how to estimate the price of original archive slides and photos “Gamma Presse Image”?

[dpa-koh]

Hi everyone
Need advice of experts. Please help with the valuation original photo slides and photos from the French Agency “Gamma Presse Image” and slides the Portugues Agency “Photosprint”.
Gamma: 556 slides, 72 photos, 23 text pages

Photosprint: 1004 slides, 81 photos
All materials 80-90 years in good condition, except the paper, which was exposed to moisture, dust and time.
The room where the archives were stored was bought, and all the contents with construction debris thrown away. I managed to take a small part.
Now compleat a list of materials.
Thank you and regards, Dmitry

[melda58]

Maybe some of the photos are 80-90 years but the letter is dated 1987, so only 32 years ago, and the slides appear to be about the same age as the letter. 

Rita 

[dpa-koh]

sorry, I meant the ' 80s

[c*me*4*lefton*info]

I think the best way to estimate value is to list them in small groups and see what they sell for on ebay.

They look like "press photos" distributed for use in various media/publications (like newspapers and magazines etc). Personally I would hesitate to refer to them as originals since typically many copies of press photos are made and distributed and I doubt any of these are the original photo but instead are press photo copies.

If you google YF-23 much background info can be found about the Black Widow aircraft (including a wikipedia page). I also saw in google images at least one of these publicly released press photos, the one with the YF-23 and the B-2 stealth bomber.

[maxine*j]

I agree with c*me*for*lefton:  The best way to sell the photos and slides will be to sell them in lots, grouped according to subject matter. 

In going thorugh them to sort them into lots, you may run across a few that are worth trying to sell as singles because they're images of some person or event of great historical significance and you can't find the same image elsewhere.

[argon38]

I think there's also a pretty good case to be made for just listing it as a single lot. Someone might be intrigued by the back story of it having been rescued from the rubble, and place a bid with the feeling that they're salvaging a piece of history. If you go to the trouble of sorting out the pictures topic-by-topic then you're relying on people being deeply interested in the old (and probably obscure) news stories in question. I fear most of your small lots would probably never sell, particularly since - as others have said - similar pictures are likely to be freely available online.

Another major problem is the fact that you don't own, and therefore can't transfer, the reproduction rights. So while you can legally sell the slides, the buyer won't be able to do a great deal with the images other than look at them.

[maxine*j]

Fair enough.  That's a reasonable approach, too.  I would advise care in the wording about how they were obtained, because an amazing number of people feel that if a seller got something cheap or free, so should a buyer.

Of course, what OP asked for is a valuation, which none of us here is going to provide, and s/he may not care about out suggestions for how to sell the slides and photos, anyhow.

[dpa-koh]

Thanks for the comments. I also tend to the idea of putting one lot. I have no time, and frankly desire, to sell all parts. Or those who show interest to offer to buy large parts.
Indeed, I only sell media - I have no rights to these photos.
If I understand correctly, the slides I have are the original source of the photo. That is, the photographer made this photo for the Agency, then it went to the news, then to the Internet and so on.

[argon38]

---

@dpa-koh wrote:

If I understand correctly, the slides I have are the original source of the photo. That is, the photographer made this photo for the Agency, then it went to the news, then to the Internet and so on.

---

That can't be the case for the AF-23 photos, surely? This one, at least, is credited as being an official US Air Force photo, and it seems to me the attribution must be correct:

http://www.spacephotos.com/catalog/fichiers_phototheque/detail.php?carr=1&rect=1&rect2=1&noir=&mots=... 

[maxine*j]

All the aircraft slides shown were provided to the news agency by the military.  None arephotographs, or images, taken by, or produced by, a news agency photographer.

[maxine*j]

---

@argon38 wrote:

---

---

That can't be the case for the AF-23 photos, surely? This one, at least, is credited as being an official US Air Force photo... 

http://www.spacephotos.com/catalog/fichiers_phototheque/detail.php?carr=1&rect=1&rect2=1&noir=&mots=... 

---

And just to be clear, the plane is the USAF Northrop YF-23, which never went into production:

https://www.google.com/search?q=USAF+YF-23&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjTrdHk1IbmAhXyx1kKHd...

[argon38]

---

@maxine*j wrote:

And just to be clear, the plane is the USAF Northrop YF-23, which never went into production:

---

Sorry, yes, just a slip. The link I gave was the result of a search for "YF-23" (not "AF-23") on the spacephotos site, which is why it's highlighted in red in the caption when you click on the link.

[maxine*j]

Yes I saw "YF-23" in the URL.  I just wanted to be clear.  Alas, the link itself does not work for me, no matter how many permissions I give it.

[argon38]

---

@maxine*j wrote:

Alas, the link itself does not work for me, no matter how many permissions I give it.

---

It's odd you say that, because when I clicked on it just there it took me to a blank page for some reason - but now it's OK for me again. Anyway, the only point of the link was to highlight the attribution: "Two YF-23 in flight (US AF photo)."

[maxine*j]

And news photographers -- especially foreign ones -- don't get the kind of access needed to take those pictures, anyhow.

As for the link, even though I was willing to disable script blockers, etc., I still got zip.