Any info on Berk Photos ?

JasonL · #1 06-30-2009, 02:28 PM

Does anyone have any information or can you recommend a reference piece that discusses Berk Photos, and their proofs?

I recently saw an ad in the Summer 2007 Old Cardboard that listed Berk proof photos for sale, and I am completely unfamiliar with this issue...and it looks as though one of my cousins has at least two images...

If anyone has any info on these photos I would greatly appreciate hearing from you.
Thanks!
Jason L

drc · #2 06-30-2009, 04:51 PM

If you mean Burke Photos, as in George Burke, he was a famous Pre-War baseball photographer who shot the photos for the 1930s Goudeys, and made some of the most recognizable images of folks like Babe Ruth, Joe DiMaggio and Jimmie Foxx. He produced a variety of photos, from large display to real photo postcards and photo stamps. Most his Pre-War photos were stamped with his name ("Geo. Burke") and 807 Belmont Ave. Chicago address. This stamp/address reliably dates a photo as vintage. His images were reprinted over the years, none of these reprints having the 807 Belmont Ave stamp on back. Unstamped original Burke photos are uncommon but do exist.

I briefly saw what were called Burke proofs in perhaps the Legendary Auctons, but I'm not exactly sure what those were. Didn't look closely.

JasonL · #3 07-01-2009, 06:47 AM

I'm aware of that Burke collection of images. I was confused when I saw this ad mentioning Berk photo proofs. I too initially thought that maybe the advertiser meant Burke, but I am not sure. I have the Burke and Brace images of my cousins, but I had never before heard of Berk. If anyone has that Summer 2007 issue #12 of Old Cardboard handy, maybe you can check it out for me and see what you think. It's on page #34. I tried calling the number listed, but it's not them anymore...

slidekellyslide · #4 07-01-2009, 09:10 AM

Jason, that's Terry Knouse that was selling those...try this email address: tikntik at embarqmail dot com

Not sure why they are calling them "Berk" photo proofs....they look like Burke photos to me.

GehrigFan · #5 07-01-2009, 10:48 AM

I don't have the issue in front of me, but I'm pretty sure everyone is right on target on these. I distinctly remember the ad because I think there was a 1936 dated Joe DiMaggio, and it it the image used on his R312 Pastel Rookie Card. I have that photo with the same Burke stamping on the back. My guess is they just made up the term "Proof" as a way of stating that they look to be file copies of some sort. As a former darkroom technician, we would run off initial prints at the newspaper of photos and then mark them up with changes (cropping, etc.), and we would sometimes refer to those as proof prints. Maybe that's what they were thinking?

Any which way, they are great photos. My DiMaggio is probably my favorite non-Gehrig/Ruth vintage item.

Quote:

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

Jason, that's Terry Knouse that was selling those...try this email address: tikntik at embarqmail dot com

Not sure why they are calling them "Berk" photo proofs....they look like Burke photos to me.

drc · #6 07-01-2009, 01:26 PM

My mind is fuzzy, but I sort of recall Mastro or Lelands or someone auctioning off a large Burke collection which included all sorts of stuff. Perhaps proofs came from there.

As Mark touches on, photographers make proofs just like card makers do. They are test photos or pre photos made before the finished product. Anyone who had a home darkroom or took a darkroom class in high school made proofs, even if they didn't know at the time those unfinished photos are called proofs.

Also, as Mark touches on, perhaps the ad photos were called proofs as they were the same images used to make the baseball cards. Burke made the DiMaggio and other images into many photos sent all over the place. I've never seen for auction the actual photos Goudey used. Presumably, you would know they were the actual Goudey photos because they had a Goudey stamp on back and/or are are known to have come with the company. Many of the photos for the Exhibit cards are known to be the actual photos, as it is known they came from the President and owner of Exhibit Supply. I won in auction a bunch of the Exhibit photos and it included a detailed signed letter from the President along with a certificate from the company-- which is known as good provenance. Plus the the collection included original printing documents and notes, including the removed and added (short printed) cards and the complete set checklists, some of complete checklists unknown to the collectors at the time. It was clear the photos were the genuine Exhibit photos.

