Type II photos?

[71buc]

I noticed in Henry Yee’s most recent auction that he described some photos as “vintage originals” while others were described as Type 1 originals,” photograph has been authenticated by PSA/DNA as a TYPE I, period 1st generation exemplar” .

I could find only one photo that was listed as a Type II photo in it’s title. http://www.ebay.com/itm/TYPE-II-Phot...item3cc7560b8c

There were a number of pictures that were called 2nd Gen photos in the listing title and subsequently described as Type II photos in their description. http://www.ebay.com/itm/2nd-Gen-Phot...item3cc761255f. There were also photos that were called 2nd Gen photos and not described as Type II photos. http://www.ebay.com/itm/2nd-Gen-Phot...item3a75b0ede0

I recently purchased this 1947 Jackie Robinson picture and it arrived today. The paper slug and stamping identifies it as a ACME photo attributed to photographer Ed Jerry dated 10/05/1947. Based on it's attributes I THINK() this is a Type I photo.

Henry Yee sold the same image in his most recent auction (see below). He described it in the following manner.

AIRBORNE !
An AWESOME action image is featured in this Vintage 1947 ORIGINAL News Service Photo issued by United Press depicting Brooklyn Dodgers rookie Jackie Robinson causing havoc on the base paths. New York Yankees shortstop Phil Rizzuto is captured by the cameras suspended in midair as Robinson slides in safely. Original press stamp on the reverse of this 7" x 9" photo. Just a terrific action shot taken during the World Series - frozen in time ! http://www.ebay.com/itm/1947-Origina...item3cc75609ec

The United Press Association on the reverse was used between 1955-1957 (see page 167 of A Portrait of Baseball Photography). Since this image was taken during the 1947 World Series wouldn’t it be classified as a Type II photo?

Are Type II photos now classified as vintage originals or are they called 2nd Gen photos? The classification of photos based on their stamping is confusing enough without changing the definition of the Type II classification. I love collecting photos but just when I think I have an understanding of their classification...

Perhaps one of the more knowledgeable and advanced photo collectors like Jimmy (K.O.C.) can shed some light on this?

[bcbgcbrcb]

Mike:

The way that I understand it, the Type II photo was produced from the original negative and thus classified as original, not a second generation or later photograph. Based on the stampings on the back, paper stock, etc. though, it is considered to have been produced more than two years after the actual photo was taken.

[71buc]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Mike:

The way that I understand it, the Type II photo was produced from the original negative and thus classified as original, not a second generation or later photograph. Based on the stampings on the back, paper stock, etc. though, it is considered to have been produced more than two years after the actual photo was taken.

That was my understanding as well. It was suggested by another board member that I ask Mr. Yee directly. I emailed him through eBay seeking clarification. Lately photos are my favorite part of the hobby. I have tried to educate myself but I seem to be perpetually confused.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by 71buc

I noticed in Henry Yee’s most recent auction that he described some photos as “vintage originals” while others were described as Type 1 originals,” photograph has been authenticated by PSA/DNA as a TYPE I, period 1st generation exemplar” .

I could find only one photo that was listed as a Type II photo in it’s title. http://www.ebay.com/itm/TYPE-II-Phot...item3cc7560b8c

There were a number of pictures that were called 2nd Gen photos in the listing title and subsequently described as Type II photos in their description. http://www.ebay.com/itm/2nd-Gen-Phot...item3cc761255f. There were also photos that were called 2nd Gen photos and not described as Type II photos. http://www.ebay.com/itm/2nd-Gen-Phot...item3a75b0ede0

I recently purchased this 1947 Jackie Robinson picture and it arrived today. The paper slug and stamping identifies it as a ACME photo attributed to photographer Ed Jerry dated 10/05/1947. Based on it's attributes I THINK() this is a Type I photo.

Henry Yee sold the same image in his most recent auction (see below). He described it in the following manner.

AIRBORNE !
An AWESOME action image is featured in this Vintage 1947 ORIGINAL News Service Photo issued by United Press depicting Brooklyn Dodgers rookie Jackie Robinson causing havoc on the base paths. New York Yankees shortstop Phil Rizzuto is captured by the cameras suspended in midair as Robinson slides in safely. Original press stamp on the reverse of this 7" x 9" photo. Just a terrific action shot taken during the World Series - frozen in time ! http://www.ebay.com/itm/1947-Origina...item3cc75609ec

The United Press Association on the reverse was used between 1955-1957 (see page 167 of A Portrait of Baseball Photography). Since this image was taken during the 1947 World Series wouldn’t it be classified as a Type II photo?

