MY newest Gehrig pick up and a question for the photo guys.

[Lordstan]

First a huge shout out and thank you to Joey F for not only making this available to me, but working with me on the deal allowing it to happen. This immediately becomes one of the best Gehrig photos I own and, IMHO, is one of those "cream" pictures Ben was speaking about. I am about as giddy as a grown man can be about owning a photograph of a dead baseball player.





Ok, now that I am finished being emotional, here is the question. Should I send it to a conservation place to have it restored/preserved or not? I am torn about it. On one hand the condition of the picture is part of it's history and I wouldn't want to ruin it in any way. On the other hand, restoration can do incredible things for an item's beauty. While "value" is not the reason I collect, it is not lost on me the fact that the condition of the photo is part of the reason Joey could purchase it for the price he did and I could purchase it from him for the price I did. As with many posters and prints in other auctions, I think that a well done restoration would definitely enhance the value of the photo as well.
So what do you think? If I decide to send it for restoration, can anyone recommend a restoration place they have experience with?

Thanks everyone for your opinions.
Best,
Mark

[thecatspajamas]

My 2 cents:
I would have the tape residue/soiling cleaned/removed from the front and leave it at that. It looks like there is some surface loss around the periphery, but little that intrudes into the image area, so I personally would be more inclined to mat out most of the loss areas and frame it rather than doing some sort of infill/repaint (not sure what exact process they use for photos) to recreate those areas. To me, that's the difference between restoration (cleaning and working with what is there) and recreation (for parts that are no longer there). Others may feel differently.

And FWIW, I have not personally had any photos cleaned, restored or recreated, so this is all academic where I am concerned. I'm sure others can speak more from personal experience.

Beautiful photo, by the way. If you ever wondered what it would look like in color, this was Brace's later interpretation that he used for his Bra-Mac photo series:

[JoeyF1981]

My pleasure mark! Its always good talking to you and I know the photo found a good home! Just dont forget about me when you come across any nice ruth photos!

[drcy]

If you can get the tape/tape reside removed, especially from the image, that would be good. As with most I'm sure, I don't like tape, especially on the images. I wouldn't worry about the other damage. Old photos almost always have wear, and wear/damage in the white border areas and back shouldn't be something to lose sleep over. Pre-War photos almost never come in Mint condition.

[MVSNYC]

As i opened this thread, a huge smile came across my face seeing the image of the photo load...then when i started reading your post/question, i cringed. i'd leave it exactly as-is. i recently saw a rare baseball program that had been restored (not a great job) and it was just heart-breaking. i'd leave it alone. my 2 cents.

Edited to add: i'd simply have it matted and framed, using museum quality materials to give it the presentation and importance it deserves.

I'd frame it like how i did these T206 cards; 8-ply white matte, and burl wood frame (everything acid-free and UV glass):

[drcy]

If you chose to leave it, that's fine by me. I've never had a photo restored and, as I said, it's normal for old photos to have wear.

[batsballsbases]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

My 2 cents:
I would have the tape residue/soiling cleaned/removed from the front and leave it at that. It looks like there is some surface loss around the periphery, but little that intrudes into the image area, so I personally would be more inclined to mat out most of the loss areas and frame it rather than doing some sort of infill/repaint (not sure what exact process they use for photos) to recreate those areas. To me, that's the difference between restoration (cleaning and working with what is there) and recreation (for parts that are no longer there). Others may feel differently.

And FWIW, I have not personally had any photos cleaned, restored or recreated, so this is all academic where I am concerned. I'm sure others can speak more from personal experience.

Beautiful photo, by the way. If you ever wondered what it would look like in color, this was Brace's later interpretation that he used for his Bra-Mac photo series:

Lance great picture! Its also intresting to see that you can see his elbow resting on his hand,and a bat, and the yankee logo on the uniform! Makes you wonder why Burke cropped all that out of his photo!

[MVSNYC]

I really love this image of Lou. When they become available, what price range are they in? i just saw a really nice example at the Heritage preview, it was signed by Lou, so the price was huge.

[batsballsbases]

Mike Good question I know the signed ones go for big $$$$ but the unsigned ones dont come up for sale that often. I know there are many factors that determine price for these and condition is one of them. I dont know what Mark paid for his , and also was a trade included but would love to hear from some others on what this photo is worth! Ben and a few others might know better! Also I know the (forgers) love to get this photo and do their (Magic) with it so maybe thats why you dont see many unsigned ones!!!!

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by batsballsbases

Mike Good question I know the signed ones go for big $$$$ but the unsigned ones dont come up for sale that often. I know there are many factors that determine price for these and condition is one of them. I dont know what Mark paid for his , and also was a trade included but would love to hear from some others on what this photo is worth! Ben and a few others might know better! Also I know the (forgers) love to get this photo and do their (Magic) with it so maybe thats why you dont see many unsigned ones!!!!