With photos, provenance is of bigger importance that with baseball cards. Knowing that a photo came from the Baseball Magazine auction or the estate of a Sports Illustrated editor is helpful. This is particularly true of photos that weren't distributed to the general public like Topps cards. Luckily for photo collectors, many photos have the provenance stamped on the back. An original Babe Ruth photo with an ACME Newspictures stamp on back is telling you "This photo came from ACME Newspictures," and ACME Newspictures is good provenance for a Ruth photo. With a famous photographer photo with no stamping or marks, other documentation or knowledge of where it came from is important. If it is known this unmarked photo came from the files of the magazine the photographer worked for, that would would support other evidence that it is genuine.

As I mentioned, I've never seen the ad nor pic of the photos, some I'm offering no specific info or insight on the photos in the add.

Rob D. · #7 07-01-2009, 08:47 PM

I could be full of crap, but I think the huge lot that David references being auctioned (within the past two years, I'm pretty sure) was bought by Wonka. I know someone on the board made a post or two about them and even offered some on the B/S/T.

Or, I could have dreamed the entire thing.

drc · #8 07-01-2009, 11:02 PM

Mastro/Legendary and Lelands generally describe and date their photos accurately, so if photos came from them I would have no reason to believe they were misdescribed.

drc · #9 07-02-2009, 01:52 AM

I notice this thread involves a variety of foggy memories, disconnected phone numbers, misspelled names and speculations-- some by me. It's like lunch at an old folks home.

Rob D. · #10 07-02-2009, 02:57 AM

You gonna eat your Jello?

JasonL · #11 07-02-2009, 04:46 AM

unless you agree to be Bridge partners with Bob!

thekingofclout · #12 07-02-2009, 07:20 AM

I have issue #12 of Old Cardboard right in front of me. Yes, TIK & TIK have "Burke" misspelled in their ad. I also viewed most of their proofs at the National in Cleveland and talked with Terry a bit about them.

I ended up buying this from Terry as a companion piece for my Gehrig photo of the same image...
1928lougehrigsportingnews.jpg

And a year later I won the DiMaggio/Burke 1936 R312 Proof Photo in a Mastro auction...
1936dimaggioBURKE.jpg
It's an exact match to the image in the Old Cardboard Magazine as the silver gelatin kind of frames the photo on he top at Joe's hat and down the left boarder. As well as Joe's name typed on the bottom.

JasonL · #13 07-02-2009, 09:01 AM

you sound like the perfect one to ask, then...are these items that they are talking about in the ad, and that you saw in person...are they different from the usual Burke photos that we normally see (as David described above with the stamp on the back, etc)??

Thanks for chiming in and helping me on this
and thanks to everyone else in the above posts too...

thekingofclout · #14 07-02-2009, 11:34 PM

The only difference from these photos and the regular Burkes that I could see was the typed name of the ballplayer. However, the overall condition wasn't the best. Lots of discoloration as you can clearly see in the Foxx photo in the ad of Old Cardboard #12. I got the feeling that where ever the photos were stored for seventy years wasn't the most ideal conditions. Hope this helped. Best regards, Jimmy

drc · #15 07-03-2009, 12:22 PM

I wouldn't call them proofs. But Huggins & Scott had some cards with corresponding Burke photos and I thought they were great. The lots struck me as neat ways to collect.

The silvering on the Dimaggio is common to Pre War old photos, though oridnarilly not that heavy. A big positive is it is proof the photo is old, as silvering only appears after numerous decades. If you find a 1910 Ty Cobb or a rookie era Joe Dimaggio and it has silvering, you can be near certain it is vintage. I compare it to an UDA hologram but certifying old age.