Do Vintage Frames Add Any Value (Aesthetic or Otherwise)?

[jon koss]

The vintage print excavation continues - and the questions mount. I am attempting to reduce the sheer physical bulk of my photos. A number of my early prints were surrounded by hideous goldtone frames from the 70's. In these cases I felt confident in discarding the frames. Naturally, I achieved around an 80% reduction in pure volume. Now I am moving on to some really crackerjack images by Standley, WH Jackson, Haynes and others. They are in frames of indeterminate age. None of the frames do anything for me visually, but I am concerned that I may be throwing away 'artist original' frames if i discard them. To me they actually look like maybe the 1950's to possibly the '70's - well after the prints were made. The 'Jacobs' label is present on only two of the small prints, by the way. Please see the detail and overall photos for further info. Does anyone feel that these frames are bringing anything to the table, either aesthetically or otherwise? As always, many thanks to the insightful gang of photoruffians known as APUG!

Jon

 

[Cliffy13]

To my mind its the image that counts ,a nice frame might make it more aesthetically pleasing hung on the wall but no frame will make a bad shot a good one

 

[athanasius80]

I would keep the frames on the prints in your first two pictures. The subject, color palatte, and frames all look contemporary for something from the 30s to the 50s. The last picture looks like older pictures on newer matting so I'd do whatever you feel like with those.