Are Type II photos now classified as vintage originals or are they called 2nd Gen photos? The classification of photos based on their stamping is confusing enough without changing the definition of the Type II classification. I love collecting photos but just when I think I have an understanding of their classification...

Perhaps one of the more knowledgeable and advanced photo collectors like Jimmy (K.O.C.) can shed some light on this?

I spoke to Henry a few minutes ago and he said that United Press was a parent of Acme and N.E.A. (Newspaper Enterprise Association), they were all under the same umbrella. Both stamps are correct and both photos were issued in 1947 as the paper composition is identical. The book he, Marshall and Khyber Oser wrote is a bit outdated and ideally he would love to put together a new one. I know he mentioned to me once that he was looking for a publisher. Henry said if you have any further questions, you can contact him directly at hyee@mindspring.com. I have always found him to be friendly and helpful - a bit slow to respond sometimes as he always seems to be traveling but he does eventually get back to you every time.
Ben

[71buc]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

I spoke to Henry a few minutes ago and he said that United Press was a parent of Acme and N.E.A. (Newspaper Enterprise Association), they were all under the same umbrella. Both stamps are correct and both photos were issued in 1947 as the paper composition is identical. The book he, Marshall and Khyber Oser wrote is a bit outdated and ideally he would love to put together a new one. I know he mentioned to me once that he was looking for a publisher. Henry said if you have any further questions, you can contact him directly at hyee@mindspring.com. I have always found him to be friendly and helpful - a bit slow to respond sometimes as he always seems to be traveling but he does eventually get back to you every time.
Ben

Thanks I appreciate the feedback and look forward to a second edition of his book.

[drc]

Vintage original means type I.

Type IIs aren't originals, as originals are type Is.

[ibuysportsephemera]

FWIW, I like yours better Mike. My favorite photos are the ones with original captions.

Jeff

[71buc]

Originally Posted by drc

Vintage original means type I.

Type IIs aren't originals, as originals are type Is.

I have no problem with that definition. However, I have frequently been relying on stamping styles of issuers to make that determination when looking at photos. It seems that this is not a completely accurate approach. I am learning that there are many other variables needing consideration when determining if a photo is an original. I lack the expertise to consider those variables. How many collectors actually have that level of knowledge. Mr. Yee sent me his contact information. I have been impressed with his work and hear great things about him from many. As a photo collector i look forward to talking to him.

[drc]

Yours had the date printed on it, so you were safe with yours.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by 71buc

I have no problem with that definition. However, I have frequently been relying on stamping styles of issuers to make that determination when looking at photos. It seems that this is not a completely accurate approach. I am learning that there are many other variables needing consideration when determining if a photo is an original. I lack the expertise to consider those variables. How many collectors actually have that level of knowledge. Mr. Yee sent me his contact information. I have been impressed with his work and hear great things about him from many. As a photo collector i look forward to talking to him.

Correct... the only way that the approach exists is because of Henry's countless hours of research which is always growing(hence the need for a second volume). If fact, there are many so called experts that have adopted his work/classifications who rely on it too(and don't admit it).
The stamps are one variable like you said. Others include: Paper fibers, indicators under a black light, image under a loop, inks, knowledge of other type 1s/data base/exemplars(to name a few).
There are also ways to tell if there have been fake stamps applied(and believe me, there are more forgeries every day). You can imagine that it would be relatively easy for someone to make a rubber stamp to look like one in Henry's book, put the photo on ebay and prey on people who only look for that. It would be PARTICULARLY easy for a crook to simply put a fake date stamp on the back.
I also see a lot of TYPE 1 classifications being thrown around by sellers on ebay as well as other "major" authenticating companies that are just flat out wrong(NOT EVEN CLOSE).
As in...labeling a 1930s image that was produced on a dupe negative in the 70s a TYPE 1. I have one of those "expert's" slabs in hand.

Originally Posted by drc

Yours had the date printed on it, so you were safe with yours.

I would say Henry's is good if he says it is. I would take his word for it over a picture of a photo with a date stamp any day of the week. Besides, he said both were good.