Henry Yee Photos and Photos in General - Skeptical

[Shoeless Moe]

I understand Type I photos are all the rage, but sometime you may think your getting a 1 of a kind, and it turns out you are not. I've seen the exact same photo by either a Bain, or Thompson or Conlon, but with the stampings in different places on the back or in different condition. So while yes it may be an original don't assume it's a one of a kinf, because it may not be.

Example:

From the HYEE Auction that just ended Sunday:

http://cgi.ebay.com/1910-s-Original-...ts_Memorabilia

Now from a Legandary Auction that ended last year:

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...x?lotid=102196

Same exact photo on the front, but different markings and condition. So while the purchaser may have thought they got a one of a kind, there is a exact same one out there, and maybe more.

Sorry to be a little skeptical, but I think people are sometimes overpaying, thinking they are getting a one of a kind, and in a sense they are, but then again, they may not be.

[HRBAKER]

I would assume as long as there is/was a negative there are likely multiple copies of most photos.

[hcv123]

If a seller is marketing a photo as one of a kind, I would call that somewhere between irresposible and flat out lying. That said, there are certainly a limited (in most cases) number of a particular image that could/does exist. So if there are 5 copies or 10 copies or 100 hundred copies - still a great collectible and undervalued (in relation to many other collectible categories) in my opinion.

[JasonL]

Originally Posted by hcv123

If a seller is marketing a photo as one of a kind, I would call that somewhere between irresposible and flat out lying. That said, there are certainly a limited (in most cases) number of a particular image that could/does exist. So if there are 5 copies or 10 copies or 100 hundred copies - still a great collectible and undervalued (in relation to many other collectible categories) in my opinion.

and I would have to say I agree with the gist of it, but doesn't the uncertainty bother photo collectors, or are there other reasons out there that give you some comfort as to a photo/image's relative rarity/scarcity?

very interesting topic.

[Ladder7]

Originally Posted by JasonL

and I would have to say I agree with the gist of it, but doesn't the uncertainty bother photo collectors, or are there other reasons out there that give you some comfort as to a photo/image's relative rarity/scarcity?

very interesting topic.

Though I have several original shots that are IMO, one of a kind. I have to agree with the others, there were likely no 1/1 Type 1s developed.

There's uncertainty in cards as well. Manufacturers rarely divulge(d) production numbers. Except for a very few ie, T206 big four, E135 blank backs etc etc., There are far more baseball card Issues than any Type 1 photos. It's why Ive changed focus to photos, premiums and supplements.

I think the Christy Walsh collection as well as others agents, must have contained several T1 duplicates. These guys were marketing madmen in their day.

It would be terrific if Ol' Henry would chime in.

[HRBAKER]

Steve,
I agree there may be some one offs and I don't really think that these photos are being marketed as one offs as well. When I say there are likely to be multiple copies maybe that is better put as there probably was and no one can be certain how many or few have survived. I think that if I was an active buyer I would provide for the fact that another may/could surface. It is a very intriguing growth area in the hobby IMO.

[JasonL]

It would make sense that photos should be in FAR shorter supply than cards, for many reasons.

Would like to hear thoughts on this:
I happen to think that Type I's are far more likely to be 1/1's, or thereabouts, the more obscure the subject.
For instance, it would not surprise me at all to find that most or all of the photos of my cousin that I have been able to gather over the years are all 1 of 5 at the absolute most.

[D. Bergin]

Yeah, I don't think anybody is selling photos as 1 of a kind. That would take a leap of faith.

Original negatives may be closer to the truth.

[perezfan]

How on earth could anyone know for sure how many copies are out there? Those who claim to are either lying or delusional. We can guess with some measure of accuracy, but a definite margin for error still exists.

As for original negatives, those should be one of a kind... right? Otherwise they could not be termed "original".

