Vintage negatives value and ok to print it?

[bgar3]

Tim,
This may be a negative of a photo taken by Greene, but I don’t think it could be the original negative of the actual Musial photo, since his name has been added. I think it more likely it is a negative of a photo taken of the original photo with the name below. Of course it may be the original negative of that photo. I did not know Musial had a different number for awhile.

[Lordstan]

it is a copy negative.
The person who made it, took the main photo and added the name area. A photograph of that was then shot and this is the negative from that photo.
This type of stuff happened quite a bit as this is the way most composite photos were created.
Composite photos are not considered type 1s according to the Yee/Fogel system adopted by PSA. Prints created around the time the negative was created would be considered type 3s. Newer prints would be type 4s.

TO answer your questions..
1 and 2) As others have said, I would scan the negative and use that if I was going to make prints.
3) I am not aware of PSA encapsulating negatives. They would encapsulate prints made from the negative as type 4s I would imagine.
4) I find negatives hard to price. Some, I thought would be expensive sold cheaply and others shot to the moon. For a generic Musial, I would not expect more than a couple hundred. Maybe a rookie image would bring more. How much, I am not sure.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

it is a copy negative.
The person who made it, took the main photo and added the name area. A photograph of that was then shot and this is the negative from that photo.
This type of stuff happened quite a bit as this is the way most composite photos were created.
Composite photos are not considered type 1s according to the Yee/Fogel system adopted by PSA. Prints created around the time the negative was created would be considered type 3s. Newer prints would be type 4s.

TO answer your questions..
1 and 2) As others have said, I would scan the negative and use that if I was going to make prints.
3) I am not aware of PSA encapsulating negatives. They would encapsulate prints made from the negative as type 4s I would imagine.
4) I find negatives hard to price. Some, I thought would be expensive sold cheaply and others shot to the moon. For a generic Musial, I would not expect more than a couple hundred. Maybe a rookie image would bring more. How much, I am not sure.

IF YOU DO SCAN it and use to make a Good Print. Please take a picture and post it. Would love to see how it comes and how the quality looks

[chalupacollects]

TO answer your questions..
1 and 2) As others have said, I would scan the negative and use that if I was going to make prints.
3) I am not aware of PSA encapsulating negatives. They would encapsulate prints made from the negative as type 4s I would imagine.
4) I find negatives hard to price. Some, I thought would be expensive sold cheaply and others shot to the moon. For a generic Musial, I would not expect more than a couple hundred. Maybe a rookie image would bring more. How much, I am not sure.[/QUOTE]

Would there possibly be a premium since the negative and photo do trace back to William C Greene who was apparently a fairly well renowned photographer?

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by chalupacollects

TO answer your questions..

1 and 2) As others have said, I would scan the negative and use that if I was going to make prints.

3) I am not aware of PSA encapsulating negatives. They would encapsulate prints made from the negative as type 4s I would imagine.

4) I find negatives hard to price. Some, I thought would be expensive sold cheaply and others shot to the moon. For a generic Musial, I would not expect more than a couple hundred. Maybe a rookie image would bring more. How much, I am not sure.

Would there possibly be a premium since the negative and photo do trace back to William C Greene who was apparently a fairly well renowned photographer?[/QUOTE]I do not think William Greene carries that much weight. Yes. He is known, but he is not in the same category as the big boys like Conlin, Bain, Van Oeyen, etc.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[JustinD]

Based on this example from a 2016 thread this is from a group of others.

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=219271

I would think it is some self-developing card kit at that size.

[Chris-Counts]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned here is the somewhat incendiary quality of old negatives. I bought a few of Reds players from around 1940 and had some prints made, which looked great. But a few days later, the negatives started bubbling, melting and smoking. I ended up with a puddle of goo that might have burned my place down if I hadn't been around when it happened. The experience left me somewhat wary of acquiring more negatives.

[Frankish]

The image may well be from 1942 and maybe even the negative, as well. But it doesn't appear to be an original image (as I'm sure has been noted above several times). I have a few glass plate negatives where player names or other info has been been scratched into the negative. But this one appears (clearly, to my lay eye) to be an image of a photo with a nameplate superimposed. If you found a card with both the same image and the exact same nameplate, then maybe this is an intermediary negative used in its production. That would be cool and potentially worth quite a bit. On the other hand, if not, it is a really neat piece but not something of much monetary value...in my estimation.

[chalupacollects]

Originally Posted by Chris Counts

One thing I haven't seen mentioned here is the somewhat incendiary quality of old negatives. I bought a few of Reds players from around 1940 and had some prints made, which looked great. But a few days later, the negatives started bubbling, melting and smoking. I ended up with a puddle of goo that might have burned my place down if I hadn't been around when it happened. The experience left me somewhat wary of acquiring more negatives.

Once I figure out a place to get a print done, I'll ask about safe storage!

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Chris Counts

One thing I haven't seen mentioned here is the somewhat incendiary quality of old negatives. I bought a few of Reds players from around 1940 and had some prints made, which looked great. But a few days later, the negatives started bubbling, melting and smoking. I ended up with a puddle of goo that might have burned my place down if I hadn't been around when it happened. The experience left me somewhat wary of acquiring more negatives.

That must have been nitrate stock. I don't think I've heard of someone watching it happen, but it can, and can get pretty bad, as once it starts burning it's self oxidizing and is very hard to put out.

The transition to acetate film stocks took a long time probably because the aesthetics of nitrate are supposedly far better. 16mm film came out in the 1920's, and was never (or almost never?) Nitrate. It was finally phased out in the early 1950's, even for professional use.

When or if it will degrade or suddenly degrade dangerously is a mystery. Heat and lack of air circulation will usually do bad things to it, as it releases Nitric acid. And yet, some of the best condition 1890's Edison films were found in a closet in and un-air conditioned house in Texas.

[chalupacollects]

Originally Posted by JustinD

Based on this example from a 2016 thread this is from a group of others.

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=219271

I would think it is some self-developing card kit at that size.

This would be neat only that I've definitely dated the photo/negative to spring training 1942 re cardinalnation website.

I was only able to find Sun Pictures for 1931 though and thats to early. Nice memory!