Thread: A photo mystery
View Single Post
  #12  
Old 10-14-2016, 10:39 PM
thecatspajamas's Avatar
thecatspajamas thecatspajamas is offline
L@nce Fit.tro
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Franklin, TN
Posts: 2,433
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jantz View Post
Could it be possible that my photo is an original that was reused in 1955 for a story since the Yankees were about to begin playing in the World Series? Or could the paper caption have been added later when the photo was reused? Keeping mind the dates on the back of my photo. September 26 & 27, 1955.
I do not think so. While it is possible that a photo sent over-the-wire could have been held in the receiving subscriber's archives and reused years later, that does not appear to be the case here. The upside down date stamp, with time stamp, appears to be when the print was produced (i.e. when the duplicate rolled off of the wire photo apparatus on the receiving end), with the stamp above that being the date stamp applied when the photo was filed in the subscriber's archives. Also, had it been an original that was pulled from the subscriber's archives and reused, the credit line would not state "wirephoto" which was a term that the AP used specifically for their wire photo process and service.

Even absent any visible striations (which I will take your word for, as I cannot tell from my phone's screen), I stand by my earlier assessment that yours is a Type IV wire photo produced in 1955. Let me also be clear that I am not trying to disparage your photo in any way, but rather just trying to help you understand what you have. What value and level of desirability you place on it is up to you, as with many photos, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I think it would be neat to have both versions as a paired piece for comparison/contrast.
__________________
Ebay Store and Weekly Auctions
Web Store with better selection and discounts
Polite corrections for unidentified and misidentified photos appreciated. Rude corrections also appreciated, but less so.
Reply With Quote