Photo Question.

[GrayGhost]

I know there have been MULTIPLE threads, but couldn't narrow after a search. My question:

If a photo has a later date stamp and an earlier one also, does that date it to the original date first, and then was re used later on? Would it be a Type one?

I know that may not be all the needed info, but I'm just wondering for a general answer. THANKS FOR ANY HELP

SCOTT

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by GrayGhost

I know there have been MULTIPLE threads, but couldn't narrow after a search. My question:

If a photo has a later date stamp and an earlier one also, does that date it to the original date first, and then was re used later on? Would it be a Type one?

I know that may not be all the needed info, but I'm just wondering for a general answer. THANKS FOR ANY HELP

SCOTT

Yes, assuming the date stamp is real. With all the encapsulation, price rises, etc., I wouldn't be surprised if there have been a few simple date stamps added to newer photos;e.g-'Apr 15 1927'

Type one? Date stamps do not identify a photo as original - the photo identifies the photo as original. A photo could be created from an original negative outside of the 'Type one' range and still erroneously be identified as a 'type one' because it looks great and is printed with the same process and paper that a true original photograph would be...or inside the range but from another photo rather than a negative, and erroneously be slabbed as a 'type one' because of date stamps.

Look at the date stamps, the quality of the image and the paper.

[GrayGhost]

Thank you Scott sir.

Photo isn't really valuable, I just like it, so I won't get hurt either way if I get it.

[Runscott]

I used to ask a photo expert buddy of mine questions like that all the time, providing him with examples. He would often tell me that if you decide the photo is worth the price as a piece of art, then the rest doesn't really matter much.

Collectors have tended to get away from looking at photographic prints for what they are - captured images with characteristics such as composition, clarity etc.

Now they are simply names, dates and 'type' designations.

[GrayGhost]

Thats how I feel bout it.

[drc]

With multiple date stamps on a news photo, the earliest date is what you look at as far as determining the age of the photo. News photos sometimes had multiple dates stamped on them over time as they were re-used and re-catalogued. A date stamp was placed there on the date of the stamp. A 1927 date stamp is from 1927 and a 1955 date stamp is from 1955. If a photo has both that says it was stamped in 1927 then later in 1955.

A photo can be older than the earliest date stamp (the date is the date of the stamp). But if a 1927 image has a 1927 date stamp, that's perfect for the collector.

[71buc]

Although I am an avid collector of news photos I must admit that my knowledge of dating photos is much more limited than others that have responded before me. That being said I am uncertain exactly how reliable the use of news bureau stamping is to determine the age of a photo. I have doubts about the accuracy of using the two year printing window for original type one photos.

Below are two images of Hank Aaron I have in my collection. The first is from spring training 1954. The stamping on the back came into use after the 1958 merger of United Press and International News. Due to this the photo is considered to be a type 2 photo which is far less valuable than a type 1 version of the same image.

The second photo is of Aaron being carried off the field following his 1957 pennant clinching homer. The Wide World Photo stamping was used between the mid1940s through 1954. What is it doing on a 1957 image? I believe that this is evidence that out dated photo stamps were not always discarded when new versions came into use. Based on this I don't think that the use of News Bureau stamping to date a photo is exact which is concerning when considering the value of type 1 photos in comparison to type 2s.

If such a three year discrepancy in stamping can exist is it possible that the 1954 image was printed in 1954 and only marked with the pencil notation and the subsequently stamped four years later after the merger? I will never know with any certainty but the possibility certainly exists. Nonetheless, I paid little for it and really love it so it really doesn't matter. Until I can be more certain about the current system of photo classification my purchases will remain conservative.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by 71buc

Until I can be more certain about the current system of photo classification my purchases will remain conservative.

It sounds to me like you are saying that once you are "certain about the current system", you will be willing to pay a priced based on the slabbing tag. I would recommend paying what YOU think a photo is worth, regardless of the slab. From your post, it sounds to me that you already have more insight into vintage photos that many of those who are doing the slabbing.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by 71buc

Although I am an avid collector of news photos I must admit that my knowledge of dating photos is much more limited than others that have responded before me. That being said I am uncertain exactly how reliable the use of news bureau stamping is to determine the age of a photo. I have doubts about the accuracy of using the two year printing window for original type one photos.

