Ruth Red Sox photo, type 1 ??

[ScottR81]

Just picked this up I beleive this to be a type 1 photo but not sure, what do you guys think?

[Hankphenom]

Undoubtedly genuine. Or to put it another way, if it's a forgery it's a spectacular job. Actually, if it was a forgery, they'd have given it a postcard back to double the value.
Hank Thomas

[bcbgcbrcb]

Nice pick-up!

[thecatspajamas]

Definitely looks vintage, but not "Type 1". To be a Type 1 photo, it had to be printed from the original negative unless that lettering at the bottom right corner is applied to the actual print you have (run your finger across it and see if it's raised if you have any doubt). If it's "embedded in the image" then the photo can't have been printed from the original negative. Typically to get lettering like that in the photo, they would produce a print from the original negative, apply the lettering by hand using a white paint or something similar, then re-shoot the photo to produce a new (second generation) negative from which they could then produce prints with the lettering appearing in each one (saving them the trouble of hand-lettering each print).

If anyone has a different opinion, feel free to share, but I don't think you can truly call it a "Type 1." Still a nice piece, mind you, but the original question seemed to be related specifically to the Type 1 labelling.

[Hankphenom]

This is the type of photo that the Yee/Fogel system doesn't really categorize in a meaningful way, and needs to change to do that. Though not a "Type I,", this photo is just so much more collectible, in my opinion, than the typical "Type III" designation is meant to describe. The fact that it was presumably printed contemporaneously with the event depicted (Ruth as a Red Sox in this case) should completely overwhelm the question of whether it is a first or second generation print as to make that almost irrelevant. In other words, it is "original" and "genuine," just not a type I. And if photo collectors are going to restrict themselves to Type I only, they're going to miss out on adding a lot of great photos, like this one, to their collection.

Question for Lance. Do you know if the Bain photos we see are also Type IIIs?
Hank Thomas

[prewarsports]

I thought the white lettering like that was etched into the negative so it would still be considered a "Type 1"?

Doesn't really matter either way to most people as long as it is vintage despite the "type". It is a beautiful original and vintage piece!

Rhys

[thecatspajamas]

Hank,
I agree wholeheartedly in that I would not try to assign a Type classification to this particular photo unless asked to do so (as in the OP's original question). I didn't mean to detract from an otherwise very desirable photo. Personally, I typically only use the Type classification when dealing with news photos, and even then only when it is helpful. I agree that there are many many wonderful images out there that defy classification by the Type system, and I agree that a collector who limits himself to Type 1's only will miss out on most of them.

As for the Bain photos, I don't think you could give one overarching designation for all of them. You pretty much have to consider each photo on its own, whatever the source.

And while I suppose it is possible to "write" on a photo by scratching or painting on the negative (depending on the desired color of the lettering), I find it highly unlikely that anyone mass-producing photos in those days would have done so. For one thing, you would have to do all your lettering backwards, do it perfectly the first time, and in most cases, do it in miniature. I'm certainly open to the possibility, but I just can't see that being practical.

On the other hand, I've actually had a few original George Burke 8x10 photos that were hand-lettered with white paint in the method I described (as well as black lettering done in pen) where you could see the indentation of the guide lines laid down for the lettering and feel the raised texture (white lettering painted on) or indentations (black pen lettering) of the letters themselves. I also had smaller 4x6 prints of the same shot, with the same lettering in the image (no difference in texture), all with proper back-stamping, making it clear what had been done (at least in that case).

My thinking is that the typical news photographer didn't give a flip about the long-term collectibility of the photos they produced, and certainly never considered the possibility of a "Type" classification system. Why risk ruining your original negative by scratching on it when you could produce a print (or 2 or 3 if you screwed up the first one), letter it, then re-shoot it. Sure, the second generation prints would not be quite as sharp, but if the customer was satisfied, did that really matter? And if it didn't turn out too good, they still had the original negative and could do the whole thing over again.

Edited to add: I also want to emphasize that I am not an expert in photography. I do think that anyone who is thinking of collecting photography, particularly sports and news photographs, should really pick up a copy of Yee and Fogel's book. Whenever I comment on Type classifications, it's safe to assume that most (if not all) that I say is borrowed from, or at least based on, knowledge I gained from reading it, with a little personal experience thrown in for good measure.

[GrayGhost]

This topic keeps getting rehashed over and over. Its a REALLY NICE OLD photo of The Babe. Why isn't that enough, especially in this case?

[Frozen in Time]

I agree with the general sentiment that regardless of the Type, this is an original and vintage early photo of Ruth with the additional benefit of the pencil notations on the back which provide a general time window - a really spectacular find.

In addition to the comments relating to the origin of the hand notations on the image (again which I believe are accurate) another indication that it is a second generation print is the narrow overall tonal range i.e., more grays, less blacks and whites.

While a dated, larger Type I print of this image would probably be worth considerably more, such a print may not even exist, so forget about Type and enjoy this wonderful image.

[mschwade]

This might be well known information, I didn't know anything about it, so I googled it. Found this link explaining the "Little World Series" that featured Babe Ruth and others: http://baseballguru.com/omi/littleworldseries.htm

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by GrayGhost

This topic keeps getting rehashed over and over. Its a REALLY NICE OLD photo of The Babe. Why isn't that enough, especially in this case?

