Recent Henry Yee eBay auction questions

[billyb]

Lance,
Thank you, Good photo by the way. You have saved us, who knows how much time, in researching.

OBC,
Again I apologize for jumping in, I hope you found some information from my questions as well.

[obcbeatle]

Originally Posted by billyb

Lance,
Thank you, Good photo by the way. You have saved us, who knows how much time, in researching.

OBC,
Again I apologize for jumping in, I hope you found some information from my questions as well.

No problem at all! Thanks for asking all these questions. Some great info ... and I'm learning a lot via this thread. I started searching for people selling sports photo's on eBay. I've been looking at the news photo's front and back and learning. Some eBay sellers include the back of the photo which is helpful in understanding info from this thread.

Lance ... in case someone else hasn't come forward yet feel free to sell your copies of the Fogel/Yee books to anyone else that is interested. I'm a little short of cash right now as I bought some baseball card lots earlier in the week. Thank you for your offer ... I will eventually purchase the book somewhere at some point! Also ... if there are any reputable sellers of baseball/sports photo's on eBay besides Yee that anyone wants to recommend I would like to see some of their auctions/listings. The few sellers I've found I know nothing about, but it's pretty clear that they are buying and re-selling old newspaper photo's. Thanks again for all the great info!

PS: I see what you mean about some photo's having great composition that overrides any editing/marking issues. I've seen some really nice photo's like that! Also ... as a baseball card collector who isn't too picky about condition ... it looks like some of the photo's I see would fit nicely in my collection w/o breaking the bank. Maybe a great way to get a pic of Mantle, Robinson and other stars from the 1950's/60's that can otherwise be pretty pricey as Bowman or Topps cards!

[obcbeatle]

OK ... I do have a new question about old sports photographs from newspapers. Perhaps I should start a new thread but will ask here for now. I am seeing many sports photo's being sold on eBay that include typed editorial comments on the front side of the photo. They are usually action photo's but not always. Would I expect to pay less for these photo's (perhaps excepting photo's of HOFER's ...) since there are markings on the front side of the photo? As opposed to photo's with editorial comments only on the back? I can understand that having the provenance of the photo being of value, but wondered that in general if the provenance were just on the back I would expect to pay more for a photo, than if the provenance were on the front/side of the photo or on the back AND front of the photo. Hope that made sense :-)

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by obcbeatle

OK ... I do have a new question about old sports photographs from newspapers. Perhaps I should start a new thread but will ask here for now. I am seeing many sports photo's being sold on eBay that include typed editorial comments on the front side of the photo. They are usually action photo's but not always. Would I expect to pay less for these photo's (perhaps excepting photo's of HOFER's ...) since there are markings on the front side of the photo? As opposed to photo's with editorial comments only on the back? I can understand that having the provenance of the photo being of value, but wondered that in general if the provenance were just on the back I would expect to pay more for a photo, than if the provenance were on the front/side of the photo or on the back AND front of the photo. Hope that made sense :-)

In most cases, when the typed comments are on the front, it's generally an indication that the photo has been through the wire, sound, tele or radio photo process. Generally considered a Type III, although I'm not a big fan of the classification system.

Not as desirable as a photo from the original neg or contact neg because you can usually see the process in the photos, as it robs it of much of it's clarity.

Still, they are usually of the period and can have plenty of value themselves, especially if it is of a popular shot that is tough to find in 1st generation form, like Ali standing over Liston with his arm flexed, that I believe went for over 300 bucks in the Yee auction.

Not to say, some wire, sound, etc., type photos can be found with back type slugs instead of front captions, but it is not typical, and sometimes collectors will trim off the front wire tag to make a wire photo more aesthetically pleasing to them.

Easiest way to tell a wire photo, is to put a light and lower power magnifying glass over it, and you will see the wavy lines in the wire process.

Ironically, the highest quality wire photos seem to be from the mid-30's, when the process first became widely used, and if the front tag is trimmed off, you may need to put it under magnification to be sure it's a wire process shot.

As the years went on, the process became cheaper, but lower quality, and 60's-70's era's wire shots are usually very easy to spot with just the naked eye.

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

In most cases, when the typed comments are on the front, it's generally an indication that the photo has been through the wire, sound, tele or radio photo process. Generally considered a Type III, although I'm not a big fan of the classification system.

Not as desirable as a photo from the original neg or contact neg because you can usually see the process in the photos, as it robs it of much of it's clarity.

Still, they are usually of the period and can have plenty of value themselves, especially if it is of a popular shot that is tough to find in 1st generation form, like Ali standing over Liston with his arm flexed, that I believe went for over 300 bucks in the Yee auction.

Not to say, some wire, sound, etc., type photos can be found with back type slugs instead of front captions, but it is not typical, and sometimes collectors will trim off the front wire tag to make a wire photo more aesthetically pleasing to them.

Easiest way to tell a wire photo, is to put a light and lower power magnifying glass over it, and you will see the wavy lines in the wire process.

