Chicago Tribune/Balt Sun Photos

[dog*dirt]

Let me first say that I have no affiliation with the sellers of these photos. I would just like to say that I have bought a good number of these press photos from ebay and think they are some great items to own. Also they make a good gift for a cheap price.

My question to everyone is that with the printed newspapers in steady decline across the country will we continue to see some of our major newspapers start selling their archives?

Feel free to chime in with any thoughts or scans of some photos you may have won....

Andrew

[bcbgcbrcb]

I think that we already have seen that and are continuing to see it more and more. I'm sure that this trend will continue into the forseeable future.

[bcbgcbrcb]

I do have one question along those lines. When the newspaper stamping (logo, address, etc.) appears on the back of an original photo, with or without a date stamp, does that necessarily mean that the photo was produced at that time or could the photo have been produced much earlier and that was just the date/time that the particular newspaper used it for printing? I'm sure that the newspaper photographers did not take many of the photos originally that were printed in their publications over the years.

[thecatspajamas]

I think there is a high likelihood that we will continue to see this as long as there are those like John Rogers out there helping them to realize what they have and help them to liquidate that physical asset. I would guess that in most cases, newspapers only re-use a very small percentage of the photos that they are storing (at their expense) in their physical archives, and what Rogers does is basically work out a deal where the photos are all scanned and returned to the paper in a usable digital archive, Rogers keeps the physical photographs, AND pays the newspaper some lump sum for all this. Most papers that he has approached, or at least those on shaky financial footing, seem to have taken this as a win/win situation for the paper. I can't recall specifically if he was involved in the Chicago Tribune deal, but the last time I checked, the list of papers he had worked out deals with was I think somewhere around 10-12 that I could find info on, amounting to MILLIONS of physical photographs.

You can do some searching and read up on how he's going about it, but I for one was very impressed with the scale of his operation. He really seems to have all the kinks worked out, and I would guess that as long as there are cash-strapped nespapers sitting on physical photo archives, he'll be the go-to guy for converting those into something more usable by the papers.

[GKreindler]

I'm sure that this trend will continue and grow over the years, especially because of people like John Rogers. Most of these companies have millions of images in their photo morgues literally collecting dust, and when someone like John comes along, offers to purchase the originals and digitize them ALL for free as an incentive, it's hard to say 'no'. Granted, I don't think you'll be seeing the Daily News or the New York Times do anything like that in the near future, but as we get deeper and deeper into the digital age, I'm sure the trend will continue with a plethora of newspapers.

This of course, could be good and bad for collectors. Obviously, it'll be nice to have all of these new images to see and fall in love with, especially for someone like myself who's not so much into the collecting aspect. But at the same time, someone who is buying photos for investment purposes might want to keep in mind that the flooding of the market with these finds can certainly adversely effect the prices. One might not see much change in the prices for photos by people like Conlon, Bain and Thompson, but certainly some of the postwar guys - Emmons is a prime example - will probably drop to very reasonable figures.

Just some food for thought...

Graig

[GKreindler]

Hah! And Lance, it looks like we're on the same page at the same time.



Graig

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

I do have one question along those lines. When the newspaper stamping (logo, address, etc.) appears on the back of an original photo, with or without a date stamp, does that necessarily mean that the photo was produced at that time or could the photo have been produced much earlier and that was just the date/time that the particular newspaper used it for printing? I'm sure that the newspaper photographers did not take many of the photos originally that were printed in their publications over the years.

While that COULD be the case, I think you'd be taking quite a leap to come to that conclusion without supporting evidence. The more likely scenario would be that the photo with the later-date stamping is a re-strike from the original negative or second-generation photo re-shot from an earlier original photo. While not all papers were particularly diligent about stamping dates on the backs of photos, I think the scenario you are describing of an unmarked photo sitting in the archives for years before being pulled out, used for production, and then stamped at that later date would be far less likely than it simply being a re-strike.

Just my 2 cents based on this hypothetical scenario...

[drc]

To Phil, most photos with the newspaper's stamp on the back were shot by a staff photographer. If the quality of the image/paper seems original, then the photo probably is. A newspaper can make reprints of old images just like news services did, but most will be originals.

Big newspapers both received photos from UPI, ACME etc for national/international events and shot their own photos of local/regional events. Their archives will contain both types.