...but, unfortunately, I have started to see collectors of vintage photography who will not have anything but "Type I"s in their collections. Whether they are trying to be purists, or think they are looking out for their investment value, or think they are going by "the book," I think they are misguided by eliminating examples such as this one, and also every news service or studio photo that has their name or logo in the photo ("Elliott New Service," "Harris and Ewing," "Underwood and Underwood," etc.) all of which are presumably Type IIIs, no matter how great the image or significant the event. I'm not interested in rehashing so much as agitating for a tweaking of the system now before this goes too far. I know some on the board want to eliminate the type system completely, and this major flaw does bolster that argument, but I still think it has helped bring the collecting of vintage sports photography into a more sophisticated environment.
Hank Thomas

[ScottR81]

The writting on the bottom is not raised, would you say this photo is authentic to the year 1919 or a later date?

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by ScottR81

The writting on the bottom is not raised, would you say this photo is authentic to the year 1919 or a later date?

Was the photo shot in 1919? Looks like it. Was the print produced that same year? Hard to say for sure. I can't quite make out the studio name printed on the back, which might give some clue if one could find any information on the studio. Given that the studio is located in Attleboro, where the Little World Series took place, it could very well have been produced by a local studio to be sold at or near the ballpark as a souvenir for the throngs of spectators who came to town for the event. Otherwise, I don't see any watermarks on the photo paper itself (could be very very faint) which can also give at least a possible date range based on when the manufacturer used that watermark (most notably Velox/Kodak watermarks can be dated to usually within a couple of decades).

Nice win! (assuming this was you that picked it up on eBay):
http://www.ebay.com/itm/BABE-RUTH-Or...-/180708563467

[ScottR81]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Was the photo shot in 1919? Looks like it. Was the print produced that same year? Hard to say for sure. I can't quite make out the studio name printed on the back, which might give some clue if one could find any information on the studio. Given that the studio is located in Attleboro, where the Little World Series took place, it could very well have been produced by a local studio to be sold at or near the ballpark as a souvenir for the throngs of spectators who came to town for the event. Otherwise, I don't see any watermarks on the photo paper itself (could be very very faint) which can also give at least a possible date range based on when the manufacturer used that watermark (most notably Velox/Kodak watermarks can be dated to usually within a couple of decades).

Nice win! (assuming this was you that picked it up on eBay):
http://www.ebay.com/itm/BABE-RUTH-Or...-/180708563467

well yes and no on the ebay, I was in las vegas and had no reception in my room so i was out bid originally but contacted the guy that won it and bought in from him for a bit of an increased price. I wanted it that bad. I see its not a type 1 which is fine, I just would love to know if this was produced for sure in 1919. That would be great.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by ScottR81

well yes and no on the ebay, I was in las vegas and had no reception in my room so i was out bid originally but contacted the guy that won it and bought in from him for a bit of an increased price. I wanted it that bad. I see its not a type 1 which is fine, I just would love to know if this was produced for sure in 1919. That would be great.

I really don't think there's any way to tell for sure if it's a so-called Type I or not.

Studio photographers were really great at reproducing their own negs without much if any loss of quality. We're not talking busy newsrooms here like Yee/Fogel allude to in their book under the Type III definition.

Block lettering like that, it very well could have been printed on the negative (in black ink BTW), backwards. Wouldn't have to be tiny as negs were much bigger in that era. I'd wager that was a 5x7 sized neg or thereabouts.

I had/have many original negs..........and probably copy negs to........but negs nonetheless with printing and credit stamps etched directly on them.

I'm sure studio photographers who were used to the practice, weren't that confused by the process.

No way to tell exactly if the print is 1919, but it's probably fairly close if it's not.

I think it's probably a great pick-up, whatever anybody wants to classify it as.

[ScottR81]

The photo is 5" x 7". Im gonna take it with me to next sports show in Nov. (in Chicago) and take it to PSA or JSA see what they think.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Scott:

You may want to consider Beckett also. They have a really nice mid-size holder for photos up to 5" X 7" max.

[Frozen in Time]

I am new to the forum and joined primarily because of the wealth of shared information that is contained in discussions such as this one. From the tone of some of the responses it appears that the "Type" classification system for photos has already been discussed and debated.

I don't want to raise inappropriate issues, but would simply like to add that I have been collecting vintage baseball photographs for over 30 years now and have found the Fogel, Oser and Yee book extremely helpful even though there are clearly prints that "fall between the cracks" of their classification format.

For what it is worth, the Ruth photograph does not appear to me to be a first generation print (lack of clarity and full tonal range) but, as many here have stated, that does not diminish in any way it's significance.

Whereas I believe collectors should accumulate what appeals to them, I would caution those who ignore the rarity of true Type 1 photographs. As I have seen repeatedly, the number of fully documented Type 1 prints for a given image can often be counted on one hand and in many cases only a single example has survived. In that context, I do not see why anyone would have an issue with what is the ultimate quest in vintage photography.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Scott:

You may want to consider Beckett also. They have a really nice mid-size holder for photos up to 5" X 7" max.

