Input requested for Photos, Premiums? Satchel, Feller, Ruth

[D. Bergin]

Doing some research for a consignor and came across a few items that have me stumped. They may be insignificant but just wanted to make sure with the experts here. They are all from a stash of ephemera from a Pittsburgh area Sports Reporter named Harry Keck.

I'm usually pretty good with photos but all of these are a little odd and not on normal photo stock, sized a bit unconventionally and have no identifying markers on them. I want to make sure they aren't some type of Premium I'm unaware of.

Any input or opinions would be appreciated. Thanks. - Dave

Fronts and backs are both pictured below.



#1. Satchel Paige in dugout. Matte-finish non-glossy type real photo. Almost cardstock type stock.

Sized. 7 5/8" x 10 1/2" inches

My research shows this photo was taken July 7, 1948


#2. Satchel Paige and Joe Louis. Matte-finish non-glossy type real photo. Almost cardstock type stock.

Sized. 10 5/8" x 6 7/8" inches

My research shows this photo was taken August 13, 1948 at Comiskey Park prior to Satchel throwing a 5-0 shutout against the White Sox.

[D. Bergin]

#3. Bob Feller. Looks to be a semi-glossy type real photo. Cardstock type stock.

Sized. About 7 3/4" x 10 7/8" inches.

Possibly from the 1938 season or somewhere thereabouts.


#4. Babe Ruth eating Quaker Puffed Wheat. Another odd piece. May be nothing more then a really old run-off, I don't know. I peeled it off an old make-shift backing board. Matt type finish.

Looks like a real photo at first glance but under magnification it has the appearance of a wire photo process with some primitive color photo process mixed in.

Sized. About 8 1/2" x 6 3/4" inches.

[Scott Garner]

FWIW, I believe that the Bob Feller image is from 1936. I own the exact image in an original B/W photo. I had Feller sign it a few years ago and he indicated that it was from his rookie season 1936. I asked him if he remembered what stadium it was shot in and he said he wasn't sure.
Good luck on getting more info from other members.

[ElCabron]

They look like fakes to me. Artificially aged to look old. Sorry.

-Ryan

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by NoizeBringer

They look like fakes to me. Artificially aged to look old. Sorry.

-Ryan

Yep...run a black light test on them.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

Yep...run a black light test on them.

Just did. Probably should have done that first. They are late 40's or newer according to the blacklight. I still think they are in the earlier part of that timeline. Probably older reprints.

I guess it's about as expected. My first instinct was they weren't anything significant. Just wanted make sure nobody recognized them as something else before I grouped them together in a lot.

Thanks.

- Dave

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by NoizeBringer

They look like fakes to me. Artificially aged to look old. Sorry.

-Ryan

I don't think so. They might be restrikes or reprints of some sort from the era, but there is nothing artificially aged about them. Maybe not the exact year published, but somewhere in the ballpark. The scanner does seem to exaggerate the cream colors on some of them a bit (it never seems to pick up off shades of white, exactly).

They came directly out of a sports reporters collection. There was plenty of later generation photos mixed in with original press photos, wire photos, etc.., but no trickery and all vintage. I was pulling stuff off of deteriorating old photo album pages, and off old mount boards they were attached to with water-soluble glue.

I'm sure the reporter could have made them up himself from the originals for reference. The card stock they are on is what makes me wonder if any of them is a known premium or giveaway of some sort.

My feeling is that none of them were made any later then the early 1950's if they do happen to be re-strikes.