 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
01-19-2015, 11:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Agreed
Second generation photograph with staff photographer stamp on the back from much later, probably the 1950's. Hard to tell from the scan but it does not appear to be from the original negative either. It is a nice restrike and definitely has some value, just not $1000. BTW, if this photo WAS original, I think there are about 80 of us that would have pulled that trigger on the first day it was listed! Rhys
__________________
Be sure to check out my site www.RMYAuctions.com 
|
|
#2
01-19-2015, 03:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It is also a matter of size. Many of the early press photos were 4½x6½ (Bain, Thompson), 5x7 or 6x8 (Acme, Pacific & Atlantic, Underwood & Underwood, International Film Service, International Newsreel). 8x10 was not regularly used until the 1930’s and 6x8 was still a common size even into the 1940’s. It raises a red flag when I see a photo that is 8x10 that claims to be very early. I have hundreds of pre-WWII press photos in my archives/collection and there may be a few late 1930's that are that big, but not many. It became such a common size to print for 35mm film (though incorrect in ratio) that it is accepted as the standard size.
David and Rhys may agree or disagree with me. I would welcome their thoughts on this.
__________________
'Integrity is what you do when no one is looking' "The man who can keep a secret may be wise, but he is not half as wise as the man with no secrets to keep”
|
|
#3
01-19-2015, 03:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
You are correct. Aside from some high end double-weight studio photographs, the material used to create early press photography was very brittle with a thin piece of paper and heavy gelatin. Because these photos were flimsy and fragile, smaller sizes were more conducive (also more cost effective). This is why Underwood & Underwood (the only company at the time to make really large images) used such thick paper to develop their photographs. Although not a hard rule, earlier press photos are generally much smaller.
Rhys
__________________
Be sure to check out my site www.RMYAuctions.com
|
|
#5
01-19-2015, 07:26 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Not even close.
__________________
[I]"When you photograph people in colour you photograph their clothes. But when you photograph people in B&W, you photograph their souls." ~Ted Grant Www.weingartensvintage.com https://www.facebook.com/WeingartensVintage http://www.psacard.com/Articles/Arti...ben-weingarten ALWAYS BUYING BABE RUTH RED SOX TYPE 1 PHOTOGRAPHS--->To add to my collection
|
|
#6
01-19-2015, 08:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
price just went up to...
$2500
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1915-BABE-RU...item35e3edcc7d I don't get it.........from the EVAJOY school of selling
|
|
#7
01-20-2015, 10:20 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Not commenting on the authenticity or lack thereof of the stamp in the OP, but below is another example of that stamp style in black, along with 1944 date stamp. This on an 8x10 photo from an archive intact since at least the 1950's.
Also worth noting, there appear to have been two William Kuenzels, father and son, who worked for the Detroit News. The father began there in the early 1900's. The son began in the 1940's and later worked for the Miami Herald. I don't know if their careers there overlapped, and it definitely bears further research, but with the two having the same first and last name, and working for the same paper, it seems it would be easy to confuse the two based on stamps alone. It also seems reasonable that Jr could have played around with some of Sr's old work, whether restrikes from the original negatives or by reshooting his father's photos. Not saying that's what is shown, but just throwing some additional info out there for consideration.
__________________
Ebay Store and Weekly Auctions Web Store with better selection and discounts Polite corrections for unidentified and misidentified photos appreciated. Rude corrections also appreciated, but less so.
|
|
#8
01-19-2015, 08:07 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
It's been re-listed at $2500. Interesting sales strategy....
I was really wondering if anyone ever saw a Detroit News photo with a black photographer's stamp on the back. I do know that the font on that stamp is not from 1915. The font of the photog's stamps changed in the late 30's - early 40's I think. And if it's a re-strike can it be very old given the pristine condition of that photo? Those corners are a psa 7! ...and stop calling me Shirley.
|
 |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Question for the Photo Guys Here | MooseDog | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 1 | 03-10-2014 02:14 PM |
| Photo of 5 Guys with a Wagner in the 70's | whiteymet | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 60 | 01-12-2014 10:32 AM |
| what do you guys make of this t206? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 87 | 09-10-2008 07:01 AM |
| Since you guys nailed the last one, Please help with this photo | Archive | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 7 | 08-01-2008 01:17 PM |
| What do you guys make of this one??? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 16 | 08-18-2005 12:27 PM |
Hybrid Mode
