Anyone win any photos in Legendary's Auction?

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by drc

There's nothing wrong with calling it a 1930s George Burke photo. You don't have to call it original or 1936 if you don't want to. You label photos one at a time and the key is to describe what a photograph is. Sometimes you can describe a photo with one word (ala "original") and other times it can take a paragraph to explain what's going on. Sometimes you don't know exactly when a photo was made and you don't say you do. As noted, news photos by their nature are intended to be timely and you can be more confident many were made right away. Studio photos can be more difficult, but they can often be dated to the period, which satisfies many Hollywood collectors. You can have a 1932 image of Greta Garbo where you can't prove the date but are confident the photo is from the 1930s due to the physical nature. And, actually, most movie studio photos and promos were timely as well, as they were usually tied to movie releases.

The PSA/DNA 2 year rule really is a concept. In my book I use the rule "Made soon after the image was shot." Does a Burke photo shot in 1932 and printed in 1937 count as "soon after"?

I agree David. I don't have Henry Yee's book but I have had yours for nearly a decade now.

I've sold tons of blank back photos I am confident are vintage to the period. All photos were not meant for the press services.........especially in boxing where promotional photo shots were commonplace and used to market boxers during the time period and sent out to various promoters and managers.

Jimmy, I hear you about Leland's. I've bid and won lots of their stuff but most of the time it's a crap shoot and I try to bid accordingly.

One time I bought a large boxing photo collection and the lot ended up being comprised of mostly 2nd generation shots and lots of throwaway stuff. Another lot had like 600 photos and 200 of them were of an obscure british flyweight champion from the 40's-50's named Terry Allen, lots of them duplicated.............not sure what I was supposed to do with those.

On the flip side I've also picked up lots, thought I might have overpaid and been pleasantly surprised when I got them in, finding lots of gems they never mentioned in the initial description.

I've rarely bid on single photos from them but agree it would help if backs were shown, whether they are press OR studio photos so you would at least get a sense of the paper grain.

[drc]

I've read the Mastro/Yee et al book and think it's a good book. It focuses almost entirely on news and press photos, but has lots of info and research on that subject.

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by drc

I've read the Mastro/Yee et al book and think it's a good book. It focuses almost entirely on news and press photos, but has lots of info and research on that subject.

Your comments speak volumes about your character David. Like Henry and Marshall, you're a fair honest man with integrity, and that sir, is the kind of man I want as an advocate for our sector of the hobby. You have my respect and admiration and with you, Mr. Fogel, and Mr. Yee leading the way, I feel better then ever about Baseball Photography's future in the collecting world.

Which brings me back to the question I posed earlier in this thread... With some of the top experts in the country available to shed light and give credibility to authenticating Baseball photographs...why aren't the auctions houses utilizing their services?!

Sincerely, Jimmy

P.S. David, your book also resides in my Baseball Library.