Jackie Robinson Photos. Please help if you can

[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.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by EYECOLLECTVINTAGE

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.

Keep in mind that with photographs, an "original" need only be a print produced from the original negative. (As opposed to a photograph produced from a duplicate negative, wire photo process, or other second-or-later generation means of production). If the photographer had the original negatives, he could have produced "original" prints in the time period that they were shot as well as decades later. Technically, he could have produced "original" prints yesterday, and the description would still be correct.

The seller's use of the term "vintage" in the title muddies the waters a bit, as "vintage" implies that the prints were also of the period in addition to being original. Many use the term "vintage" to refer to anything "not modern" though, so that term in the title could be innocent even if misleading.

Reading the description, the seller's response, and from what I can see of the photos, it sounds as if these are original photographic prints, produced by the photographer from his original negatives at some time between when they were shot and today, using true silver halide-based photographic processes on what appears to be doubleweight fiber-based paper with a silk or satin finish.

With photographs, you really have to take most sellers' descriptions with a grain of salt as to the specific terms used, and instead try to glean enough information to determine whether what they are selling is what you are looking for. The price you paid seams very reasonable to me for an original print produced by the photographer using professional methods and materials, even if the prints were produced decades later. If you were expecting that they were original of-the-period prints (i.e. Type 1) and that you had gotten them for a bargain price, it is understandable that you would be disappointed, and perhaps you should take the seller up on his offer to take them back. In either case, I would not think the seller a crook based on this one item, and would interpret any misuse of terms as mistakes/misunderstanding rather than a deliberate attempt to deceive.

As an aside, I would hazard to guess that this is the same John Kowalak noted as the source of the photographs? I could swear that I recognize that name from a photographer's back stamp, but cannot find any records of my own indicating such.

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/buf...?pid=168418775

[EYECOLLECTVINTAGE]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Keep in mind that with photographs, an "original" need only be a print produced from the original negative. (As opposed to a photograph produced from a duplicate negative, wire photo process, or other second-or-later generation means of production). If the photographer had the original negatives, he could have produced "original" prints in the time period that they were shot as well as decades later. Technically, he could have produced "original" prints yesterday, and the description would still be correct.

The seller's use of the term "vintage" in the title muddies the waters a bit, as "vintage" implies that the prints were also of the period in addition to being original. Many use the term "vintage" to refer to anything "not modern" though, so that term in the title could be innocent even if misleading.

Reading the description, the seller's response, and from what I can see of the photos, it sounds as if these are original photographic prints, produced by the photographer from his original negatives at some time between when they were shot and today, using true silver halide-based photographic processes on what appears to be doubleweight fiber-based paper with a silk or satin finish.

With photographs, you really have to take most sellers' descriptions with a grain of salt as to the specific terms used, and instead try to glean enough information to determine whether what they are selling is what you are looking for. The price you paid seams very reasonable to me for an original print produced by the photographer using professional methods and materials, even if the prints were produced decades later. If you were expecting that they were original of-the-period prints (i.e. Type 1) and that you had gotten them for a bargain price, it is understandable that you would be disappointed, and perhaps you should take the seller up on his offer to take them back. In either case, I would not think the seller a crook based on this one item, and would interpret any misuse of terms as mistakes/misunderstanding rather than a deliberate attempt to deceive.

As an aside, I would hazard to guess that this is the same John Kowalak noted as the source of the photographs? I could swear that I recognize that name from a photographer's back stamp, but cannot find any records of my own indicating such.

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/buf...?pid=168418775

Great information! This was tremendously helpful. Yes I was disappointed because I thought they were taken by a fan and on that photographic paper from the time period. They are cool never the less and I think I may hold onto them for 50 as I have never seen them before.