Opinion on this Jimmy Foxx photo

[Big Red Machine]

Hello,
I recently picked up this photo and wanted to get some opinions on determining if this was a type 1 or type 2 photograph. I am definitely not an expert in this area. It was advertised as coming from the archives of the Detroit News. The photo appears to have been taken from the 1933 All Star game.

Thanks for any insight you can provide.
Phil

[thekingofclout]

Sent you a PM. Regards, Jimmy

[GKreindler]

KILLER shot Phil. Man, Jimmie looks like such a bad@$$ with his sleeves cut like that.

[jeffmohler]

Did you pick this up from historicimages01? If so, they have a mixed bag of Type 1, 2 and 3 photos. I am no expert on Photos, but I believe Type 1 photos are printed from the original negative no later than 2 years after the photo was taken. Type 2 photos are developed from the original negative more than 2 years later. Type 3 are a copy of a Type 1 (often transmitted over the wire).

I have noticed that it is often difficult to distinguish between Type 1 and Type 3 photos on Ebay.

To me, yours looks like a Type 3 photo, but I don't think I can be positive without seeing the photo in person.

Jeff

[D. Bergin]

From the UPI stamp I would guess it's a Type II. Probaby from the 1950's-60's.

[Big Red Machine]

Thanks for the information. I appreciate it.

[prewarsports]

Who came up with the arbitrary (2-3 years after the photo was first taken) rule to be a Type 1? I have some really nice Ruth images with 1923-24 stamps on the back and are they REALLY considered Type II because the original photo was taken by the photographer in 1920 and this one has a date stamp of 1923 on the back? It makes sense for Post WWII images, but in the infancy of News Service photographs right around WWI, this seems like a needlessly harsh rule. Just my 2 cents.

Rhys

[jeffmohler]

Hi Rhys

I was just quoting from A Portrait of Baseball Photography by Fogel, Oser and Yee for my definition of the difference between Type 1 and 2 photos. I just started buying some photos and I have some of the same frustrations as the poster differentiating between the different types of photos.

Jeff

[Chris Counts]

Jimmie Foxx looks like Ted Kluszewski with those cutoff sleaves ... or should I say Kluszewski looks like Foxx?

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

Who came up with the arbitrary (2-3 years after the photo was first taken) rule to be a Type 1? I have some really nice Ruth images with 1923-24 stamps on the back and are they REALLY considered Type II because the original photo was taken by the photographer in 1920 and this one has a date stamp of 1923 on the back? It makes sense for Post WWII images, but in the infancy of News Service photographs right around WWI, this seems like a needlessly harsh rule. Just my 2 cents.

Rhys

I have a lot of the same concerns. Seems a bit arbitrary to me. Vintage photos do not fit the same strict classifications as cards.

Keep in mind these are simply the guidelines Mastro/Legendary/Yee use for their own photos. Sometimes I wonder how accurately they are using their own guidelines when I look through their catalogs. Actually looking through the last Legendary catalog they don't mention "Type's" in their descriptions at all.................although they attribute the book from which all these definitions apparently originated from in the foreward.

Unless the images are "Radio or Sound" photos, I don't think the value of yours is affected very much if at all by these definitions if they were direct from the negative. The dates on yours may simply specify when the photos were re-used..........or developed, set aside, and used at a later date.

That said, I thinks it's more of a feel then anything with photos.

The photo market is much harder to gauge then cards are. A lot of different factors are involved. Clarity, age, subject, aesthetics, Wire or Press, later generation, etc., etc., Most "vintage" photos are equally "rare". It's mainly what people like at that particular point in time.

As I've said before, I've had what would be considered Type III Wire photos sell for much more then other, what I would consider superior Type I Press photos of more interesting subjects, and I just scratch my head sometimes.

There's no VCP for photos..........and I don't think that would ever be any kind of a realistic undertaking.