Below are two images of Hank Aaron I have in my collection. The first is from spring training 1954. The stamping on the back came into use after the 1958 merger of United Press and International News. Due to this the photo is considered to be a type 2 photo which is far less valuable than a type 1 version of the same image.

The second photo is of Aaron being carried off the field following his 1957 pennant clinching homer. The Wide World Photo stamping was used between the mid1940s through 1954. What is it doing on a 1957 image? I believe that this is evidence that out dated photo stamps were not always discarded when new versions came into use. Based on this I don't think that the use of News Bureau stamping to date a photo is exact which is concerning when considering the value of type 1 photos in comparison to type 2s.

If such a three year discrepancy in stamping can exist is it possible that the 1954 image was printed in 1954 and only marked with the pencil notation and the subsequently stamped four years later after the merger? I will never know with any certainty but the possibility certainly exists. Nonetheless, I paid little for it and really love it so it really doesn't matter. Until I can be more certain about the current system of photo classification my purchases will remain conservative.

Mike,
I think the first scenario you presented (old stamp used for stamping the back of the photo) is much much more likely than the second scenario (photo print produced, some notation penciled on the back, filed away, pulled out 3 years later and THEN stamped). Keep in mind that the dates that various stampings were used that are shown in Yee/Fogel's book are based on empirical evidence, not a hardline ruling by the news agency.

In other words, in looking at lots and lots of photos issued by Wide World Photo, they noted which stamping style was used for each while also taking note of other hard dating elements (primarily the dates on the attached paper captions). Only after accumulating a lot of such information can you then look back and say, okay, we have evidence that this stamp style A was used on photos with dates ranging from the "mid-1940's to 1954," so that must be the date range that this stamp was employed. Another stamp B has mostly dates ranging from 1955 to 1957, so we can say that was the date range for that stamp.

This is all based on observations made years later though, not a documented unilateral decree by the head of Wide World Photos that on January 1, 1955, all stamps of style A were to be destroyed and only stamps of style B employed. There may be a few instances in which a news agency changed names or a new copyright policy caused an abrupt and immediate change in stamping styles, but in most cases, old stamp styles were more or less phased out gradually, which is why you will see many overlapping dates given for the various stamping styles.

What I'm getting at is that you should take the dates given by Yee/Fogel for stamping styles for what they are: a very useful compilation/distillation of thousands of observations of stamping styles and the dates of photos they were used on (those dates having been verified by other elements of the photo). Any collector with access to enough photos could compile similar information to corroborate or expand upon what is presented in their book. (For example, they identify 6 different stamping styles for Burke and Brace photos, where I have records of at least 17 variations). Their book is certainly a good starting point though that will save the average collector a lifetime of recording observations.

This information regarding the stamping dates is useful in determining a general date range for the photo, but the use of News Bureau stamping alone to date a photo is not an exact science, and as you say, can rarely be used to give a definitive "Type 1" determination in the same way that the presence of a paper caption or file date stamping can. Given the nature of the industry, you can expect there to be a number of outliers with regard to stamping styles, and other factors must often be evaluated to arrive at a more exact date for the print.

Edited to add: I agree with Scott: Buy the photo, not the slab. As with slabbing in other areas of the hobby, the photo slab is just a shortcut to an evaluation. All the information used to determine a slabbed photo is a Type 1 was present before the photo was slabbed, and any collector armed with a little knowledge should be able to arrive at the same determination.

[Frozen in Time]

I tend to agree with all the comments posted thus far. The first thing that I consider when buying a photo is the image. If I like it, then I will buy it. However, other factors do come into play when I make the decision of what I am willing to pay.

Having said that, my collecting interests are quite different and much more narrow than most as I tend to focus primarily on early - 1949-1956 (with an emphasis on 1951), Type 1 images of Mantle.

