace also was a photographer and made his own photos. I believe Burke died in 1951.