[Leon]

Here is a 1921 Baltimore Sun photo I received in the mail yesterday. I think I am becoming a bit obsessive? But how cool is it to also have the corresponding 1921 Tip Top bread card too?

Edited to add I do think we will continue to see some more photos coming out. Newspapers have nothing to do with them and John makes it an easy win-win for them. Nice photos (top tier) will still fetch decent prices and more common players will be lower of course. This one cost me a whopping $15.00

[dog*dirt]

Nice photo Leon. That was a nice eye to be able to pick up on that photo.
Thanks everyone for your responses so far.

I just thought it would be cool if over the next few years we may have the opportunity to acquire some really nice photos that have been hidden away for years. It seems that a number of these photos that come from a local paper could be ideal for those who collect specific teams from that area.

[Exhibitman]

The archive liquidations have been amazing for collectors, that's for sure. Some of the finds, especially the vintage photos with the press releases attached, have been amazing. I think this will go on for some time as we move into the digital age and newspapers can treat their archives as a cash cow rather than a research facility.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

I do have one question along those lines. When the newspaper stamping (logo, address, etc.) appears on the back of an original photo, with or without a date stamp, does that necessarily mean that the photo was produced at that time or could the photo have been produced much earlier and that was just the date/time that the particular newspaper used it for printing? I'm sure that the newspaper photographers did not take many of the photos originally that were printed in their publications over the years.

Could be much older. Example - check out the press photos on my website of Wagner and Ward.

[dog*dirt]

Here is a Cobb from May 1927. It's not in the best shape but is still neat.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Could be much older. Example - check out the press photos on my website of Wagner and Ward.

Scott,

Nice examples! Just goes to show that with vintage photos, you have to take them on a case by case basis if you're trying to determine when the photo was shot, if/when it was used in publication, whether it's a 1st generation, 2nd generation, restrike, etc.

I still feel that later-year restrikes or re-shot photos are the more common occurrance over earlier unmarked photos being repurposed for publication, but in cases like the Wagner and Ward photos Scott mentioned, the supporting details point to those being the exception rather than the rule.

My main concern is not wanting to give the false impression that the situation that Phil was describing was a common occurrence. (I took his original question to be whether a photo clearly shot during an earlier period, say 1927 based on the content of the photo itself, but stamped by the newspaper with a later date, say 1950, could in fact be a print produced in 1927, filed away without any date stamps or markings in 1927, then was pulled out of a file and used for publication in 1950 at which point it was stamped with the 1950 date). I feel that kind of situation would be a rare occurrence, and would require more supporting evidence to make me think that was the case rather than the photo simply being a 1950's-era restrike of a 1927 photo.

That may sound convoluted, but that is what I was getting from his question. It just goes to show how difficult it can be to make an all-encompassing statement when dealing with vintage photographs though. That's why I prefer to take them on a case-by-case basis or, in many indeterminate cases, just call it a "vintage photograph" and talk more about the pretty picture on the front

[GKreindler]

Andrew,

Beaten up or not, that Cobb gaze can't be stopped. And it's a great shot to boot! I love the man with the dark suit behind Ty - it sort of has this reverse halo effect on the contour of his head.

And I think I remember seeing that one on eBay (and at a nice price, I might add) - you picked yourself a winner!

Graig

[dog*dirt]

Craig,

My picking out a nice photo from the internet pales in comparison to the talent you show in your work

[dog*dirt]

Just thought I would bump this on a slow night to see if anyone has picked up anything recently.

I thought this Kaline from the Baltimore Sun was neat from his high school days. Foxx/Klein from 1945 is the bottom picture.

[Runscott]

Andrew, that's a beauty. The Philadelphia Cobb is really a great one.

I probably buy about five of these a month from various Rogers ebay handles. Most of them are just nice generic photos of various sports, but I get a gem every now and then. Recently grabbed what I think is a Charles Conlon photo of the Cubs at spring training on Catalina Island.

[mybestbretts]

Now that is just plain cool!

[Ulidia]

I occasionally buy from the Chicago / Sun collection and also a sister company / outlet, Jay Parrino's The Mint (JPTM) which seems to sell more movie / entertainment photos than sporting photos.