As far as the Grading companies handling photos. I'm fine with it as long as they stick to "Authentic", "Non-Authentic", or deciphering the actual age of the photo. If they start slapping numeric grades on photos, I think I might have a heart attack. These are not cards and never will be.

[drc]

The 2 years is an arbitrary number for a general idea. The idea is fine, but you don't have to take the specific number as gospel. To me, 2 is an okay enough number, but 1 and 3 would be fine choices too.

Also, the type I, type II etc is a practical guide assembled for grading and labeling. It's an okay guide, but shouldn't be taken as the ultimate definer especially when you get past Type I. It has distinct limitations, as most people who study it figure out, and probably even the makers would acknowledge.

Personally, I don't use the PSA guide or terminology. I'm the photos adviser for Beckett-- which doesn't mean I physically examine anything, but give outside advice usually concerning problematic photos--, and whenever Beckett's director of grading says Type II or Type III I have to go to the PSA/DNA page and re-remember what that means. By the next day, I've forgotten again.

[mr2686]

I am not a Type1, 2, 3 expert and never will be. But I have been in to photography for almost as many years as I've been alive. For me, as long as it's from the original negative, I'm happy. For that matter, I wonder why people don't collect the negatives themselves. That, to me, is what would really be worth the money.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

Who came up with the arbitrary (2-3 years after the photo was first taken) rule to be a Type 1? I have some really nice Ruth images with 1923-24 stamps on the back and are they REALLY considered Type II because the original photo was taken by the photographer in 1920 and this one has a date stamp of 1923 on the back? It makes sense for Post WWII images, but in the infancy of News Service photographs right around WWI, this seems like a needlessly harsh rule. Just my 2 cents.

Rhys

Hey Rhys,
I know that the 2 years in not completely arbitrary. I think we all agree there has to be a line drawn somewhere. If a photo is developed from the original negative 10 years later or more, there would/should be a difference in price from one at the time on original period paper for example.
More so, as photo collecting evolves and more collectors get into it, I am sure there we be rookie photo collectors(I like rookie photos).
Let's say a rookie photo was taken of Clemente in 1955 or Maris in 1957… the star then becomes they become huge stars 4-5 years later and the original negatives are then being printed like crazy; originals developed at the time(true rookie images) and then some done 5 years later that might be on diff paper(or not necessarily but we know later because of the stamp) and not done as rookies. Then what?
OR..lets say Ty Cobb breaks the stolen base record in 1915 and they restrike the 1909 Conlon image to promote it(publish it). That would be worth less to a collector as well(at least me).
I am not smart enough nor was I part of the process of the PSA team coming up with the two years obviously but I am sure there are more reasons/examples than these.
I definitely see your point though….just think there are SO many variables in the printing/news process that guidelines were needed/formed.
I also have a few examples of period photos that do not make the 2 year cut. It is frustrating but all in all I think that the type distinctions are great for the photo collecting hobby. If nothing else, stirs conversation and critical thinking/interest of the photo process. It has also improved the value of these high end photos by providing direction for new collectors(higher demand) and also protect them form over paying(not falling for the blanket wire/press/vintage” distinction for a photo 10-15 years old but developed 10+ years after the photo was taken..etc..). I will take the good and take the bad…take the both and there I’ll deal with the facts of types.
Just my 1 cent
Any other thoughts on the type distictions?
Ben

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by mr2686

I am not a Type1, 2, 3 expert and never will be. But I have been in to photography for almost as many years as I've been alive. For me, as long as it's from the original negative, I'm happy. For that matter, I wonder why people don't collect the negatives themselves. That, to me, is what would really be worth the money.

I love negatives and they are collectible. Legendary has a ton of them on Ebay right now.

I think prices are kept down on them because they are usually very fragile, maintenence can be a pain and shelf life can conceivably be much shorter then an original print.

Also, you can't really display them.

Fortunately, there are great scanners out right now which can create wonderful prints from original negatives for you, given a lot of patience and a little bit of a learning curve, especially on larger format and glass type negs.