[drc]

No one can claim 1-of-1, but for the types of photos shown in this thread there will be a limited number or originals per image. Far less than 100 for sure, 5 or 10 likely a closer number. The photos weren't commercially distributed like baseball cards, but were behind the scene things used by publications.

[mr2686]

Here's the catch-22...the original negatives or glass plates should have more value than the type1 photos because they truly are 1 of 1, but as soon as you print a photo from them the photo is a type2 and not worth much.

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by mr2686

Here's the catch-22...the original negatives or glass plates should have more value than the type1 photos because they truly are 1 of 1, but as soon as you print a photo from them the photo is a type2 and not worth much.

So owuld you pay more for the negative or are truly verifiable Type 1 photo of the same?

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by mr2686

Here's the catch-22...the original negatives or glass plates should have more value than the type1 photos because they truly are 1 of 1, but as soon as you print a photo from them the photo is a type2 and not worth much.

The problem with negatives to collectors are that they have no displayability (is that even a word LOL!!).

Being scarcer doesn't always equate to having more value.

I love negatives BTW. Don't always know what to do with them, but I do think they are neat as hell. Especially if you can pull a really nice image from them.

[mcgwirecom]

On a way more modern note, there are several people selling slides on Ebay. Most are all current or modern players. I obviously collect McGwire stuff so I bought about a dozen slides. The neat thing about these is that you own the rights to it. I can print out pictures from the slides if i wanted. I don't think that is legal with a photo. But if you bought the negative, well I think you then own the rights to the image. Anyone know for sure???

[mr2686]

Not unless you have it in writing that you are also buying the rights to the photo/negative/slide etc. From what I can tell it depends on if it's a freelance photographer, one that works for a publications, etc. Depending on the situation, the copyright extends to the "artist" or publication for his lifetime plus 50, 75 or 100 years (depending on the situation and who you ask...and in the case of a publication, from the pulication date).

[Hankphenom]

As dealer (small-time, compared to Henry and others) in old photos the past ten years, here's the math I've done in my head to try and figure out the answer to this question. There were between one and several hundred copies of a given photo printed at the time (type 1), depending on whether it was made for a specific publication for exclusive use or sent to multiple publications belonging to a syndicate for whom the photographer did work. In the case of syndicated photos, editors had to decide whether to keep the photo as a file copy, or throw it away after its original ephemeral use. In the case of a great photographers taking a classic shot of a renowned subject, one can assume the instance of keeping a file copy was higher than for an obscure player in an ordinary shot from a meaningless game. But then even the classic photos would have been subject to the ravages of time, including purging files for lack of storage space, or disposal upon the demise of the publication. So that leaves the remaining file copies in newspaper and magazine archives that have survived the years. How many of those archives are there? We'll find out in the next few years as they are sold off one after another for cash in the probably futile attempt of print publications to stay alive. We've seen several archives come to market recently, and I'm sure there will be at least several more. So what's the bottom line on all this? I'm guessing that there are no more than a handful of original Type 1 copies in existence of all but a few images, and that many really are one or two or three of a kind. I've seen a lot of photos over the years, either in person or in auction catalogs, and I don't remember a lot of redundancies. The only ones that come to mind are Brooklyn and Yankee team pictures from the 50s, and it's understandable that those would have been saved by most photo editors. Having said all this, it occurs to me that John Rogers would probably be the best person in the world to answer the question. John?
Hank Thomas

[HRBAKER]