Unsigned come up for sale less often that signed ones. I hate to put values on photos as it can change from moment to moment and everyone has a different opinion depending on how important the image is to them/if they collect or not/what the setting is.. ect ect.
I will tell you that I turned down 5k for my Ruth and Gehig pair below. It took me 7 years to find them. That said, mine ar ein very high end condition. However. a Ruth just sold in HYEE auction for 1300. I thought it would go for double. Also NOTE, I pay more for photos than the average Ben.
That Ruth in HYEE would have been a good Ruth for someone looking for some "cream" IMO.

The burkes are not as rare in theory as Conlons, Paul Thompsons, Bains, even single shot news service photos as Burke produced to sell to players as well as fans as we all know. However, I can tell you.. unsigned examples of these two shots are very rare as it relates to the demand. They are two of the most well known portraits of these two giants. I would say an 8x10 in the condition as my example could fetch 1500-2000 unsigned very easily at auction. If two serious photo guys are on it, probably more. The condition of Mark's example clearly hurt it. What did it sell for again?

Again.. I hate to put prices on photos as there is no way to know. Someone could come on here and pull 600 out of the air and I would be like.. ok... sold in the wrong setting.. maybe. I am going off what I would have paid when I wanted one and what I have been offered(facts).

Regarding the photo in question.. How much are you in it? You spend more money on top of that.. then how much are you in it for a re-conditioned one?
My point is, it is not that bad... maybe get tape removed or just frame and matte out. If you have as much in it or close to one unconditioned it makes no sense.. especially if you are fine with it as is IMO.
It just depends on what it is worth to you as you really are not going to be hurt either way as far as value goes.

Photos are like art in that reconditioning is acceptable if done well. If one is altered and looks the same as one unaltered.. yeah. .it is worth less but still can bring high value. It doesn't automatically make it a psa "altered" worth less than a psa 1 card
There I go... a ramblin man again.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

First a huge shout out and thank you to Joey F for not only making this available to me, but working with me on the deal allowing it to happen. This immediately becomes one of the best Gehrig photos I own and, IMHO, is one of those "cream" pictures Ben was speaking about. I am about as giddy as a grown man can be about owning a photograph of a dead baseball player.





Ok, now that I am finished being emotional, here is the question. Should I send it to a conservation place to have it restored/preserved or not? I am torn about it. On one hand the condition of the picture is part of it's history and I wouldn't want to ruin it in any way. On the other hand, restoration can do incredible things for an item's beauty. While "value" is not the reason I collect, it is not lost on me the fact that the condition of the photo is part of the reason Joey could purchase it for the price he did and I could purchase it from him for the price I did. As with many posters and prints in other auctions, I think that a well done restoration would definitely enhance the value of the photo as well.
So what do you think? If I decide to send it for restoration, can anyone recommend a restoration place they have experience with?

Thanks everyone for your opinions.
Best,
Mark

Mark,
I would leave it as is, FWIW. Terrific pickup.
Joey, way to help out another avid collector!

[mr2686]

Oh Mark...that is one heck of a pickup. Nicely done my friend. I agree that it should be left alone and not restored in any way.

[batsballsbases]

Great Photo Mark. I have had that photo in my collection for years! One of the truely best gehrig shots ! In my opinion. Here is what it would look like . Might be worth the time and money. My photo has Jimmys name on it but as of lately Im not so sure now! Looks like the Beatles have consumed his life! Funny to that I always thought that there was some (loss) on my photo around his arm, you can see it ,but looking at yours the loss is the same so it was in the photo to beguin with!

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by batsballsbases

Great Photo Mark. I have had that photo in my collection for years! One of the truely best gehrig shots ! In my opinion. Here is what it would look like . Might be worth the time and money. My photo has Jimmys name on it but as of lately Im not so sure now! Looks like the Beatles have consumed his life! Funny to that I always thought that there was some (loss) on my photo around his arm, you can see it ,but looking at yours the loss is the same so it was in the photo to beguin with!

Well now, that is odd. Especially since the original negative that sold in Legendary's auction last year (shown below) did not have the blemish that would have produced those white areas. You're right though, the apparent "loss" on his arms matches up exactly in both (side by side images not to scale with each other). Perhaps they came from the same run of prints back in the day and the white areas are a result of dirt or some other opaque residue or soiling on the negative that has since been removed? Curious indeed.

[JoeyF1981]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

Mark,
I would leave it as is, FWIW. Terrific pickup.
Joey, way to help out another avid collector!

Scott- it was my pleasure. I love the photo but I could see how interested mark was and knew it belonged in his collection and that he'd appreciate it more.

[Lordstan]

Thanks everyone for the kind words and suggestions.
After hearing the opinions so far, I am leaning towards either leaving it alone or just having the tape and debris removed.
I think I read in a post somewhere that a member here, though I don't remember who, sends his to be "stabilized" or something like that. I'd love to hear from him on this as well.
Mark