Can we finally lay the "Type I" photo BS to rest?

[thecatspajamas]

I agree with Mark that the photo that started this thread off probably should have been "unclassifiable" or "undetermined." I started to say that it was clearly either a Type 2 or Type 4 (a later-date print off of either the original negative or a copy negative), but then re-thought the "Stock" notation on the slug line.

It could have been a Type 1 photo that was shot and printed for no specific reason at the time, filed away in Acme's files, then pulled out later when it was needed for the 1951 story and run then. It's a bit more of a long shot to arrive at the Type 1 designation, and would require more knowledge of Acme's filing tendencies than I have (whether they typically retained negatives or prints or both for their stock photos), but could be possible. Notice that there is evidence that a second caption was previously attached to the back of the photo (assuming the one shown isn't floating loose) indicating it may have been distributed previously.

Either way though, a mistake was made (either in the Type-ing or in the dating of the photo). Just something that came to mind.

[David Atkatz]

Mark, many--if not most--of the photos being classified have absolutely nothing on the back--no slugs, no date stamps... nothing. I stand behind my assertion that they cannot be dated with the degree of precision required.

As for the ones that are date-stamped, must I send them to a third party (along with a check) to have the stamps read, or are my amateur reading skills sufficient?

I wonder how photos were collected in those antediluvian times before a few third parties figured out how to skim a bit off the top.