Portrait valuation

[alanrockwood]

Hi,

Does anyone know how to go about having portrait photographs valued?

I just won an auction on twelve 8x10'' portraits from a library that was divesting itself of some of their holdings. Although I am not sure, I think they are probably platinum/paladium prints. Some of them are numbered.

The twelve portraits were mostly of prominent Indians made by Frank Rinehart. They are in an original envelope from the studio. The printing on the envelope says, among other things, "Rinehart's North American Indian Prints - 1898 -... Series 1".

I believe most of the portraits were taken in 1989 at the Indian Congress held in conjunction with the Trans-Mississippi and International Exposition. Here's what photographer Tom Southall says about Rinehart's work: "The dramatic beauty of these portraits is especially impressive as a departure from earlier, less sensitive photographs of Native Americans." I can attest that they are powerful photographs.

I suspect that these photos are valuable, but even if not they are wonderful photos. I am including a picture of the collection. The picture of the collection was part of the auction description. As you can see, most of the people in the photos are men dressed in full regalia, though one looks like it is of a woman with a child.

 

[gone]

Congratulations. That's a very famous photographer (think Smithsonian, see link below), I'd start by calling or emailing galleries that show his work. Probably quite valuable.

https://americanindian.si.edu/collections-search/archives/sova-nmai-ac-289

 

[Donald Qualls]

I believe most of the portraits were taken in 1989 at the Indian Congress held in conjunction with the Trans-Mississippi and International Exposition.

Umm, I'd guess exactly a century earlier than 1989...

 

[BradS]

.... The printing on the envelope says, among other things, "Rinehart's North American Indian Prints - 1898 -... Series 1"....

Umm, I'd guess exactly a century earlier than 1989...

Uhmmm, probably more like 91 years.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Okay. I missed the date reference from Rinehart and was thinking it was a simpler type than both mistyping one number and transposing two others. In any case, from what I can see, they look like excellent work for any era, though perhaps somewhat out of favor now because they're obviously posed and those war bonnets weren't worn on a routine basis -- only ceremonially. They'd still make excellent frame fillers for an old-west style B&B or dude ranch, though...

 

[mshchem]

Original prints??

 

[Sirius Glass]

That is quite a find. Congratulations.

 

[jtk]

For "valuation" of those photos : http://www.artnet.com/artists/frank-a-rinehart/

I'm not suggesting that Artnet is a proper resource to "value" photographs or any other "art" or that any valuation of photographs is in any way reasonable.

Value is eye of beholder and/or whatever price the market will bare in whatever acceptable timeframe.,

 

[ic-racer]

I just won an auction ...

As the high bider, you just determined their top market worth. How much did you pay?

I think they are probably platinum/paladium prints

Wonder how they got those white borders with the black text during the contact printing process. You think they are trimmed and mounted on some thin board?

 

[awty]

Shane Balkowitsch does contemporary native American people in this style using mostly wet plate. Maybe he might be of assistance.

 

[alanrockwood]

Shane Balkowitsch does contemporary native American people in this style using mostly wet plate. Maybe he might be of assistance.

Thanks for the suggestion.

 

[AgX]

Value is eye of beholder and/or whatever price the market will bare in whatever acceptable timeframe.

As the high bider, you just determined their top market worth.

Exactly. We often got that value discussions. But in the end the price a seller and buyer agree on is the item value.

 

[Don_ih]

The black caption makes them look like they're not photographic prints. Are the photos mounted on the sheet that has the caption?

 

[AgX]

Good point. Those captions could be part of the photograph, but with a caption already mounted within the images this is rather unlikely.

On the other hand, I expect Alan to have enough expertice to differ beetween a silver gelatin photographic print and a intaglio, autotype or offset print.

 

[Nitroplait]

The black caption makes them look like they're not photographic prints. Are the photos mounted on the sheet that has the caption?

I agree. From OP's photo they don't really look like photographic prints - at least I have not seen palladium/platinum prints presented like this. Is it possible that it is photogravure?

 

[Don_ih]

I agree. From OP's photo they don't really look like photographic prints - at least I have not seen palladium/platinum prints presented like this. Is it possible that it is photogravure?

At the very least, it seems to be a set of authentic prints - and there's nothing wrong with high-quality photogravure.

I expect Alan to have enough expertice to differ beetween a silver gelatin photographic print and a intaglio, autotype or offset print.

Perhaps he doesn't have the actual prints yet?

 

[Tony D]

I have two prints from this photographer which I believe to be platinum prints. These prints measure 7 3/8 in. x 9 3/8 in. the finish of the paper is matte and slightly textured, the rear of the print shows staining . I don't know what the value of these prints are but hope to help you in your research. 

 

[alanrockwood]

Good point. Those captions could be part of the photograph, but with a caption already mounted within the images this is rather unlikely.

On the other hand, I expect Alan to have enough expertice to differ beetween a silver gelatin photographic print and a intaglio, autotype or offset print.

I'm pretty sure they aren't silver gelatin prints because the images are on a textured paper with no sign of an emulsion. There is no burn through on the back as noted by Tony D. It's possible that they may be some type of reproduction print rather than platinum or platinum/palladium. To be honest, I'm not sure how to tell the difference between platinum and some type of reproduction process just by inspecting the prints. However, based on some of the comments in this thread I am strongly suspecting that they are reproductions of originals rather than originals.

They came in a large envelope that seems to be from the original studio, but they came with no other information. I am posting a picture of the envelope.

I am also uploading a scan of one of the pictures

The picture is slightly warmer in tone that what the image looks like in the scan.

 

[Don_ih]

a scan of one of the pictures

Look for regular dot pattern on the scan, when you zoom in. A real photographic print (silver gelatin or platinum) won't have that. I've seen some very clear reproductions, though, where no pattern is easily discernible.

 

[alanrockwood]

Look for regular dot pattern on the scan, when you zoom in. A real photographic print (silver gelatin or platinum) won't have that. I've seen some very clear reproductions, though, where no pattern is easily discernible.

Thanks for the tip. When I look at a picture using a microscope objective I do see a dot pattern, so these are some kind of half-tone reproductions of the originals. This means the pictures are not extremely valuable. However, at least they came from the original studio, and the dot pattern seems very fine, so they are probably not quite worthless.

 

[Don_ih]

My guess is they're not near worthless, since limited edition authorized reproductions like those are the next best thing to actual prints.

 

[Don_ih]

Also, your envelope is marked 1898 and the print you show has Copyright 1900 on it - which is itself pretty interesting. You have prints that are 120 years old.

 

[BrianShaw]

I don't want to rain on anybody's parade, but given the envelope and the condition of the prints... they strike me as rather nice quality reproductions, like those sold in museum gift shops. I have some that are quite worthy of framing and display, as are those that are the subject of this thread. But I have sincere doubts that they are really all that vintage.

 

[cowanw]

"George Marsden came to Omaha in 1919 and worked for Rinehart. After Rinehart died in 1929 Marsden kept the studio going and changed the name to Rinehart Marsden Studio."
https://nebraskahistory.pastperfectonline.com/webobject/7F63EFB1-EBB7-4F26-AE6F-158139427004
https://www.cowanauctions.com/lot/f...ver-gelatin-prints-of-american-indians-161796
https://vanasitwas.wordpress.com/2015/11/22/george-marsden-early-photographer/amp/
Zip codes were introduced in 1963.

 

[Don_ih]

given the envelope

Ah, the font really looks midcentury....