Bain Ruth photo in Memory Lane

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

I see post 8. It looks like photo stock off the Internet. If it or one could be confirmed original, it would be pricey.

Sorry - I didn't intent to be cute about this, I was just curious about value. It is not a stock internet photo. It's from a glass plate neg. in the Chicago History Museum collection. I verified the year via Comiskey Park billboard comparison. This can be seen in an article I wrote for Baseball Research Journal about the Museum's collection a couple of years ago. If anyone is interested, contact me offline and I can email it to you.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Sorry - I didn't intent to be cute about this, I was just curious about value. It is not a stock internet photo. It's from a glass plate neg. in the Chicago History Museum collection. I verified the year via Comiskey Park billboard comparison. This can be seen in an article I wrote for Baseball Research Journal about the Museum's collection a couple of years ago. If anyone is interested, contact me offline and I can email it to you.

Fair enough... there are a lot of stock photos created off the original neg on the internet. What I meant is that it doesn't look like a photo developed and printed in 1914 at first glance by the scan.
If it was, and could be confirmed as such it would be worth a lot of money.

[Forever Young]

Would love to see high res of front and back and any provenance you have though as well as your article. Thanks for sharing photo!
Zbw0014@yahoo.com

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Would love to see high res of front and back and any provenance you have though as well as your article. Thanks for sharing photo!
Zbw0014@yahoo.com

The provenance is that the negative is part of the Chicago Daily News collection of about 50,000 glass plate negatives that was acquired by Chicago History Museum (about 8000 are baseball photos). There is no "back" - it's a negative. Keep in mind that they often don't know what they have until we tell them. I don't have permission to distribute in hi-res (you can purchase hi-res scans from the Museum). Article will be sent to you.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

The provenance is that the negative is part of the Chicago Daily News collection of about 50,000 glass plate negatives that was acquired by Chicago History Museum (about 8000 are baseball photos). There is no "back" - it's a negative. Keep in mind that they often don't know what they have until we tell them. I don't have permission to distribute in hi-res (you can purchase hi-res scans from the Museum). Article will be sent to you.

Ahh.. so it's not an original photo like the one in ML. Gotcha. I guess it would be worth as much as they charge at the museum then.
If original.. a lot of money as we all know. Negatives are a whole other animal. But also a lot of money

Ps: edited at 10:56 pm-fantastic work-I really loved the article. Thank you for sending.

[bobfreedman]

I believe in part, that the reason for the astronomical price was that it was a Bain photo. If a rookie photo showed up, the price would indeed be very high however, if it were a Conlon, Bain or Thompson, the price would significantly higher. Part of the allure of the memory lane photo was that it was a Bain photo IMHO.

[Bicem]

The fact that is was a prominent photographer certainly helped. I bid while still in the low 30's but wouldn't have gone that high had it been an unknown photographer.