Hank,
Thanks for the perspective.
Jeff

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

As dealer (small-time, compared to Henry and others) in old photos the past ten years, here's the math I've done in my head to try and figure out the answer to this question. There were between one and several hundred copies of a given photo printed at the time (type 1), depending on whether it was made for a specific publication for exclusive use or sent to multiple publications belonging to a syndicate for whom the photographer did work. In the case of syndicated photos, editors had to decide whether to keep the photo as a file copy, or throw it away after its original ephemeral use. In the case of a great photographers taking a classic shot of a renowned subject, one can assume the instance of keeping a file copy was higher than for an obscure player in an ordinary shot from a meaningless game. But then even the classic photos would have been subject to the ravages of time, including purging files for lack of storage space, or disposal upon the demise of the publication. So that leaves the remaining file copies in newspaper and magazine archives that have survived the years. How many of those archives are there? We'll find out in the next few years as they are sold off one after another for cash in the probably futile attempt of print publications to stay alive. We've seen several archives come to market recently, and I'm sure there will be at least several more. So what's the bottom line on all this? I'm guessing that there are no more than a handful of original Type 1 copies in existence of all but a few images, and that many really are one or two or three of a kind. I've seen a lot of photos over the years, either in person or in auction catalogs, and I don't remember a lot of redundancies. The only ones that come to mind are Brooklyn and Yankee team pictures from the 50s, and it's understandable that those would have been saved by most photo editors. Having said all this, it occurs to me that John Rogers would probably be the best person in the world to answer the question. John?
Hank Thomas

Well put Hank.

[Exhibitman]

One of the issues I have with the classification of photographs is that they were often made from "negatives" that were not necessarily originals and that existed in multiples. When we used to get a roll of film developed and get prints, we were given original negatives and they were run through the machinery to produce the prints. However, in commercial contexts, as I understand things, that would not happen because it tended to degrade the (valuable) original negative through handling. Instead, to make contact prints (photographs) the actual film itself, the original negative, was used to generate (via a process that I can't fully explain) contact negatives in the size of the intended prints. These contact negatives were often distributed to customers and others who would need to have prints made. I used to deal in Academy Awards materials and I often came across contact negatives in 8 x 10 format that could be used to make "original" photographic prints of classic Oscars moments. They were not the original photographers' negatives but were contact negatives and prints generated from them would be "original" prints but not by the original photographer. Hence the value of stamps, signatures, cartouches, etc. Now, obviously, the paper used to make the prints and the processes used could date some of them to an era after the photo was taken but to the extent that there is old paper stock available (and there is), and someone capable of handling the old processes (and there are some artists who prefer the old forms of photographic printmaking) one could counterfeit original prints from a contact negative.

[thegashousegang]

Thanks to everyone who has contributed so far. I'm fairly new to the world of Photos, so all the info is much appreciated.

[GrayGhost]

Very informative thread.

[BBSD]

Interesting- have been wondering how you can tell an original negative, any insights much appreciated?

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by BBSD

Interesting- have been wondering how you can tell an original negative, any insights much appreciated?

Good question! However, I do not have much expertise in negatives and would not buy one without getting an opinion.

There are a LOT of duplicate negatives out there. Far more than originals. Also, they were not made to deceive but as a newsroom necessity.

A staff photographer would simply take a photo of a photo (usually of a famous image and/or player) and the new negative would be filed away for future use. Of note...many dupe-negs were made 30, 40, 50, or more years ago.

MANY good and well thought out points made here. Thanks.

Jimmy

[Exhibitman]

The only certain way to tell an original negative would be to get it from the photographer or the original owner of the image (we are all the original owners of the snapshots we took, hence their negatives), though I suppose an expert with sufficient skill and knowledge could ascertain whether a negative is original or not. The prints themselves, though, would appear made from the original--that's the whole point of doing it.

The other thing I was thinking of is that with all these dupe negatives out there at about the time the photos were made for news use, how can anyone tell whether the photographs made at the time were from dupe negs or the original neg absent the photographers' own stamping?

[steve B]

Most film has datecodes. So if the dupe negatives were done much later, with new stock it would be possible to fiure out the actual date of the dupe negative.
http://www.film-center.com/dates.html
That's mostly about movie film, but still film usually has codes too.


