Wondering if anyone can help here regarding press photos, or more specifically Press Association photos from the '60s. Apologies if this is in wrong thread (mods please move if it is).

I've got about 40 of these in total (mostly Stones, Beatles, Hendrix etc) there are 6 Motown ones (Supremes outside EMI building with umbrellas, Martha and Vandellas and Stevie Wonder also outside EMI building, Supremes again but indoor and probably before a performance and a Miracles performance one).

Anyway, my problem is authenticating them. Now the person I got them from said her husband worked for the Press Association and they were from their archive, they are all stamped 'Copyright Press Association' (she had literally hundreds, some were sport some were film and a load were 50s/60s music related) BUT they just look too new to me, there's no foxing and very few blemishes on them, the paper is very white and I'm a little suspicious cos they look like they were printed yesterday LOL. That said there are some amazing photos there but does anyone know if a professional photographic agency would be able to keep photos that are that old in that good a condition all the ones I've seen before are aged and slightly yellowed etc - I know FA about photography [nudge nudge wink wink]

Not a real expert on photographic processes but these prints must obviously have been printed up from original film negatives.

If negatives are stored correctly (& the film that was originally used has long term chemical stability) then they should last in good condition for a long time.

A photographic print is something a lot less stable. Light will effect it badly, so unless an old print is stored in the dark it will deteriorate, fading badly or going yellow.

So I guess you have some more recent prints taken from good original 50 year old negatives. 

Of course, they just could be original prints that have been stored in the dark for the last 50 years.

there definitely are very old photos that look new, if they were stored properly. of course that doesn't authenticate your photos.

You can buy a book  of Press Association photos from the 1960's.

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/1960s-Britain-Pictures-Twentieth-Century/dp/1906672121/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1372671335&sr=1-3&keywords=1960%27s+ammonite

 

They haven't been lifted from there have they? Probably not - but just a thought!!

 

On the other hand I have got some professionally taken photos here that go back to the 1960's and even slightly earlier (not music  related) and they are in surprisingly good condition. No yellowing or anything like that. So they COULD be genuine.

 

MB

 

Not a real expert on photographic processes but these prints must obviously have been printed up from original film negatives.

If negatives are stored correctly (& the film that was originally used has long term chemical stability) then they should last in good condition for a long time.

A photographic print is something a lot less stable. Light will effect it badly, so unless an old print is stored in the dark it will deteriorate, fading badly or going yellow.

So I guess you have some more recent prints taken from good original 50 year old negatives. 

Of course, they just could be original prints that have been stored in the dark for the last 50 years.

 

Thanks for this, it's very helpful. My concern was exactly that: recent prints form old negatives (although I've no idea if that would affect value - as I think some may be unpublished).

 

there definitely are very old photos that look new, if they were stored properly. of course that doesn't authenticate your photos.

 

Thanks Bob, helpful to know it's possible for them to look new which is as much as I can hope for in terms of authentication.

Three or so years back a US ebay seller (from the Baltimore / DC area) got hold of a whole stack of original 60's soul artist publicity photos. These had been 'rescued' from an old booking agent's filing cabinet where they had laid untouched (apparently) since the early 70's.

Those photos, coz they had been stored away from the light, dry & at a decent temperature looked almost like new.

So it is possible that yours are 'true originals'.  

 

You can buy a book  of Press Association photos from the 1960's.

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/1960s-Britain-Pictures-Twentieth-Century/dp/1906672121/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1372671335&sr=1-3&keywords=1960's+ammonite

 

They haven't been lifted from there have they? Probably not - but just a thought!!

 

On the other hand I have got some professionally taken photos here that go back to the 1960's and even slightly earlier (not music related) and they are in surprisingly good condition. No yellowing or anything like that. So they COULD be genuine.

 

MB

 

It's possible, I'd need to have a look through the book i guess but doubt it as she had literally hundreds spanning all eras and including sport, film, music etc. And if she was printing them out from original negatives or lifting them from books then I've no idea why she'd print so many or so much crap - George Graham holding up a Leeds shirt for example

Thanks though that's re-assuring to know it's possible for them to be genuine 60s prints despite the condition.

Think I'm going to eBay auction them and see what happens.

 

Three or so years back a US ebay seller (from the Baltimore / DC area) got hold of a whole stack of original 60's soul artist publicity photos. These had been 'rescued' from an old booking agent's filing cabinet where they had laid untouched (apparently) since the early 70's.

Those photos, coz they had been stored away from the light, dry & at a decent temperature looked almost like new.

So it is possible that yours are 'true originals'.

 

This is good to hear, I'm hopeful as there are a few potentially unpublished that I think would sell well. Pity there were so few soul artists, but i did get a couple of nice ones.