These choices have obviously required a great deal of homework on my part aided by a number of publications, viewing the front and backs of thousands of photos in auctions and at shows, participation in numerous vintage photo threads on this forum and countless conversations with fellow collectors, in particular Henry Yee.

Whereas, there is still some healthy debate regarding the approximate two year time window for Type 1 photos, there is a learning curve for consideration of criteria such as news agency /photographer stamps, date stamps, emulsion and paper fiber composition, etc. If you enjoy this type of thing (which I do) you will ultimately be in a better position to judge the past history of any photo. I believe acquiring this knowledge provides as important a foundation for the collector as does determining the specific baseball history associated with each photo.

You will often come across photos which lack enough of the above mentioned "criteria" to make an "informed" judgement as to "Type". United Press International photos are particularly inconsistent after the acquisition of Acme and the merger with INS in 1958. Numerous, previously unstamped Acme or INS photos were stamped with the new UPI stamps and many bureaus did not keep up to date with newer versions of the stamping so a substantial overlap of the same stamp was quite common during this period. By the way, this also occurred, although much less frequently, with earlier INS and World Wide stamping.

I guess my bottom line for all of this is no different than what probably applies to all other areas of collecting:

1) Try to gain as much knowledge as possible.

and

2) Collect what you like.

All of the other factors "Type", history, vintage, original, etc. are primarily indicators of general market value and price.

Hope some of this helps.

Cheers,

Craig

[71buc]

Lance, Scott, and Craig you all make excellent points. I have never purchased a photo anywhere other than Ebay so I am unable to examine photos in person prior to purchasing them. Due to this I use the Yee Fogel book as my reference when buying online. I have paid 300 for a Ruth photo and 150 for a Robinson but due to the issue I discussed in my post I typically avoid spending more than 60. I don't have the confidence in the classification system or knowledge to risk more than nominal amounts of cash. I buy photos that I find pleasing to my own taste and believe if I make an error I still have an image that appeals to me. Thanks for sharing your opinions and knowledge I remain a neophyte in this section of the hobby but I do enjoy collecting and discussing these photos.

Mike

[Leon]

Great discussion guys. I got out of collecting photos as I need to be more disciplined with my limited resources. That being said there are some images that are so cool I can't help myself. (and they don't cost thousands though some aren't cheap)

[Runscott]

That should be titled "Sporting Wood"

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by Leon

Great discussion guys. I got out of collecting photos as I need to be more disciplined with my limited resources. That being said there are some images that are so cool I can't help myself. (and they don't cost thousands though some aren't cheap)

Fantastic image Leon. Raw materials in the cart, finished product in the window?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Frozen in Time

Fantastic image Leon. Raw materials in the cart, finished product in the window?

I never really looked in the window? It does look like finished bats. I will have to take a magnifying glass to it.

And yes Scott, it could be "sporting wood" for sure.

[Nashvol]

As an aside to that awesome photo, if a trip to Louisville is in anyone's plans, a visit to Louisville Slugger is a "must see"!

[drc]

World Wide Photos was around after 1954. I have a 1960s photo with a World Wide Photo stamp on back. If a "1920-54" time period stamp is on a 1957 photo, that would say that "1920-54" dates were incorrect.

I do think there are details about the stamps, including when exactly they were used, that is currently unknown. Future adjustments may happen-- though I don't expect radical ones. I think the current published dates are generally correct.

The 2 year rule is arbitrary. It's not a number I would chose-- though I was never asked I don't think it's a horrible number, just arbitrary. It could as easily be something different.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by drc

World Wide Photos was around after 1954. I have a 1960s photo with a World Wide Photo stamp on back. If a "1920-54" time period stamp is on a 1957 photo, that would say that "1920-54" dates were incorrect.

I do think there are details about the stamps, including when exactly they were used, that is currently unknown. Future adjustments may happen-- though I don't expect radical ones. I think the current published dates are generally correct.