Much duplication isn't done all that well, and the image loses a bit of focus, and often some contrast as well. There are modern systems that do much better, laser scans and such, but the old ways generated a slightly lossy image even with a good operator. tere's a tiny bit of distortion caused by the film substrate itself. A contact print emulsion to emulsion would be the way to go, but for most places it would be too much work. The smaller the original, the easier it would be to tell. Blowing up from a 35mm negative to an 8x10 negative would take a some skill to have it come out clearly. Doing it from a professionals medium or large format negative would be easier, and if the original was a very large format camera like one that actually took 8x10 negatives it would be hard to tell the dupe since the person working to make the duplicate would be quite skilled.

Steve B

[drc]

Copies of negatives don't have the same image quality as the original. Some copies of negatives are quite rough. So looking at the quality of the image on both the negative and the paper photograph is part of determining if it's an original.

Some old photos have images that are so detailed and crystal clear, they had to have been made from an original negative.

The only problem is a photo can be original yet was shot out of focus or at a great distance. Original sports action shots can be grainy or slightly blurred. If I had a photo that I knew was from the year, but the image was rough so I couldn't say for certain the image was made from the original negative, I'd all it vintage 1933 (for year example) and not say whether or not it was original (fromt he original negative). If you don't know, you don't make it up. And for the collector, the old age itself has value.

The 1913 T200 Fatima team cards, which are photographs, are obviously vintage, but the images appear second generation. So that's an example where a photo image isn't original but the photo is vintage. As they were mass produced, real photo baseball cards are more likely not to have been made from duplicate and copy images.

The negatives themselves can be dated roughly as physical objects. For example a 1910 negative would be glass, and an 1870 negative would be glass with a different thickness and cut. Modern slides, which are also used to make photographic prints, commonly have the date of manufacture printed on them-- so they're easy to date.

One thing to realize is that age itself is part of a photo's value. Say you find an 1860 cabinet card of Abraham Lincoln and someone tells you the image is second generation. As President of the United States they were making lots and various kinds of photos of him, and the images were sometimes copies of other images. You may be bummed the images isn't first generation, but the cabinet card will still have value due to it being from 1860. It's still a Civil War era antique.

[thekingofclout]

A photo off a dupe neg compared to a photo taken off the original negative is often Day & Night.

Take a picture of your dog with a 35mm and develop it. Now take a picture of that picture with the same camera and develop that. Compare the two photos and come to your own conclusion.

Regards, Jimmy

[Ladder7]

Originally Posted by thekingofclout

Take a picture of your dog... *snip* Compare the two photos and come to your own conclusion.

Regards, Jimmy

Hot damn, He's right

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by Ladder7

Hot damn, He's right

You RULE Goombah!

[Exhibitman]

You're right Jimmy, but I've also seen some nice 2nd generation shots. Heck, N172s are photos of photos. A professional photographer working in a studio can produce a very nice picture that may be deceptive to a casual onlooker, esp. if the edges are trimmed down as they might be for a newspaper use. And one can also produce a nice sharp image years later from an original negative. That's why one does not confidently buy a high grade Ruth Ray-O-Print without the negative.

[drc]

That's true about photos of photos. I know the Old Judges are second generation because I'm familiar with the period photography technology-- and what a photographer could and couldn't do. I haven't had an Old Judge in hand for years, so I haven't looked closely at an Old Jude image in a while. I don't know how clear they are.

Many 1800s team photo with a fancy design-- composite, special designs, etc-- involve taking a bunch of original photos, rearranging the images in the design and re-photographing them. They didn't have photoshop back then and that's how they made those designs. See below for an example.

http://www.cycleback.com/1800s/Image188.jpg

You can debate whether or not the cabinet is original. One one hand it involves rephotographing player photos. On the other hand, the final result is so different and unusual, it is original in that sense. In other words, in incorporates second generation images into an original design. And lastly, the photographer may have photographed the players individually with the intent of making this fancy team design. The individual photos were just means to his artistic end ... The photo is definitely vintage, from the 1800s, and is worth a few to several hundred dollars whichever your opinion of the originality of the image.