Just a few years ago I had a hard time finding a photo developer in my area willing to handle glass negs, and it would cost a bit when you did. Now I can develop them on my own, digitally.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

It has also improved the value of these high end photos by providing direction for new collectors(higher demand) and also protect them form over paying(not falling for the blanket wire/press/vintage” distinction for a photo 10-15 years old but developed 10+ years after the photo was taken..etc..). I will take the good and take the bad…take the both and there I’ll deal with the facts of types.
Just my 1 cent
Any other thoughts on the type distictions?
Ben

To be honest, in most of my auctions I generally use a wire/press blanket designation, mainly for search purposes and to streamline descriptions, but provide nice scans of front and back to let bidders best know exactly what they are bidding on.

If I believe it was printed later then the event in the photo I will add a notation that I think it is a later generation version of the photo.

I've played around with the Mastro designations at times but find they are confusing to most bidders. Most just want to know if the photo is vintage to the image.............period. They can tell other factors from the scans.

[mr2686]

Yep, the new scanners are great. That along with some great PC software can create some wonderful prints. I've got stacks and stacks of concert negatives from back in the day when I used to shoot alot, but never printed them all out because it's such a pain. Now you can scan them to your computer and print to your hearts content.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

To be honest, in most of my auctions I generally use a wire/press blanket designation, mainly for search purposes and to streamline descriptions, but provide nice scans of front and back to let bidders best know exactly what they are bidding on.

If I believe it was printed later then the event in the photo I will add a notation that I think it is a later generation version of the photo.

I've played around with the Mastro designations at times but find they are confusing to most bidders. Most just want to know if the photo is vintage to the image.............period. They can tell other factors from the scans.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that you show the backs is way better than almost EVERY main auction house out there.
If the psa standart of types are used more across auction houses(especially if they start to slab), I think there will be less confusion and growth in the hobby ahead. That is just my opinion.

[prewarsports]

Here is one of my concerns. Say you have an original photo that looks in every way shape and form the exact as the Type 1. This one though is shot 4 years afterwards but is identical in every other aspect. I think this would actually promote the idea of ripping off the paper caption with date stamp, or obliterating a back stamp with a date because absent the paper caption or a date stamp, there would be no way to tell the difference between a 1921 print and a 1925 print from the original negative and it would probably slide through as a Type 1.

I had a guy who wanted to buy a photo from me last year and he backed off at the last minute because the paper caption on the back was dated 3 years after the original photo and as such would be a Type 2 and he ONLY collects type 1.

The other concern I have is that a photo company did not sit there and make a new photo every time a customer wanted one. Often times they would make large numbers of copies in the original year and then slowly use them with new paper captions and dates on the back to save money. SO how do those get classified? Probably type 2 images since the cpation on the back is later then the date the photo was actually made.

As to the Conlon Ty Cobb example, it would be more like having a 1911 copy done from the original negative BY Charles Conlon being worth significantly less than the 1909 version of the photo. Same Paper/Same Photographer/Same Studio/Same Image, Two prices.

I love photos and to me as a collector it does not matter and I think most collectors feel the same way as long as it is within the same general vintage. There should just be something to differentiate between a 1910 Type 2 made 3 years after the image was taken and a 1960 Type 2 made 30 years after the image was taken.

Pretty soon we will need to document the small differences in Carl Horner mounts to determine which ones were issued first because an original Horner cabinet of Wagner from 1905 using his classic T206 pose would have to be a type 2 given the present guidelines right? In fact, I believe that most of the white mounted Horners with the classic Hall of Fame images were issued for commercial use 2-5 years after the images were actually taken.

Just a few of my thoughts and concerns but in the long run, to 99% of the collectors it does not matter.

[Forever Young]

As to the Conlon Ty Cobb example, it would be more like having a 1911 copy done from the original negative BY Charles Conlon being worth significantly less than the 1909 version of the photo. Same Paper/Same Photographer/Same Studio/Same Image, Two prices.

