Question on Lelands Mathewson T206 card photo

[Archive]

Posted By: Jackson

Hi -

Lelands' recent vintage photo lot of the famous Mathewson pose had the following description:

"Sumptuous Christy Mathewson wire photograph is the same image used on this classic baseball card. Original wire photograph is a Keystone View Company image printed in 1920. The photo is circa 1905. Perfect contrast (moving, we may say) some minor edge defects o/w EX-MT. 7”x9''. Original paper caption on verso."

Does this mean that this was in fact a 1920 print of a 1905 original image? If so, was it a print off the negative or the original photo, making it then a Type 2?

I found the description very misleading. Can anyone help confirm?

Thanks.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

The description was confusing. I interpret it as meaning the image was shot in 1905 and the photo made in 1920. If the image is crystal clear, it's possible it was made from the original negative. Many news services would keep the original negatives around, so that would be possible. If the image is rougher (less detail, blurrier, etc), chances are it was not from the original negative.

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh Evans

I am sorry that you found this description misleading, I will try to explain. The Matty photo was printed in 1920 off of the original negative which was taken circa 1905.

The quality of this image tells me it is first generation. We do not like to say whether any of our our images are first generation, second generation, and so on. Sometimes that is difficult to specifically state unless you have seen the original negative or a superior print better than the pone you are looking at. Also, I do not think it is necessaryily germane. It is the quality that counts not some pigeon holing of photo terms. I like what savvy photo buyer Corey Shanus does whenever he wants to bid on something. He asks me, “Josh how is the contrast?” I am embarrassed to confess here that the first time he asked me that I had to ask him what that meant.

Although this is not the norm, I have seen many first generation pieces (blurry) that look far worse than a great second generation print. With apologies to Messrs. Fogel and Yee (and I truly respect their work) I do not believe in the whole Type One, Type Two thing because it is too confining and simplistic. Many first generation prints simply suck due to bad photographers, and there are also potential condition issues. How many badly yellowed and faded prints have you seen especially with early material such as albumen photos? Plus, who cares about "Types" if you had say an amazing three foot high “second generation” Dana boxing photo of Jim Jeffries that reads “Great White Hope” with a lynching cartoon that was not drawn into the negative?

As for when something was printed being a factor of value that is also up for conjecture. 15 years after the fact is really nothing in this case. I think the auction price of over $9,000 proves that theory out. Look at any fine arts photography auctions and you will see images printed 50 years later selling for thousands of dollars because they were done by the right people (the photographer or his studio) and with the correct photo process, and from the right stuff (the original negative).

Joshua Leland Evans
Chairman
Lelands.com

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Below linked is a brief article about photo 'originals' 'printed later' etc.

http://www.cycleback.com/photoguide/importantconcepts.html
I'm greatly partial to vintage originals, but as indicated in the article, limited edition original printed later photos by the photographers can have financial value. And a giant second generation photo made to be hung at Yankee Stadium can have financial value as an artifact and display piece.

In photograph collecting, the image is a key. As with OJs and T206s, you want the image to be its best. For me, that includes the greatest detail possible only from the original negative. It's no fun looking at a badly developed or out of focus photo (especially when you paid a lot). While not vintage, an original printed later photo can have all the original detail and qualities as it's printed from the original negative. I recently visited the Seattle Art Museum and they had original printed later photos of John Barrymore and James Cagney by George Hurrell. Each was signed and limited edition numbered on front by the Hurrell. Examples of 'printed later' photos in the permanent collection of a museum that owns paintings by Pollack, Rothko, Picasso, Renoir.

There are quality originals that are intentionally blurry, grainy or otherwise distorted. As a sports example, a SI photographer might want an blurred auction shot of Wayne Gretzky skating down the ice. The blurriness might add to the artistic quality and sense of movement. There's a difference between this and Aunt Jane's out of focus, heads cropped Polaroid at the family picnic.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jackson

Fair enough, Josh - thanks for the explanation.

FYI - Page 139 of Mastronet's A Potrait of Baseball Photography (Yee and Fogel's exhaustive book on the history of baseball photos), has a similar shot of Matty taken that exact very same day (for those adventurous and who own the book - check the uni, field background, hair, glove, cleats, etc.), from a different angle and in a different pose by noted photog G. Grantham Bain. Interestingly enough, the caption for the photo indicates it as circa 1901/1902.

So really, who the hell knows?