The 2 year rule is arbitrary. It's not a number I would chose-- though I was never asked I don't think it's a horrible number, just arbitrary. It could as easily be something different.

In the old days, if I told you: "It's an old photo with a clear image that in my opinion, was almost certainly printed by the photographer's studio from the original negative, around the time that the photo was taken", and you looked at it and thought, "hmmm....that looks more like it was printed around 2.3 years after the photo was shot"....well, that wouldn't happen. If you had questions, you'd ask me, and if you respected my opinion, we'd deal. With the 'type' system, you no longer have to consider the seller's expertise with photographs - the little slip under the plastic tells you everything you need to know.

These days, when describing a photo, I sometimes find myself thinking, "Is this a Type 1? Was it printed within 2 years, or possibly 2.1 or 2.2?!? " And if it doesn't have a back-stamp? WE'RE SCREWED!!!!

[drc]

Clearly a problem with the 2 year cutoff date (beyond the question is 2 the correct number) is there are many photos where you can't tell what day it was made. It may have been made 2 years and 1 day or 1 year and 364 days and none one knows. And the 2 day different even matter?

As I said, I would have picked the 2 year rule.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by drc

Clearly a problem with the 2 year cutoff date (beyond the question is 2 the correct number) is there are many photos where you can't tell what day it was made. It may have been made 2 years and 1 day or 1 year and 364 days and none one knows. And the 2 day different even matter?

As I said, I would have picked the 2 year rule.

I think you mean "would not have".

Also, the word 'original', when describing old photos, used to mean 'not second generation'. And if it was a later print from the original negative, you'd have to add a bit more description than simply 'original print'. Now I'm noticing auction houses and photo sellers using 'original' to simply denote that it's a picture printed on paper, I guess as opposed to a xerox?

Even worse is when something's described as 'vintage.' I doubt many people here really know what that word means, but it doesn't mean 'old'.

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by drc

World Wide Photos was around after 1954. I have a 1960s photo with a World Wide Photo stamp on back. If a "1920-54" time period stamp is on a 1957 photo, that would say that "1920-54" dates were incorrect.

I do think there are details about the stamps, including when exactly they were used, that is currently unknown. Future adjustments may happen-- though I don't expect radical ones. I think the current published dates are generally correct.

The 2 year rule is arbitrary. It's not a number I would chose-- though I was never asked I don't think it's a horrible number, just arbitrary. It could as easily be something different.

Hi David. World Wide Photo(s) stamps existed from the early 1920's to the mid 40's for the main office (NYC), the latter overlapping with the World Wide Phot(o) stamp from the mid 40's to 1954. All of these differ from one another as do the later World Wide Photo(s) stampings from '55'-57, late 1950's-1962, 1962 -early 1970's, mid 70's- late 80's and late 80's to the present.

Most of the confusion that I have seen with these stamps can be attributed to what I have seen for similar cases with other stampings i.e., some bureaus and news agencies simply did not keep up with (or have) the most recent stamps. In the case of World Wide Phot(o) stamps many photos with this stamp also have AP stamps that will allow the collector to narrow down further the date of publication.

With regard to the 2 year rule, I agree and feel something between 3-5 years would still be appropriate. Nevertheless, I think we all have to realize that with some first generation photos we will never know for sure (because of the lack of suitable criteria) whether or not they are Type 1 prints.

Craig

[Hankphenom]

As has been said before, and in my opinion, it's not perfect, but the "Type" system is an improvement in describing photos on what came before. The problem with trying to identify them with words like "vintage," "original," etc., is that those words can mean whatever you want them to. But the bottom line for collectors is this, and applies to everything else you buy: If you don't know anything about it, what in the hell are you are doing spending your hard-earned money on it? You like old photos, and want to collect them? Then do your homework and learn all you can about them. Not only will you buy more wisely, but you'll enjoy them more, too!

