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

[drcy]

For those who don't know, the Burke at 847 Belmont Ave stamp is the stamp Burke used in the 1930s to early 40s. So on a George Burke DiMaggio or Ruth or whomever 1930s image, you want to look for that stamp/address. The stamp won't pinpoint a year, but is the old c. 1930s stamp. George Brace was his young assistant and later business partner who reprinted his images later-- with different stamp/address. Brace also was a baseball photographer in his own right and made his own photos. I believe Burke died in 1951 and Brace died more recently. A 'Burke & Brace' at different address or 'George Brace Photos' at different address stamp on a 1930s image will point to it being a later reprint, though I believe the Burke & Brace photos are still often old. On a more modern original photo by Brace of say Willie Mays or Mickey Mantle, Brace would stamp is own name and copyright 'George Brace.' It sounds a bit messy, because it is, but it's easy to remember that the Geo. Burke at Belmont Avenue Chicago are the vintage circa 1930s ones by Burke.

Anything with a Burke, Burke & Brace or Brace stamp will have been an 'official' photo, even if a reprint, as Burke & Brace were partners and Brace owned all the photos and negatives after Burke died. After Burke died, Brace was essentially a photo service, so his stamp on a reprint would be the equivalent of an AP stamp on a photo. In photography, an 'official' photo means it was made by a legitimate source with rights to make the photo, such as a news service, famous photographer's estate, Hollywood studio or Major League Baseball, as opposed to an unlicensed reprint by Joe Blow. If MGM re-issued Gone With The Win for theaters in 1979 and made new press photos to promote the new showings, the 1979 reprinted still images of Clark Gable and Vivien Leigh clearly won't have the value of the 1939 originals, but will still be collectible and have some value as they are official 're-issues' by the studio. For the record, Hollywood movie studio re-issue stills and press photos will have the studio's copyright text and date of re-issue somewhere on the photo, so aren't hard to identify both as re-issues and official. And, along the lines of Gone With The Wind, while clearly not nearly as valuable as Burke's originals, a Brace reprint is collectable and great for matting and framing with autographs. A collecting rule is don't invest in unofficial modern photographs, because they have no longterm value and are often illegal. If you unload your cache of unlicensed Richard Avedon reprints on eBay, his estate might sue you and block the sale. And, besides, digital reprints made on someone's home computer won't sell for much anyway.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by drcy

For those who don't know, the Burke at 847 Belmont Ave stamp is the stamp Burke used in the 1930s to early 40s. So on a George Burke DiMaggio or Ruth or whomever 1930s photos, you want to look for that stamp/address. The stamp won't pinpoint a year, but is the old c. 1930s stamp. George Brace was his young assistant and later business partner who reprinted his images later-- with different stamp/address. Brace also was a baseball photographer in his own right and made his own photos. I believe Burke died in 1951 and Brace died more recently.

Yes...that is correct. All of this was documented and outlined in "a portrait of baseball photography". The different stamps are in there as well as the history. Andy... Have you purchased this book? It is a must have. And yes... Mine is original al

[batsballsbases]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Yes...that is correct. All of this was documented and outlined in "a portrait of baseball photography". The different stamps are in there as well as the history. Andy... Have you purchased this book? It is a must have. And yes... Mine is original al

Ben I never thought differently! I guess the question is when were they all made. And I guess the answer to that question is Only George Burke really Knows!

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by batsballsbases

Ben I never thought differently! I guess the question is when were they all made. And I guess the answer to that question is Only George Burke really Knows!

Yeah... This is def a case where approx 2 years is implemented. The book shows the diff stamps and I have seen a couple diff since. Henry , I am sure has a bunch of new data as well if a 2nd edition was published.

[Runscott]

Now I'm wishing I had kept my George Burke collection - I had Ruth, 2 Dickeys (one catching, one portrait), two of Dimaggio batting, and a bunch more. I looked for Gehrig for a while, then gave up on completing 'the set' and sold them all. The Ruth brought around $700, but that was 10-12 years ago.

Great thread, and congratulations to Lance.

I would leave it as-is.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Yes...that is correct. All of this was documented and outlined in "a portrait of baseball photography". The different stamps are in there as well as the history. Andy... Have you purchased this book? It is a must have. And yes... Mine is original al

No. I am not going to pay Amazon prices. I have had a saved search for this on ebay, and just pointed out to my wife the other day how frustrated I was seeing one in the completed listings from just this month that I never saw.

I really have been planning on getting a copy if I can find it for under $40.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Yeah... This is def a case where approx 2 years is implemented. The book shows the diff stamps and I have seen a couple diff since. Henry , I am sure has a bunch of new data as well if a 2nd edition was published.

Yes, lots of different stamps. At least 8 different main stamps just for the George Burke years 1929-1948, plus some variations of added text above and below. After Burke's heart attack in 1948, the stamp changed to "Burke & Brace, Photo" for the top line and the address changed to Brace's home address on Drake Ave. From what I understand, Burke basically turned the business and all of his negatives over to Brace at that point in return for Brace covering his hospital bills. Following Burke's death in 1951, the stamp changed again to just "Brace Photo" at that address, and underwent many more changes through the years to follow that I haven't attempted to document/date. Brace was still actively photographing players up through the 1993 season, and passed in 2002.

As has been said, there is a lot of overlap between some of the stamping styles as to when they could have been used. I started last year compiling information from examples I have had, but am far from finished. I think I can safely say that some stamp styles can be narrowed down to definite periods of usage as some patterns have started to emerge when I plot the dates, but it would be reckless of me to put definitive dates out there at this point. Documenting everything properly takes time, and unless someone wants to pay me a salary to do that rather than other paying work, it'll be a while yet before it's done and presentable.

[bn2cardz]

I did want to clarify, I wasn't doubting the stamp or if they were original to the original photographer. My questions were regarding if even he, Burke, may have duplicated at a later date for other reasons.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

I did want to clarify, I wasn't doubting the stamp or if they were original to the original photographer. My questions were regarding if even he, Burke, may have duplicated at a later date for other reasons.

The put is out of print so it is expensive. Look at it as a textbook. All I know is that many of your questions would be answered. I don't know how much they are on Amazon but you might be waiting long for 40 or under. Like I said.. It is put of print.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Yes...that is correct. All of this was documented and outlined in "a portrait of baseball photography". The different stamps are in there as well as the history. Andy... Have you purchased this book? It is a must have. And yes... Mine is original al

Not all of us have a copy. Any time I answer a question here, I'll warn you in advance that I haven't read Henry's book, and it's possible that I happen to have the knowledge anyway.

For what it's worth, I checked Abebooks to see if Andy could find a cheap copy there, and it's not going to happen.