Quick photo question for the photo experts
 

I know there are a number of photo experts here on the boards and I have been wanted to ask about one I have in my possession for 20 or so years. It is not a pre-war photo but an interesting one none the less.

A bit of a background.....As I had mentioned in other posts I had worked for the Chicago Cubs for 7 years in the early 80's and dumpster dove many times. The teams didnt realize the importance of many of their artifacts back then and I even remember the commissioners office sending out a memo near the end of my time with the team to insure teams no longer throw out items that could be considered historical. This picture is a result of one of my dumpster diving events. It is in great shape, no rips or dings and has not been "handled" like many other older pictures I have seen. It is printed on older paper and not the newer glossy stuff I had seen them using when I worked there.

The back has the stamp of Barny Sterling who was the Cub's photographer for many years.

My Question is....is this what would be considered a 1st generation photo? Any thoughts on value? I assume having this autographed would kill any value it might have? I would love to hear any thoughts anyone has on this photo.

Oh..and the player depicted? Yeah, that's Lou Brock!!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...rds/brock1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...rds/brock2.jpg

Andrew:

With photos, it is nearly impossible to determine if they are Type I's, Type II's, etc. from scans on the computer, you really have to have someone look at it in person. As far as value, assuming it was a first generation piece, I would estimate around $25 - $50. As far as getting it autographed, it is fairly inexpensive so it would increase the value a little more, I would think, although original photo collectors may very well not be autograph collectors so you may limit your resale market.

In my trade, a first generation photo would be a one-off original photo taken from the original negative, 2nd gen photos would be copies of that first print.

You have what I would call a 2nd gen. photo, but contemporary to the period. Phil's estimate seems about right.