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

As has been said before, and in my opinion, it's not perfect, but the "Type" system is an improvement in describing photos on what came before. The problem with trying to identify them with words like "vintage," "original," etc., is that those words can mean whatever you want them to. But the bottom line for collectors is this, and applies to everything else you buy: If you don't know anything about it, what in the hell are you are doing spending your hard-earned money on it? You like old photos, and want to collect them? Then do your homework and learn all you can about them. Not only will you buy more wisely, but you'll enjoy them more, too!

+1

[GrayGhost]

I think if you are planning on dumping a boatload of Dinero on some old photo, you BETTER know what you are doing. honestly, some prices Ive seen , to me, are RIDICULOUS for certain "Type 1" photos. Again tho, its up to people if they have the means/want to spend that much.

Bottom line, if you MUST have a first generation, first printing, first minute it was made, one of a kind vintage image that sears into your soul, be sure you aren't buying a photo that may be Type 2, or just cool and Older. That would be a TRAVESTY of life..

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by GrayGhost

I think if you are planning on dumping a boatload of Dinero on some old photo, you BETTER know what you are doing. honestly, some prices Ive seen , to me, are RIDICULOUS for certain "Type 1" photos. Again tho, its up to people if they have the means/want to spend that much.

Bottom line, if you MUST have a first generation, first printing, first minute it was made, one of a kind vintage image that sears into your soul, be sure you aren't buying a photo that may be Type 2, or just cool and Older. That would be a TRAVESTY of life..

Hi Scott. I agree 100% that one should ideally have as much knowledge as possible before spending a significant amount of money on a vintage photo and, in particular, as you have pointed out - a Type 1 photo. But I don't consider this to be RIDICULOUS nor do I see how this is any different than buying any other vintage item in the hobby.

For instance, even though I personally can't understand why some people are willing to spend 10's or even 100's of thousands of dollars on tiny pieces of cardboard, which in most cases multiple examples exist, I realize that for these individuals this represents their passion and the fulfillment of their hobby-related interests. Compared to cards, collecting vintage photos is still in its infancy and my guess is that as the true rarity of some of these images continues to be appreciated we have not seen the last of significant amounts being spent to acquire them.

Craig

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by GrayGhost

I think if you are planning on dumping a boatload of Dinero on some old photo, you BETTER know what you are doing. honestly, some prices Ive seen , to me, are RIDICULOUS for certain "Type 1" photos. Again tho, its up to people if they have the means/want to spend that much.

Bottom line, if you MUST have a first generation, first printing, first minute it was made, one of a kind vintage image that sears into your soul, be sure you aren't buying a photo that may be Type 2, or just cool and Older. That would be a TRAVESTY of life..

lol. +1

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Frozen in Time

Hi Scott. I agree 100% that one should ideally have as much knowledge as possible before spending a significant amount of money on a vintage photo and, in particular, as you have pointed out - a Type 1 photo.

Craig, to most of us this seems obvious, but not to all. If you have been reading the 'Brooklyn cdv' thread, you'll see that there are many collectors in our hobby who were satisfied when a $40-50K photo had simply been slabbed by SGC. They had no additional questions to ask and were enraged that anyone else did. The whole point of slabbing a photo (or anything else) seems to be to allow the potential buyer to give their own brains a rest.

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Craig, to most of us this seems obvious, but not to all. If you have been reading the 'Brooklyn cdv' thread, you'll see that there are many collectors in our hobby who were satisfied when a $40-50K photo had simply been slabbed by SGC. They had no additional questions to ask and were enraged that anyone else did. The whole point of slabbing a photo (or anything else) seems to be to allow the potential buyer to give their own brains a rest.

"The whole point of slabbing a photo (or anything else) seems to be to allow the potential buyer to give their own brains a rest." Scott, that is definitely a problem and frankly, I don't quite understand it although, as you correctly point out, it does also appear to be the case in other segments of the hobby, i.e., cards, autographs, etc.

