Vintage negatives value and ok to print it?

[chalupacollects]

Hello everyone,

Hope someone can help!

For now I wish to keep the player under wraps until I can figure out my next steps...

I have obtained a black/white photo negative of a major hall of famer of which said negative was used as the basis for his rookie card.

First question is: Is it wise to have some prints made up off of it?

Second questions: Will printing copies damage the negative or is ther an alternative process?

Third question: If I remember right doesn't PSA and JSA encapsulate these?

Lastly - What would these generally be valued at?

Thanks in advance!!!

[TCMA]

First you’ve got to determine if the negative is the original or a copy neg. can you post here so we can take a look?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TCMA]

If you don’t want to show the player can you show the edges of the negative at least? Is it glass or something else?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chalupacollects]

I can post a part picture later on, It does measure 1 15/16" wide by 2 15/16". Its is a clear negative material no roller holes from camera. So the edges are clear.

[lumberjack]

I don't believe you have to an item slabbed; they can issue a certificate of authenticity.
If you're going to have a print made, have it done on quality paper.
lumberjack

[chalupacollects]

Doesn't lie perfectly flat and do not want to handle to much... image though is quite clear and detailed. It is 1940's era though....

[rand1com]

Originally Posted by chalupacollects

Hello everyone,

Hope someone can help!

For now I wish to keep the player under wraps until I can figure out my next steps...

I have obtained a black/white photo negative of a major hall of famer of which said negative was used as the basis for his rookie card.

First question is: Is it wise to have some prints made up off of it?

Second questions: Will printing copies damage the negative or is ther an alternative process?

Third question: If I remember right doesn't PSA and JSA encapsulate these?

Lastly - What would these generally be valued at?

Thanks in advance!!!

I would not make prints from the original negative. It can be scanned and prints made from the scan. No company encapsulates negatives to my knowledge unless they are autographed. Obviously, the actual subject will determine the value even if it is the original negative so there is no way to estimate value without knowing the subject.

[mrreality68]

Would Need to see the scan to give you a better information if we the forum have it.

Would love to see it you have us (at least me) curious.

But a variety of questions to determine

1. Is it a true negative or a copy of the negative
2. Who the baseball player is and what card it is representing
3. The condition of the negative.


Depending on all that just making a High Quality Blow up of the photo would potentially be real cool to have and to hang on a wall.

One thing I do not know is if you attempted to make a photo out of it would that risk damaging the negative from the extra handling and going thru the photo process

either way good luck and keep us informed

[SAllen2556]

It seems like an odd size for a negative from that era. With it being so small you'll likely not get a very high quality photo out of it if you try to blow it up to say 8 x 10. I'd scan it and store it.

I was under the impression, based on the negatives I've owned and seen, that photographers from that era who took photos for future baseball cards used 4 x 5 cameras, but others here know more than I.

[TCMA]

Without some form of the entire image it will difficult to provide much info, unfortunately.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MooseDog]

That is an odd size. If the width (short side) of the whole negative is 2 1/4 it could be 120 size film. If closer to 1 7/8 could be 127 film. Both were used in the popular Brownie cameras made by Kodak which were around in the 1940s.

[chalupacollects]

Hello again,

Lets put it out there...

The yellow version is a 300dpi jpeg scan with a post it behind it for contrast. The white one is high res photo...

Now that I think of it can it be camera ready copy for Stan's 48 Leaf rookie? The pose is the same but cropped on the card???

Thoughts?

Thanks!

[Jcosta19]

I could be wrong but although the pose is very similar, I don't think its the same as the 48 Leaf.

The angle of the bat and the contour/wrinkles of the uniform appear different (not to mention the number).

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[bobw]

Close but the angle of his head is different.....image was inverted





Topps used this image for a card

[chalupacollects]

Originally Posted by bobw

Close but the angle of his head is different.....image was inverted





Topps used this image for a card

Which on the topps card is the same image… see the player behind him to the right and grandstands?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jcosta19]

Looks like the image from this card. His actual first card per some references I've seen.

No idea on original vs copy or value.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1946-47-Pro...-127632-2357-0

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[chalupacollects]

Looks like we are able to confirm the date of the negative to spring training 1942. The attached link is the story of a gentleman who spent quite a few years tracking down the reasons and when Stan wore number 19!

Apparently William Greene was the photographer.

Thanks to Jcosta19 for the tip off in his post re uniform number.

Any thoughts?

https://thecardinalnation.com/now-ba...tanley-musial/

[bgar3]

Tim,
This may be a negative of a photo taken by Greene, but I don’t think it could be the original negative of the actual Musial photo, since his name has been added. I think it more likely it is a negative of a photo taken of the original photo with the name below. Of course it may be the original negative of that photo. I did not know Musial had a different number for awhile.

[Lordstan]

it is a copy negative.
The person who made it, took the main photo and added the name area. A photograph of that was then shot and this is the negative from that photo.
This type of stuff happened quite a bit as this is the way most composite photos were created.
Composite photos are not considered type 1s according to the Yee/Fogel system adopted by PSA. Prints created around the time the negative was created would be considered type 3s. Newer prints would be type 4s.

TO answer your questions..
1 and 2) As others have said, I would scan the negative and use that if I was going to make prints.
3) I am not aware of PSA encapsulating negatives. They would encapsulate prints made from the negative as type 4s I would imagine.
4) I find negatives hard to price. Some, I thought would be expensive sold cheaply and others shot to the moon. For a generic Musial, I would not expect more than a couple hundred. Maybe a rookie image would bring more. How much, I am not sure.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

it is a copy negative.
The person who made it, took the main photo and added the name area. A photograph of that was then shot and this is the negative from that photo.
This type of stuff happened quite a bit as this is the way most composite photos were created.
Composite photos are not considered type 1s according to the Yee/Fogel system adopted by PSA. Prints created around the time the negative was created would be considered type 3s. Newer prints would be type 4s.