My most recent photo from that source is this one. I bought it at the time because it was described as a photo including Happy Felsch (from the "Black Sox" infamy) but others, notably via baseball fever, have identified it as a Robins / Dodgers photo from 1914 / 1915 era with Casey Stengel, left, and Zach Wheat, right:




I've a multitude of Stengel photos but all from either his time with the Yankees in the 1940s / 1950s or on field with the Giants in early 1920s and personally wouldn't have been able to identify him at all here from the later shots.

[71buc]

How did I miss that one?! That's a beautiful photo.

Originally Posted by Ulidia

I occasionally buy from the Chicago / Sun collection and also a sister company / outlet, Jay Parrino's The Mint (JPTM) which seems to sell more movie / entertainment photos than sporting photos.

My most recent photo from that source is this one. I bought it at the time because it was described as a photo including Happy Felsch (from the "Black Sox" infamy) but others, notably via baseball fever, have identified it as a Robins / Dodgers photo from 1914 / 1915 era with Casey Stengel, left, and Zach Wheat, right:




I've a multitude of Stengel photos but all from either his time with the Yankees in the 1940s / 1950s or on field with the Giants in early 1920s and personally wouldn't have been able to identify him at all here from the later shots.

[Ulidia]

Thanks Mike - I think it had been there for some days before I got it but was one of those that was mislabelled so falls between the cracks.

Initially, I was going to buy it anyway because I liked the image. Ironic that it's a photo of the Robins / Dodgers as I'll be visiting the LA Dodgers for the first time later this month.

Looking forward to picking up those Lazzeri photos you sent to me when I'm over in San Diego in another two weeks time

[bcbgcbrcb]

Just picked up this oversize (8" X 14") Baltimore Sun photo on e-bay tonight, the 1922 Baltimore Orioles w/Lefty Grove. It helped a lot that the auction title and description did not mention the presence of Grove in the photo. At least a couple of people recognized the fact as the photo sold for over $100.........

[jerseygary]

I was wondering who got that Orioles photo - I've been snatching up a few 1920's Baltimore Orioles photos here and there for a book I'm writing and illustrating on the O's dynasty years of 1919-26. Nice pick up!

[71buc]

I have purchased quite a few of my photos from the Tribune/Balt Sun. I spend more time at their site than I should. Although I have picked up many photos there that are older and more valuable, this one remains my favorite. It is 11X11 which is an odd size and depicts AL Kaline in 1955 during a night game. I think it is one of the most visually appealing images of Kaline I have ever come across.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by 71buc

I have purchased quite a few of my photos from the Tribune/Balt Sun. I spend more time at their site than I should. Although I have picked up many photos there that are older and more valuable, this one remains my favorite. It is 11X11 which is an odd size and depicts AL Kaline in 1955 during a night game. I think it is one of the most visually appealing images of Kaline I have ever come across.

Very nice! With the play of light coming off the field to fight the shadowy darkness of the dugout, I would love to see Graig render this one in Kreindercolor! In fact, this photo somehow already resembles a painting to me (rather than the other way around, which would be normal for Graig's paintings).

Anyway, nice pick-up, and thanks for sharing!

[71buc]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Very nice! With the play of light coming off the field to fight the shadowy darkness of the dugout, I would love to see Graig render this one in Kreindercolor! In fact, this photo somehow already resembles a painting to me (rather than the other way around, which would be normal for Graig's paintings).

Anyway, nice pick-up, and thanks for sharing!

Thanks, I had the exact same thought when when I purchased it. I'm certain he could bring this photo to life. Unfortunatley Graig's talents are currently out of my price range.

[kdixon]

Love the Wheat picture.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by 71buc

I have purchased quite a few of my photos from the Tribune/Balt Sun. I spend more time at their site than I should. Although I have picked up many photos there that are older and more valuable, this one remains my favorite. It is 11X11 which is an odd size and depicts AL Kaline in 1955 during a night game. I think it is one of the most visually appealing images of Kaline I have ever come across.

Mike,
I love this photo of Kaline too. It's just perfect!

[novakjr]

I've only picked up one of these on a hunch...and I was correct in my assumption. It turned out to be a hacked up m101-2 of Clark Griffith.

[tjb1952tjb]

That Zach Wheat sure had a set of shoulders, huh?