If you're concerned about the Type designation I don't think Beckett is the way to go to be honest, unless they have an entirely different classification system I don't know about.

I've seen way too many Wire photos in Beckett holders classified as Type I's.

As much as I don't like the vagueness of the classification system. That's not even close.

Not that there's anything wrong with Wire photos. I've often seen them bring much more then comparable Type 1's, depending on the popularity of the subject and image in question.

[Hankphenom]

The "ultimate quest in vintage photography" can be different for different collectors. "Type I"s, greatest images, greatest events, greatest photographers, etc. I don't have an issue with anything anyone chooses to collect, it's all great. I just don't like to see someone restricting their collecting based on a misinterpretation of a commonly used classification system, which I've seen happen. "Type I"s can be great photographs, but they're not the only great photographs.

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

The "ultimate quest in vintage photography" can be different for different collectors. "Type I"s, greatest images, greatest events, greatest photographers, etc. I don't have an issue with anything anyone chooses to collect, it's all great. I just don't like to see someone restricting their collecting based on a misinterpretation of a commonly used classification system, which I've seen happen. "Type I"s can be great photographs, but they're not the only great photographs.

I completely agree and apologize if I may have misunderstood to some extent the underlying basis of your initial comments. For example, because of the rarity of true Type 1 photos a given image for a given event by a given photographer may simply not exist in that format. In those cases I would still be extremely happy to acquire the image as a Type 2, 3, or 4.

But I think you still get my main point, i.e., in terms of difficulty the search for " the greatest images of the greatest events by the greatest photographers" in a Type 1 format is, based on the collecting interests of each individual, still the ultimate quest in vintage photography.

[sox1903wschamp]

Nice Photo regardless if it was printed in 1919 or not. Looks like the Babe was starting to add some girth just before being shipped off to the NYY.

[kevlewis]

Hey there buddy. Do you still own this photo? If so, what do you want for it?

Kevin

[sporteq]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Hank,
I agree wholeheartedly in that I would not try to assign a Type classification to this particular photo unless asked to do so (as in the OP's original question). I didn't mean to detract from an otherwise very desirable photo. Personally, I typically only use the Type classification when dealing with news photos, and even then only when it is helpful. I agree that there are many many wonderful images out there that defy classification by the Type system, and I agree that a collector who limits himself to Type 1's only will miss out on most of them.

As for the Bain photos, I don't think you could give one overarching designation for all of them. You pretty much have to consider each photo on its own, whatever the source.

And while I suppose it is possible to "write" on a photo by scratching or painting on the negative (depending on the desired color of the lettering), I find it highly unlikely that anyone mass-producing photos in those days would have done so. For one thing, you would have to do all your lettering backwards, do it perfectly the first time, and in most cases, do it in miniature. I'm certainly open to the possibility, but I just can't see that being practical.

On the other hand, I've actually had a few original George Burke 8x10 photos that were hand-lettered with white paint in the method I described (as well as black lettering done in pen) where you could see the indentation of the guide lines laid down for the lettering and feel the raised texture (white lettering painted on) or indentations (black pen lettering) of the letters themselves. I also had smaller 4x6 prints of the same shot, with the same lettering in the image (no difference in texture), all with proper back-stamping, making it clear what had been done (at least in that case).

My thinking is that the typical news photographer didn't give a flip about the long-term collectibility of the photos they produced, and certainly never considered the possibility of a "Type" classification system. Why risk ruining your original negative by scratching on it when you could produce a print (or 2 or 3 if you screwed up the first one), letter it, then re-shoot it. Sure, the second generation prints would not be quite as sharp, but if the customer was satisfied, did that really matter? And if it didn't turn out too good, they still had the original negative and could do the whole thing over again.

Edited to add: I also want to emphasize that I am not an expert in photography. I do think that anyone who is thinking of collecting photography, particularly sports and news photographs, should really pick up a copy of Yee and Fogel's book. Whenever I comment on Type classifications, it's safe to assume that most (if not all) that I say is borrowed from, or at least based on, knowledge I gained from reading it, with a little personal experience thrown in for good measure.

I too agree with your statement. I had spoken with a historical photo collector decades ago, that i met on ebay, on the phone. He to had hard time what to call a photograph with writing on it. He knew most were NOT off the original negative. This was way before the Yee photo designation criteria. I find a lot of inconsistencies in the "Type 1" designation. This is one example that comes to mind.


Albert

[prewarsports]

It is hard to tell how names and notes were applied to particular images but often times they were done to the negative themselves which would still make them "Type 1" images. If black paint was applied to the negative it would show up white when the photo was developed and white paint would show up black. Etched names into the negative (scratched on them backwards) were crude but were often done and also pencil was used by many photographers such as Charles Conlon where notations would show up on the side. With photos in hand you can generally tell from the clarity of the image whether they are off the original negative. If the image is clear and bold with small details visible such as individual blades of grass etc. it is highly likely that the names and notes were added to the negative and not afterwards making it still a "type 1" image. Each photo should be looked at individually as there is no blanket rule regarding notations and identifications and the type system.