TO answer your questions..
1 and 2) As others have said, I would scan the negative and use that if I was going to make prints.
3) I am not aware of PSA encapsulating negatives. They would encapsulate prints made from the negative as type 4s I would imagine.
4) I find negatives hard to price. Some, I thought would be expensive sold cheaply and others shot to the moon. For a generic Musial, I would not expect more than a couple hundred. Maybe a rookie image would bring more. How much, I am not sure.

IF YOU DO SCAN it and use to make a Good Print. Please take a picture and post it. Would love to see how it comes and how the quality looks

[chalupacollects]

TO answer your questions..
1 and 2) As others have said, I would scan the negative and use that if I was going to make prints.
3) I am not aware of PSA encapsulating negatives. They would encapsulate prints made from the negative as type 4s I would imagine.
4) I find negatives hard to price. Some, I thought would be expensive sold cheaply and others shot to the moon. For a generic Musial, I would not expect more than a couple hundred. Maybe a rookie image would bring more. How much, I am not sure.[/QUOTE]

Would there possibly be a premium since the negative and photo do trace back to William C Greene who was apparently a fairly well renowned photographer?

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by chalupacollects

TO answer your questions..

1 and 2) As others have said, I would scan the negative and use that if I was going to make prints.

3) I am not aware of PSA encapsulating negatives. They would encapsulate prints made from the negative as type 4s I would imagine.

4) I find negatives hard to price. Some, I thought would be expensive sold cheaply and others shot to the moon. For a generic Musial, I would not expect more than a couple hundred. Maybe a rookie image would bring more. How much, I am not sure.

Would there possibly be a premium since the negative and photo do trace back to William C Greene who was apparently a fairly well renowned photographer?[/QUOTE]I do not think William Greene carries that much weight. Yes. He is known, but he is not in the same category as the big boys like Conlin, Bain, Van Oeyen, etc.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[JustinD]

Based on this example from a 2016 thread this is from a group of others.

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=219271

I would think it is some self-developing card kit at that size.

[Chris Counts]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned here is the somewhat incendiary quality of old negatives. I bought a few of Reds players from around 1940 and had some prints made, which looked great. But a few days later, the negatives started bubbling, melting and smoking. I ended up with a puddle of goo that might have burned my place down if I hadn't been around when it happened. The experience left me somewhat wary of acquiring more negatives.

[Frankish]

The image may well be from 1942 and maybe even the negative, as well. But it doesn't appear to be an original image (as I'm sure has been noted above several times). I have a few glass plate negatives where player names or other info has been been scratched into the negative. But this one appears (clearly, to my lay eye) to be an image of a photo with a nameplate superimposed. If you found a card with both the same image and the exact same nameplate, then maybe this is an intermediary negative used in its production. That would be cool and potentially worth quite a bit. On the other hand, if not, it is a really neat piece but not something of much monetary value...in my estimation.

[chalupacollects]

Originally Posted by JustinD

Based on this example from a 2016 thread this is from a group of others.

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=219271

I would think it is some self-developing card kit at that size.

This would be neat only that I've definitely dated the photo/negative to spring training 1942 re cardinalnation website.

I was only able to find Sun Pictures for 1931 though and thats to early. Nice memory!

[chalupacollects]

Originally Posted by Chris Counts

One thing I haven't seen mentioned here is the somewhat incendiary quality of old negatives. I bought a few of Reds players from around 1940 and had some prints made, which looked great. But a few days later, the negatives started bubbling, melting and smoking. I ended up with a puddle of goo that might have burned my place down if I hadn't been around when it happened. The experience left me somewhat wary of acquiring more negatives.

Once I figure out a place to get a print done, I'll ask about safe storage!

[chalupacollects]

Originally Posted by Frankish

The image may well be from 1942 and maybe even the negative, as well. But it doesn't appear to be an original image (as I'm sure has been noted above several times). I have a few glass plate negatives where player names or other info has been been scratched into the negative. But this one appears (clearly, to my lay eye) to be an image of a photo with a nameplate superimposed. If you found a card with both the same image and the exact same nameplate, then maybe this is an intermediary negative used in its production. That would be cool and potentially worth quite a bit. On the other hand, if not, it is a really neat piece but not something of much monetary value...in my estimation.

There is a Topps card up the thread the negative was used for but I have not found anything since. Once I make contact with the cardinalsnation gentleman he might be able to help with that...

[chalupacollects]

https://www.ebay.com/itm/25505370198...AAAOSwTzlfaoTb

Now have to find something that matches the name panel...

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Chris Counts

One thing I haven't seen mentioned here is the somewhat incendiary quality of old negatives. I bought a few of Reds players from around 1940 and had some prints made, which looked great. But a few days later, the negatives started bubbling, melting and smoking. I ended up with a puddle of goo that might have burned my place down if I hadn't been around when it happened. The experience left me somewhat wary of acquiring more negatives.

That must have been nitrate stock. I don't think I've heard of someone watching it happen, but it can, and can get pretty bad, as once it starts burning it's self oxidizing and is very hard to put out.

The transition to acetate film stocks took a long time probably because the aesthetics of nitrate are supposedly far better. 16mm film came out in the 1920's, and was never (or almost never?) Nitrate. It was finally phased out in the early 1950's, even for professional use.

When or if it will degrade or suddenly degrade dangerously is a mystery. Heat and lack of air circulation will usually do bad things to it, as it releases Nitric acid. And yet, some of the best condition 1890's Edison films were found in a closet in and un-air conditioned house in Texas.