Original Negative collectors. Show us your 1 of 1 negatives or transparencies.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Awesome stuff. I almost pulled the trigger recently and bought a real nice one, but was wondering how in fact you know you are getting the original 1/1 negative and not a copy negative sometime later. Maybe a simple explanation I'm missing.

Steve,

Is there an easy explanation for anything anymore?
“if it were easy, everyone would do it. It’s the hard that makes it great”!
Jimmy Dugan

Mark pointed out clarity.. obviously if you had a dupe and a original to compare prints against each other, this could work. Unfortunately, there are some really bad photos out there that were shot out of focus. Out of focus or not, the original would be an original. Ps: mark.. those are great Gehrig Original Negs.

Several quick points:

1) Obviously the film or medium has to be period.

2) A lot of the information comes around the edges. For example, if the negative itself(not the positive) has black borders all around it, that would be cause for concern. Black makes white .. so if was a photo of a photo, that could mean it prob was a dupe from a photo border.

3) provenance- love that Koufax Scott. Although 35mm can be removed and reholdered- the fixings on the mount is a good start. The other info is on the neg edge inside. Plus.. this came from Hyee so… money in the bank.

There are several examples posted here that i hate to say are not original. They are dupes. Here are a couple of the examples.

A) n. Fox
Attached is the positive. You can see the photo placed on a drafting table. It was then shot from a camera. It is a photo of a photo.

B) the 1927 Yankees


This is also a dupe -neg. it is a photo of a underwood and Underwood photo. Not a photo taken of the team itself. Notice how the white bordersfrom the photo look on the dupe negative(black). You can even see some waviness of the photo itself on the positive.

The point is, there are ways to tell. Before buying, you always need to get a picture of the negative itself as if you were holding in your hand. That way you can see the edges etc. Negatives could def be added to an authentication company’s money making list. They are amazing 1 of 1 artifacts that have huge potential. In the meantime, I’ll buy and build my personal archive.

On phone again so sorry if stuff is lost in translation or autocorrected wrongly. Is that an oxymoron?

[ruth-gehrig]

Great info Thanks!
The 1927 Yankee negative came from Yee about 15 years ago and I dont remember the description he had along with it. I just thought it was cool.

[Lordstan]

Unfortunately, I had the same suspicion about the 1927 Yanks photo. Bummer.

Thanks Ben. Yours is pretty sweet as well.

I found one more original that I had scanned. Jackie Robinson. I think its 48 or 49, but hard to tell for sure.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by ruth-gehrig

Great info Thanks!
The 1927 Yankee negative came from Yee about 15 years ago and I dont remember the description he had along with it. I just thought it was cool.

If from Yee .. I know he has offered both dupe negs as well as original negs in his auctions but clearly marks them. Just like he does with photos. I have been bidding in his auctions forever. This one looks like it could be a Burke/Brace dupe neg. I know he handled and auctioned some off back in the day.

When it comes to negatives, he is one of the few photography experts in the hobby that can distinguish originals and dupe/copy negs across the majority of film formats. He is my go to with any questions/ helped me countless times. His photographic knowledge is second to none in my book.
If reading this.. i am hoping he and PSA will start authenticating negatives! Wink wink ��

Mike- those drakes are amazing. Thanks for turning me on to the grouping i added. They are so Beautiful

[Lucas00]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Steve,

Is there an easy explanation for anything anymore?
“if it were easy, everyone would do it. It’s the hard that makes it great”!
Jimmy Dugan

Mark pointed out clarity.. obviously if you had a dupe and a original to compare prints against each other, this could work. Unfortunately, there are some really bad photos out there that were shot out of focus. Out of focus or not, the original would be an original. Ps: mark.. those are great Gehrig Original Negs.

Several quick points:

1) Obviously the film or medium has to be period.

2) A lot of the information comes around the edges. For example, if the negative itself(not the positive) has black borders all around it, that would be cause for concern. Black makes white .. so if was a photo of a photo, that could mean it prob was a dupe from a photo border.

3) provenance- love that Koufax Scott. Although 35mm can be removed and reholdered- the fixings on the mount is a good start. The other info is on the neg edge inside. Plus.. this came from Hyee so… money in the bank.

There are several examples posted here that i hate to say are not original. They are dupes. Here are a couple of the examples.

A) n. Fox
Attached is the positive. You can see the photo placed on a drafting table. It was then shot from a camera. It is a photo of a photo.

B) the 1927 Yankees


This is also a dupe -neg. it is a photo of a underwood and Underwood photo. Not a photo taken of the team itself. Notice how the white bordersfrom the photo look on the dupe negative(black). You can even see some waviness of the photo itself on the positive.

The point is, there are ways to tell. Before buying, you always need to get a picture of the negative itself as if you were holding in your hand. That way you can see the edges etc. Negatives could def be added to an authentication company’s money making list. They are amazing 1 of 1 artifacts that have huge potential. In the meantime, I’ll buy and build my personal archive.

On phone again so sorry if stuff is lost in translation or autocorrected wrongly. Is that an oxymoron?

What a strange thing to do.
I got it from Nellie's estate so now I'm even more confused.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

What a strange thing to do.
I got it from Nellie's estate so now I'm even more confused.

Hey Lucas, I know it seems strange in today’s world but it was actually very common. If a high end print wasn’t needed or if they say…misplaced the negative, didn’t have the original neg altogether or it was damaged… this is how they made more prints.. off dupe Negs. They didn’t have high res scanners. They were not creating these thinking there would be value down the line. The sole purpose was to have the ability to get more prints made.

Scenarios stated above might be why there are some great images where type 1s just don’t exist(just type 3s) for example. Maybe the original neg was destroyed or lost and all they had was 1 print to make a dupe of. After that, the 1 print was lost/thrown away but they didn’t care because they had the dupe neg to print more. Every image has a story.. a mystery until it’s not/figured out(which i love). There are so many possibilities and it all starts with the negative.

Also, Nellie’s family most likely didn’t take these photos. So the provenance isn’t from the photographer stating they are originals. The babe ruth estate had many photos that were not originals. They were maybe gifts etc who knows Whatthe exact history was..It just means they were in the estate. The piece itself is either original or it is not. Facts don’t lie.

Another interesting example/potentially confusing are George burke dupes. He was a wonderful photographer but he made many dupe negatives off of other photographer’s prints and sold them(ie conlon, Horner). Things were loose back then. He also made dupes off his own work if he say lost the original. So.. although provenance is very important, it doesn’t always tell the whole story.

I hope that makes sense and it less confusing.��

[mrozie21]

Found these in my father in laws collection

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by mrozie21

Found these in my father in laws collection

Interesting. I wonder why someone would take a photo of a card. Maybe for a catalog or something.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

Interesting. I wonder why someone would take a photo of a card. Maybe for a catalog or something.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

Yes.. it’s hard to imagine things before cell phones and color scanners. But..there was a time. ��

[chalupacollects]

Here's Stan in spring training of his rookie season.