How should I sell this photograph?
December 9, 2010 4:29 PM
How should I sell this photograph?
Years ago I was given a silver gelatin print of a photograph of Marilyn Monroe - I have a pretty clear idea of when it was taken and who the photographer is. But how do I go about selling it? I put it on eBay with what I thought was a reasonable opening bid, but there were no takers. Any ideas?
Years ago I was given a silver gelatin print of a photograph of Marilyn Monroe - I have a pretty clear idea of when it was taken and who the photographer is. But how do I go about selling it? I put it on eBay with what I thought was a reasonable opening bid, but there were no takers. Any ideas?
The main problem with eBay and the information you've given us is that anyone can print out a photograph of Marilyn Monroe, by whatever photographer. Especially if the photograph is online. This makes it hard to authenticate, especially if the provenance is weak (e.g. "someone gave me this, I'm pretty sure who the photographer is, but that's the extent of what I know").
Is it a numbered print? That might help you sell it. Do you have proof of who the photographer is, or any other documentation? Is it signed or dated? Any identifying mark? Anything aside from process that would set this apart from any other image of Marilyn that anybody could print themselves from the web?
posted by Sara C. at 5:38 PM on December 9, 2010
Is it a numbered print? That might help you sell it. Do you have proof of who the photographer is, or any other documentation? Is it signed or dated? Any identifying mark? Anything aside from process that would set this apart from any other image of Marilyn that anybody could print themselves from the web?
posted by Sara C. at 5:38 PM on December 9, 2010
Well, it's clearly a silver gelatin print, in that you can see the silver when you tilt it into light - that can be faked, but not with an inkjet. I was able to place the photo in a sequence of wardrobe test shots for the movie How To Marry A Millionaire, and although similar images from the same series are on the web (including in the Corbis Bettmann archive) this one isn't. There's also an "MM-4" notation hand dodged into the lower right corner. I don't have any other supporting documentation, unless there's something in the frame, which I haven't yet disassembled.
posted by symbebekos at 5:45 PM on December 9, 2010
posted by symbebekos at 5:45 PM on December 9, 2010
I knew someone who had a rare piece of pottery, and was in a similar situation of not knowing what to do with it. Someone else, who was big into watching the Auntique Roadshow on PBS, suggested contacting the company that appraised pottery on the show. They did, and it turned out to be a good contact for them.
On that show, they always show the name of the appraiser, the company they work for, and the city where the company is located. You could watch the show, looking for someone appraising photographs or hollywood memorabilia.
posted by Flood at 7:04 PM on December 9, 2010
On that show, they always show the name of the appraiser, the company they work for, and the city where the company is located. You could watch the show, looking for someone appraising photographs or hollywood memorabilia.
posted by Flood at 7:04 PM on December 9, 2010
I'd get it appraised. You could use Flood's method, or just give someone at Swann or the like a call.
Getting something "placed" in a film, by the way, means nothing about its value. I've worked in film art departments for years, and honestly we prefer to use props and set dressing that are not valuable so as to avoid hairy insurance issues.
posted by Sara C. at 7:29 PM on December 9, 2010
Getting something "placed" in a film, by the way, means nothing about its value. I've worked in film art departments for years, and honestly we prefer to use props and set dressing that are not valuable so as to avoid hairy insurance issues.
posted by Sara C. at 7:29 PM on December 9, 2010
Getting something "placed" in a film, by the way, means nothing about its value. I've worked in film art departments for years, and honestly we prefer to use props and set dressing that are not valuable so as to avoid hairy insurance issues.
I think the OP meant that the photo appears to be one of the test shots for How to Marry A Millionaire, the 1953 Marilyn Monroe movie, not that he got it used as a prop in that movie.
posted by Jahaza at 6:53 AM on December 10, 2010
I think the OP meant that the photo appears to be one of the test shots for How to Marry A Millionaire, the 1953 Marilyn Monroe movie, not that he got it used as a prop in that movie.
posted by Jahaza at 6:53 AM on December 10, 2010
As it stands now, "pretty sure" who took the picture won't be good enough to make it anything other than a Marilyn Monroe photo. If the photographer was a famous photographer, get in touch with their estate to authenticate the photo -- see the book Hubert's Freaks for what an antique dealer had to go through to get his photos verified as true Diane Arbus photos. In the end, only a fraction got authenticated as Arbus photos and were worth a lot of money; nearly identical photos from the same lot, which the Arbus estate couldn't verify negatives for, were worth a fraction of the authenticated ones.
The thing is, people today can still make silver-gelatin prints, so there's no reason a skilled person with the right equipment couldn't reproduce a regular promotional photo and then try to pass it off as an Original. When it comes down to it, every photo is a "copy" to a certain extent -- how close it is to the photographer's own hands is where its value lies. Verify the photographer, get it documented by a reliable source, and then you can expect a higher value.
posted by AzraelBrown at 7:02 AM on December 10, 2010
The thing is, people today can still make silver-gelatin prints, so there's no reason a skilled person with the right equipment couldn't reproduce a regular promotional photo and then try to pass it off as an Original. When it comes down to it, every photo is a "copy" to a certain extent -- how close it is to the photographer's own hands is where its value lies. Verify the photographer, get it documented by a reliable source, and then you can expect a higher value.
posted by AzraelBrown at 7:02 AM on December 10, 2010
What Sara C was getting at is that copy prints from originals are pretty easy to do. Your print could easily be copied and you could make however many you wanted. Someone may have done that with yours. Depending on its provenance it could be worth from $1 to $100,000. Without any identifying information on the photo it is most likely worth $1. And yes, I am talking about silver prints.
posted by JJ86 at 7:25 AM on December 10, 2010
posted by JJ86 at 7:25 AM on December 10, 2010
D'oh, Jahaza. After a careful re-reading sans wine, I now understand what symbebekos was trying to say.
posted by Sara C. at 8:31 AM on December 10, 2010
posted by Sara C. at 8:31 AM on December 10, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Bighappyfunhouse at 4:42 PM on December 9, 2010