---------------------------------------------------------
So what you are saying is they would both be type 1's with sig diff prices? You are leaving it up to the buyers to completely know the difference AND/OR the auction house noting as such(not a bad thing but not everyone will do the research/be willing and I have seen auction houses less than upfront).


In many ways I am not a fan of 3rd party grading but there are definitely positives associated with it....growth of the hobby in other genres(cards and sigs) are testament to that.

I really do see what your saying but my point is that the Types bring a standard and security(through psa) that will grow photos and take to another level if utilized. Again, just my opinion...100 percent would disagree but I like listening to myself type

[prewarsports]

I thought it had to be within 2 years (1 year 364 days or less). I did not realize it was 2 calendar years.

Here is an example, slightly extreme but it applies nonetheless.

Charles Conlon is in his studio and he produces 2 Cobb images from the original Negative in late December 1911. They are being sent to two different publications. He sends one to the New York Times and they get it and date stamp it December 31, 1911. He sends the other one to Maine (a little further away) and they dont get it until Jan 1, 1912 and stamp the file date on it. The New York Times example is a Type 1 worth $50,000. The other one can not be a type 1 because it is more than 2 years from the 1909 date. It MUST be labeled a Type 2 by PSA right? By the rigid standards of some collectors, this is worth significantly less money because it is a Type 2.

Before you laugh, some collectors ARE that stupid and wont want the latter example because it is a type 2 and PSA says it is inferior to a one day older example. This is just an attempt to standardize the hobby of photos and make money off of it. I have no problem with calling a photo "vintage" or "Not Vintage" and coming up with a general standard, but producing any type of rigid rules for a non-rigid collectible to me is arbitrary at best.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

I thought it had to be within 2 years (1 year 364 days or less). I did not realize it was 2 calendar years.

Here is an example, slightly extreme but it applies nonetheless.

Charles Conlon is in his studio and he produces 2 Cobb images from the original Negative in late December 1911. They are being sent to two different publications. He sends one to the New York Times and they get it and date stamp it December 31, 1911. He sends the other one to Maine (a little further away) and they dont get it until Jan 1, 1912 and stamp the file date on it. The New York Times example is a Type 1 worth $50,000. The other one can not be a type 1 because it is more than 2 years from the 1909 date. It MUST be labeled a Type 2 by PSA right? By the rigid standards of some collectors, this is worth significantly less money because it is a Type 2.

Before you laugh, some collectors ARE that stupid and wont want the latter example because it is a type 2 and PSA says it is inferior to a one day older example. This is just an attempt to standardize the hobby of photos and make money off of it. I have no problem with calling a photo "vintage" or "Not Vintage" and coming up with a general standard, but producing any type of rigid rules for a non-rigid collectible to me is arbitrary at best.

Your definition of two years is accurate I believe.
I am not laughing at those collectors at all as the buyer is going to do what he/she wants as a collector and/or if they are smart(not stupid) they might also buy as an investor. Thus, if psa type 1 vs a type 2(no matter how extreme) brings more money, they would and should opt for the type 1distinction I would imagine if they can buy for the same price.
If a collector doesn't want to spend more for a type 1 nor do they care, they always have type 2s and 3s to choose from.
I guess I just do not see how it is bad for anyone; the economy will "boom" with psa certs(national debt disappears-ok now I am laughing), the masses are more educated on what they are buying and I think photos will become more collectible.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

I thought it had to be within 2 years (1 year 364 days or less). I did not realize it was 2 calendar years.

Here is an example, slightly extreme but it applies nonetheless.

Charles Conlon is in his studio and he produces 2 Cobb images from the original Negative in late December 1911. They are being sent to two different publications. He sends one to the New York Times and they get it and date stamp it December 31, 1911. He sends the other one to Maine (a little further away) and they dont get it until Jan 1, 1912 and stamp the file date on it. The New York Times example is a Type 1 worth $50,000. The other one can not be a type 1 because it is more than 2 years from the 1909 date. It MUST be labeled a Type 2 by PSA right? By the rigid standards of some collectors, this is worth significantly less money because it is a Type 2.