I realize that it may be slightly easier for me (because of my limited and rather narrow collecting focus) but even in my case I have had to put in a great deal of time doing the necessary "homework" to feel confident in my purchases. At least for me, slowly acquiring this knowledge has enhanced my appreciation of what I have obtained and is an essential component of my total enjoyment of what I collect.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Frozen in Time

I realize that it may be slightly easier for me (because of my limited and rather narrow collecting focus) but even in my case I have had to put in a great deal of time doing the necessary "homework" to feel confident in my purchases. At least for me, slowly acquiring this knowledge has enhanced my appreciation of what I have obtained and is an essential component of my total enjoyment of what I collect.

I'm bored and have some time on my hands, so here are some thoughts I've had for a long time:

There could be other reasons that it is easier for you. I learned about early card lithography by acquiring and studying lots of cheap examples. Same with early 20th century photos, and with 19th century albumens. I'm convinced that this is the best approach to 'affordably' gaining enough knowledge to work toward becoming an expert in almost any hobby. It's not 'years spent in the hobby' as much as it is 'number of items handled', and of course, how interested you actually are in learning about what you are handling.

'Years' counts a great deal, but I've seen very old collectors who confounded me with their inability to accurately assess an item. I had one such friend once ask me whether or not a T205 was real. This stunned me, as T205's are pretty simple to identify. I became more keyed in on other collectors who asked what seemed to be 'dumb' questions about id'ing cards, and, realizing that they were intelligent people, I figured there must be something more to it.

I started thinking about something I had read by Carl Jung that discussed self-individuation and a process he used to bring up unconscious elements of the psyche. It is very similar to meditation and involves clearing out thoughts. He said that while doing this, the unconscious elements make themselves evident in one of three ways: seemingly meaningless bits of sentences, dialogues, and visually. It depends on the type of person you are. I realized that for me it is almost completely visual. I tested that revelation through puzzle-solving and a few other things, and validated it. I believe that 'visual' people have an innate ability to see things in art, photos, etc., that simply don't register as well for others. It's no flaw on their part - just different. There are probably other very important things that 'visual' people can't do, that these non-visual people find very easy.

Just my thinking. Time for lunch.

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I'm bored and have some time on my hands, so here are some thoughts I've had for a long time:

There could be other reasons that it is easier for you. I learned about early card lithography by acquiring and studying lots of cheap examples. Same with early 20th century photos, and with 19th century albumens. I'm convinced that this is the best approach to 'affordably' gaining enough knowledge to work toward becoming an expert in almost any hobby. It's not 'years spent in the hobby' as much as it is 'number of items handled', and of course, how interested you actually are in learning about what you are handling.

'Years' counts a great deal, but I've seen very old collectors who confounded me with their inability to accurately assess an item. I had one such friend once ask me whether or not a T205 was real. This stunned me, as T205's are pretty simple to identify. I became more keyed in on other collectors who asked what seemed to be 'dumb' questions about id'ing cards, and, realizing that they were intelligent people, I figured there must be something more to it.

I started thinking about something I had read by Carl Jung that discussed self-individuation and a process he used to bring up unconscious elements of the psyche. It is very similar to meditation and involves clearing out thoughts. He said that while doing this, the unconscious elements make themselves evident in one of three ways: seemingly meaningless bits of sentences, dialogues, and visually. It depends on the type of person you are. I realized that for me it is almost completely visual. I tested that revelation through puzzle-solving and a few other things, and validated it. I believe that 'visual' people have an innate ability to see things in art, photos, etc., that simply don't register as well for others. It's no flaw on their part - just different. There are probably other very important things that 'visual' people can't do, that these non-visual people find very easy.

Just my thinking. Time for lunch.

Enjoy your lunch. I actually completely agree with you on this. I am also a highly "visual" person and often intuitively see (and consequently appreciate) much more in images of any kind than most of my friends. Whether or not this is a byproduct of what I spend most of my time doing in my professional career, or vice versa, has always interested me. But one thing is certain, my ability to store, retrieve and subsequently process and interpret information is almost always easier for me when it based on visual input as opposed to auditory, somatosensory, etc.

I guess I chose the right things to collect!!