NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. When you click on links to eBay on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
T206s on eBay
Babe Ruth Cards on eBay
t206 Ty Cobb on eBay
Ty Cobb Cards on eBay
Lou Gehrig Cards on eBay
Baseball T201-T217 on eBay
Baseball E90-E107 on eBay
T205 Cards on eBay
Baseball Postcards on eBay
Goudey Cards on eBay
Baseball Memorabilia on eBay
Baseball Exhibit Cards on eBay
Baseball Strip Cards on eBay
Baseball Baking Cards on eBay
Sporting News Cards on eBay
Play Ball Cards on eBay
Joe DiMaggio Cards on eBay
Mickey Mantle Cards on eBay
Bowman 1951-1955 on eBay
Football Cards on eBay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Main Forum - WWII & Older Baseball Cards > Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-19-2018, 10:06 AM
mr2686 mr2686 is offline
Mike Rich@rds0n
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Ca
Posts: 3,170
Default Question for Type 1 experts

Every once in awhile I pick up a movie still from Pride of the Yankees. I've noticed over time that some will show a copyright date of 1942 and some will show 1949. I know the movie was released in 42, so that's cool, and I also know it was re-release in 49, so I assume the 49 copyright would be considered a type 2. With that said, I just recently came across a few that had 1943 copyrights on them. Now, I know the movie was probably still playing in theaters (I think) and I know for sure that it was up for several academy awards in March of 43 (maybe they printed up more for the awards push?), so would those 43 copyright photos still be considered Type 1's? I believe they would, but wanted to ask the experts just in case.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-20-2018, 09:08 AM
drcy's Avatar
drcy drcy is offline
David Ru.dd Cycl.eback
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,466
Default

First of all, I say original not type 1. But if the images are sharp and clear, they should be original by PSA's standards, but perhaps not Hollywood photograph collector standards. I don't know the particulars of the movie or photos, so don't know how they were issued, but PSA has a a two year window.

I would assume the movie studio used the same original negatives to make the photos, and perhaps even to make the later re-issues.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-20-2018, 09:12 AM
Forever Young's Avatar
Forever Young Forever Young is offline
Weingarten's Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Fargo, ND
Posts: 2,056
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr2686 View Post
Every once in awhile I pick up a movie still from Pride of the Yankees. I've noticed over time that some will show a copyright date of 1942 and some will show 1949. I know the movie was released in 42, so that's cool, and I also know it was re-release in 49, so I assume the 49 copyright would be considered a type 2. With that said, I just recently came across a few that had 1943 copyrights on them. Now, I know the movie was probably still playing in theaters (I think) and I know for sure that it was up for several academy awards in March of 43 (maybe they printed up more for the awards push?), so would those 43 copyright photos still be considered Type 1's? I believe they would, but wanted to ask the experts just in case.
If off original negative rather than a dupe negative in 1943, yes.. type 1.
__________________
[I]"When you photograph people in colour you photograph their clothes. But when you photograph people in B&W, you photograph their souls."
~Ted Grant


Www.weingartensvintage.com

https://www.facebook.com/WeingartensVintage

http://www.psacard.com/Articles/Arti...ben-weingarten

ALWAYS BUYING BABE RUTH RED SOX TYPE 1 PHOTOGRAPHS--->To add to my collection
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-20-2018, 10:09 AM
SAllen2556's Avatar
SAllen2556 SAllen2556 is offline
Scott
Scott All.en
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Detroit
Posts: 600
Default

I'm curious what the experts think about this one. Original? Type I, Type II ?

babe ruth-1200.jpg
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-20-2018, 11:21 AM
perezfan's Avatar
perezfan perezfan is offline
M@RK ST€!NBERG
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,518
Default

Can you post an image of the reverse?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-20-2018, 03:40 PM
SAllen2556's Avatar
SAllen2556 SAllen2556 is offline
Scott
Scott All.en
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Detroit
Posts: 600
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by perezfan View Post
Can you post an image of the reverse?
The reverse would indicate the photo was printed in the 90's. You got me.

A polaroid copy camera was used to make a 4 x 5 negative of the original photo with the autograph. The image I posted is a first generation photo from that negative. So it went from a 1934 original 7 x 9 photo to a 4 x 5 negative back to a photo.

My dad ran the advertising photo department at a newspaper. He was able to make 4 x 5 negatives from some rare photos we had. The negatives created high quality second generation photos. Just another reason why you can't always rely on just a scan to determine the age of a photo.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-24-2018, 10:19 AM
drcy's Avatar
drcy drcy is offline
David Ru.dd Cycl.eback
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,466
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAllen2556 View Post
The reverse would indicate the photo was printed in the 90's. You got me.

