Babe Ruth glass plate negative

[rabbitears]

Hello TCMA, thank you for the feedback!

I'd assumed that the negative was a copy from the start. The question is, what is it copied from, and when? It's plate glass, high level of detail, and clearly aged based on the condition of the tape. I'm guessing from the 20's.

Do you know of a source image that contains all of the same area that's in my negative? My overlay animation (higher resolution version linked here) shows what my image contains, that's missing from my only known two original sources.

Should I resign myself to the fact that it's just a worthless copy? :-(

[todeen]

Originally Posted by rabbitears

Hello TCMA, thank you for the feedback!

I'd assumed that the negative was a copy from the start. The question is, what is it copied from, and when? It's plate glass, high level of detail, and clearly aged based on the condition of the tape. I'm guessing from the 20's.

Do you know of a source image that contains all of the same area that's in my negative? My overlay animation (higher resolution version linked here) shows what my image contains, that's missing from my only known two original sources.

Should I just resign myself to the fact that it's just a worthless copy? :-(

When you're talking about Babe Ruth, nothing is worthless!

Make some high quality prints and see if you can sell them. They'd be better quality than any ink jet printer stuff they sell on ebay for $5.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[rabbitears]

Originally Posted by todeen

Make some high quality prints and see if you can sell them.

That's an interesting suggestion Tim, and within my capabilities. However, wouldn't there be copyright to contend with?

Assuming I don't go the re-print route, any other suggestions from anyone on what to do with the negative? Sell, get graded(even possible?), further research, etc? If the full parent image no longer exists in print or negative form, it basically makes this a "1 of 1", I assume that would increase the value?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by rabbitears

That's an interesting suggestion Tim, and within my capabilities. However, wouldn't there be copyright to contend with?

Assuming I don't go the re-print route, any other suggestions from anyone on what to do with the negative? Sell, get graded(even possible?), further research, etc? If the full parent image no longer exists in print or negative form, it basically makes this a "1 of 1", I assume that would increase the value?

Considering that you'd only be doing a few, it probably wouldn't come up.
An actual IP attorney would be the way to go if you want to make a serious go of it, like hundreds of high quality prints instead of just a handful.
Not cheap but worth it.

As far as I know, it's pre 1923, so the image has become public domain, meaning you can use it.
But.... Some states especially NY have name image likeness laws that control how you can use an image of someone famous. So for example, a 1915 photo of a random factory league player can be used without much worry.
A 1920 Photo of Babe Ruth? Whoever is managing the licensing for his estate would probably have something to say about selling a lot of expensive prints, and maybe about just a handful of small cheap ones. (depending on how agressive they are)


A copy negative can still be a nice thing. And maybe valuable. TCMA would know a lot more.

Your copy was probably photographically "printed" from a larger format original. That's done to sort of protect the original, and allow distribution of different sizes that a place printing a magazine or newspaper or other publication would want based on their equipment.


As a collectible, it's in an odd place. Negatives are hard to display well, and part of the attraction of old photos is displaying them. But a glass copy negative is uncommon, even if it might not be unique.

[D. Bergin]

Basically a photo of a photo.

2"x3" is a really small glass negative. Are you sure it's glass, and not acetate?

Either way, the smaller glass sizes tended to fall closer to the end of the glass negative era, somewhere in the 1930's or so.

If it can be definitively pinpointed as an early artwork stage to a specific product, publication or even card, you might have something there.

If it's just a random file copy with no idea as to it's purpose, it's a nice little collectible, though likely not worth a lot.

However if you somehow have convincing provenance tracing it back to the American Caramel Company, it would likely be worth thousands.

As far as reprinting possibilities, without even going into areas such as copyright and image likeness issues...I don't think there's any real potential market to be honest. There's already hundreds, if not thousands of crystal clear Babe Ruth shots available in some way shape or form to the general public. This is essentially a tiny 2nd generation neg that is likely not going to blow up very well. Probably served it's purpose for whatever it was originally used for, but not exactly great for art prints.

I've got an old metal file drawer full of maybe 1500+ old copy negs from boxing magazine publisher Stanley Weston. I've scanned several, and while they're likely just fine for inserting small printed photographs into articles in B&W newsprint boxing magazines of the era, they likely wouldn't serve much purpose beyond that.

[rabbitears]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Basically a photo of a photo.

2"x3" is a really small glass negative. Are you sure it's glass, and not acetate?

Either way, the smaller glass sizes tended to fall closer to the end of the glass negative era, somewhere in the 1930's or so.

steve B and D. Bergin, thank you for the great feedback!

It is most definitely glass, a bit less than 1/16th inch thick. The emulsion has a silvery appearance at a certain angle. The image changes to positive at that angle as well. It came with what appears to be an original protective cardboard. Additional images attached.

Looking closer, I agree with it being a copy of another print.

Does anyone recognize the image outside of the two sources I found? Especially, a version containing Ruth's full torso?

[rabbitears]

Recently discovered that the "ONLY known original photograph" used for the "1922 E121 American Caramel Babe Ruth, Holding Bird" card was a 5.5x7.75 print sold by RMY Auctions in 2013:

• https://rmyauctions.com/bids/bidplace?itemid=21

The photo had some amazing provenance on back:

• First, it provides a wonderful explanation of the odd photo (releasing homing pigeons during a Sept 26th, 1921 Yankees/Cleveland game to provide inning by inning score updates!).
• Second, and more importantly for my research, it shows that the photo was N.E.A. (Newspaper Enterprise Association) sourced, stamped September 28, 1921.
  • This gives some potential context for my copy negative.
  • Could NEA have been the primary source for American Caramel card images?

Being the only known example of this photo, is encouraging as it suggests that there could have been very limited reproduction of other images used on the E121 cards outside of the Caramel set. Possibly, rights were signed over to American Caramel for these photos prior to card production? Purely speculation at this point.