Ironically, the highest quality wire photos seem to be from the mid-30's, when the process first became widely used, and if the front tag is trimmed off, you may need to put it under magnification to be sure it's a wire process shot.

As the years went on, the process became cheaper, but lower quality, and 60's-70's era's wire shots are usually very easy to spot with just the naked eye.

Just to add a few additional comments to the excellent points Dave has already made. Most "wire photos" are typically second generation images where a first generation photo with the written caption physically attached to the front was placed on a wire photo machine at one agency, "scanned" and transmitted over the phone lines and received at a second news agency and the image printed (line by line) on a second wire photo machine. The resultant wire photo now has the written caption as part of the photo the image of which has been degraded by the process.

AP invented the wire photo process and in general their wire photo images are usually far superior (the scanning lines are much closer together ) than the corresponding wire photos of United Press (Telephoto) or INS (Sound Photo), especially those from the early '50's. Occasionally, you can find the original Type 1 photo with the caption physically attached to the front as well as Type 1 original, first generation photos with a paper caption containing "Telephoto or Sound Photo" at the bottom. Both are Type 1 photos. If you are unsure, just check the image with a 10X loop, even the best wire photos will be comprised of parallel scan lines.

[D. Bergin]

Not to forget, even before the wire process, there was a radiophoto transfer process. Slugs or notations were on the back. I believe it was very expensive at the time, but the quality was pretty primitive looking.

[obcbeatle]

Originally Posted by Frozen in Time

Just to add a few additional comments to the excellent points Dave has already made. Most "wire photos" are typically second generation images where a first generation photo with the written caption physically attached to the front was placed on a wire photo machine at one agency, "scanned" and transmitted over the phone lines and received at a second news agency and the image printed (line by line) on a second wire photo machine. The resultant wire photo now has the written caption as part of the photo the image of which has been degraded by the process.

AP invented the wire photo process and in general their wire photo images are usually far superior (the scanning lines are much closer together ) than the corresponding wire photos of United Press (Telephoto) or INS (Sound Photo), especially those from the early '50's. Occasionally, you can find the original Type 1 photo with the caption physically attached to the front as well as Type 1 original, first generation photos with a paper caption containing "Telephoto or Sound Photo" at the bottom. Both are Type 1 photos. If you are unsure, just check the image with a 10X loop, even the best wire photos will be comprised of parallel scan lines.

OK ... I think I understand. So the following photo that includes Ernie Banks looks like a second generation wire photo since the editorial info doesn't look attached, but looks as part of the picture (hope this link of an active eBay auction works):

http://www.ebay.com/itm/390602203122...84.m1423.l2649

I have seen a couple wire photo's that look like the editorial info is attached to the front side of the photo, but can't find one now. This seller appears to have a bunch of second generation wire photo's up today. The watermark makes it hard to see the quality of the photo as well. I still haven't found an eBay seller similar to Henry Yee selling photo's right now. But I'll keep looking. Thanks again for all the great feedback!

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by obcbeatle

OK ... I think I understand. So the following photo that includes Ernie Banks looks like a second generation wire photo since the editorial info doesn't look attached, but looks as part of the picture (hope this link of an active eBay auction works):

http://www.ebay.com/itm/390602203122...84.m1423.l2649

I have seen a couple wire photo's that look like the editorial info is attached to the front side of the photo, but can't find one now. This seller appears to have a bunch of second generation wire photo's up today. The watermark makes it hard to see the quality of the photo as well. I still haven't found an eBay seller similar to Henry Yee selling photo's right now. But I'll keep looking. Thanks again for all the great feedback!

Yes, but it is vintage and of the era. I don't really like attaching the term, 2nd generation to of the era wire photos, even if that's technically what they are.

I usually save that term for photos printed at somewhat later point, then the original image was taken.

Most Baseball cards are also considered some form of a later generation print, when it comes right down to it.

[billyb]

OBC,
I believe they started to put the comments on the front in the 40s, if I am wrong, please someone correct me.
I would think that the value is what the photo is about. The photos with comments on the back, would be worth more only because they would be older and possibly more rare. But there are more modern photos that are worth more that the vintage ones.
So, subject, story, condition and clarity, is what we are to look for, whether comments are on front or back, it should not matter.
Myself, if photo is not of any significance, I prefer comments on back.

Dave,
I just read your post, I stand corrected, comments on front in the 30s.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by billyb

OBC,
I believe they started to put the provenance on the front in the 40s, if I am wrong, please someone correct me.
I would think that the value is what the photo is about. The photos with the provenance on the back, would be worth more only because they would be older and possibly more rare. But there are more modern photos that are worth more that the vintage ones.
So, subject, story, condition and clarity, is what we are to look for, whether provenance is on front or back, it should not matter.
Now to me, if the photo is not of any significance, I would rather the provenance be on the back.

It was around 1935 or so, they started using front style captions for wire photos.

Like I said, some of these are very high quality, compared to later wire process shots from the 60's and 70's.