A polaroid copy camera was used to make a 4 x 5 negative of the original photo with the autograph. The image I posted is a first generation photo from that negative. So it went from a 1934 original 7 x 9 photo to a 4 x 5 negative back to a photo.

My dad ran the advertising photo department at a newspaper. He was able to make 4 x 5 negatives from some rare photos we had. The negatives created high quality second generation photos. Just another reason why you can't always rely on just a scan to determine the age of a photo.
Digital scans of old photos can be very clear, so your point is well taken. The clarity of the image is only part-- but is part-- of determining if a photo is original.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-24-2018, 10:50 AM
Michael B Michael B is offline
Mîçhæ£ ßöw£ß¥
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,828
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAllen2556 View Post
The reverse would indicate the photo was printed in the 90's. You got me.

A polaroid copy camera was used to make a 4 x 5 negative of the original photo with the autograph. The image I posted is a first generation photo from that negative. So it went from a 1934 original 7 x 9 photo to a 4 x 5 negative back to a photo.

My dad ran the advertising photo department at a newspaper. He was able to make 4 x 5 negatives from some rare photos we had. The negatives created high quality second generation photos. Just another reason why you can't always rely on just a scan to determine the age of a photo.
There is no gotcha here from my perspective. It could not be original or 'type I' under any conditions. There is a signature in the image therefore it could not fit the standards. Unless, of course, Babe Ruth's signature was floating in the air in front of him while the photo was taken.
__________________
'Integrity is what you do when no one is looking'

"The man who can keep a secret may be wise, but he is not half as wise as the man with no secrets to keep”

Last edited by Michael B; 05-24-2018 at 10:50 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-24-2018, 11:06 AM
prewarsports prewarsports is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,547
Default

facsimile signatures could be placed over a negative when a photo was developed making it a Type 1 photo with a facsimile signature. This was more common when acetate negatives took over and there are many team issued where this technology was used.

There is a debate in photography as to whether a digital photograph can ever be a "Type 1". On the one hand, it is as clear as anything done back in the day but on the other hand there is a deconstruction of the photograph done by the computer or camera and then a reconstruction of the image when it is printed (similar to a wire photo from years past but obviously much better quality). There will never be definitive answer but the debate is fun.
__________________
Be sure to check out my site www.RMYAuctions.com
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-26-2018, 05:35 AM
SAllen2556's Avatar
SAllen2556 SAllen2556 is offline
Scott
Scott All.en
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Detroit
Posts: 600
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael B View Post
There is no gotcha here from my perspective. It could not be original or 'type I' under any conditions. There is a signature in the image therefore it could not fit the standards. Unless, of course, Babe Ruth's signature was floating in the air in front of him while the photo was taken.
Type I - A 1st generation photograph, developed from the original negative, during the period (within approximately two years of when the picture was taken).

I don't understand why a photo can't be a type I just because it has a signature. Photo is taken and developed in 1934. Photo is then brought to Babe Ruth the very next day while the Yankees are still in town, and he signs it - which is in fact what happened. The actual, original photo I owned with the original signature was all from 1934.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-26-2018, 11:57 AM
drcy's Avatar
drcy drcy is offline
David Ru.dd Cycl.eback
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,466
Default

Digital photos can be original, though they are not 'real photo' in the technical sense that they are not made the traditional 'photochemicals & sunlight' way.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-26-2018, 04:20 PM
Michael B Michael B is offline
Mîçhæ£ ßöw£ß¥
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,828
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAllen2556 View Post
Type I - A 1st generation photograph, developed from the original negative, during the period (within approximately two years of when the picture was taken).

I don't understand why a photo can't be a type I just because it has a signature. Photo is taken and developed in 1934. Photo is then brought to Babe Ruth the very next day while the Yankees are still in town, and he signs it - which is in fact what happened. The actual, original photo I owned with the original signature was all from 1934.

I was going on the assumption that the signature was part of the photo not on the photo. Of course, an original photo with a signature on it would be an original photo.
__________________
'Integrity is what you do when no one is looking'

"The man who can keep a secret may be wise, but he is not half as wise as the man with no secrets to keep”
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Question for the experts Saco River Auction Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 6 05-27-2016 02:38 PM
Question for the E90-1 Experts White Borders Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 57 03-19-2010 04:15 PM
Question for type collectors: Do you often turnover your type cards? Rickyy Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 4 10-13-2009 11:33 AM
Question for the Experts Archive Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 9 04-16-2008 08:29 AM
Question for the experts Archive Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 10 02-03-2002 12:44 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:50 PM.


ebay GSB