Before you laugh, some collectors ARE that stupid and wont want the latter example because it is a type 2 and PSA says it is inferior to a one day older example. This is just an attempt to standardize the hobby of photos and make money off of it. I have no problem with calling a photo "vintage" or "Not Vintage" and coming up with a general standard, but producing any type of rigid rules for a non-rigid collectible to me is arbitrary at best.

The thing is..........I don't think the actual standards they use are that rigid. It's more of a roundabout thing.

Common sense dictates it should still be classified a Type I. Date stamps on press photos should not be the end all be all, especially taking into consideration how haphazardly they were used.

Often they aren't ever stamped with a date.......the tag will be missing, etc... Some photos are often used over and over and have an ascending series of dates on them. On photos when the date was only on the tag, the earliest stamp might be later then when the photo was actually produced because the tag is missing or was removed.

Some collectors will have a "just to be safe" attitude and might pass on a photo THEY consider Type II. Maybe they will pay a bit more just to have all the markings THEY are looking for on a vintage photo. That's just they way it is.

Still IMO Press/Wire/etc.. photos are fairly easy to classify for the most part. I still take issue when they decide to classify studio photos (Conlon's, Burke's, etc..) in the same way.

I don't see how they could possibly take a press photo from the original negative with a date stamp 3 years after a photo was taken and classify it as a Type II photo and then decide ANY George Burke photo is definitively a Type I photo knowing he ran a business making prints of his photos years after he actually took the photo.

I realize some stampings may put them in a certain time span............but really, is there any way of knowing he pumped a print out anywhere near the given time span for their designations?

[prewarsports]

Just to clarify, I agree with Ben for the most part. There DOES need to be some standard in palce to protect people from buying photos made 10-20 years after the fact as originals. I also understand grading and certifying of rare photos as well to protect investments. I just think the standard that is being used (Type 1-3 scale) is not very good and something better could be implemented. I would just call them vintage or not vintage and then have Wire Photos be a category all alone. A vintage photo could be certified as one that was produced by the original photographer on the same type of paper/products as the original and one that is not vintage will be one where the photo was made either 10 years later or on different photo type or quality as the original, or something like that. In the long run, the only thing that already seperates these categories is a paper caption which could have been added years later to an older photo (seen it all the time) anyways.

In the long run most people buy what they like and dont get hung up on it. On the flip side, I have been able to get some GREAT Type 1 photos that were mistakenly described as Type 2's because of a file stamp done years after the photo was produced so I really cant complain.

Hopefully I did not offend anyone, I guess I am just too passionate about my beloved Sports Photos!

Rhys Yeakley

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

Just to clarify, I agree with Ben for the most part. There DOES need to be some standard in palce to protect people from buying photos made 10-20 years after the fact as originals. I also understand grading and certifying of rare photos as well to protect investments. I just think the standard that is being used (Type 1-3 scale) is not very good and something better could be implemented. I would just call them vintage or not vintage and then have Wire Photos be a category all alone. A vintage photo could be certified as one that was produced by the original photographer on the same type of paper/products as the original and one that is not vintage will be one where the photo was made either 10 years later or on different photo type or quality as the original, or something like that. In the long run, the only thing that already seperates these categories is a paper caption which could have been added years later to an older photo (seen it all the time) anyways.

In the long run most people buy what they like and dont get hung up on it. On the flip side, I have been able to get some GREAT Type 1 photos that were mistakenly described as Type 2's because of a file stamp done years after the photo was produced so I really cant complain.

Hopefully I did not offend anyone, I guess I am just too passionate about my beloved Sports Photos!

Rhys Yeakley

--------------------------------
Rhys, I agree with most if not all of what you said too man. I think we are both passionate about this stuff buddy! Maybe that is why we like to agree to disagree....gives us an excuse to talk about it. I think Type 1s are a little offended but they will get over it