help with Walter Johnson photo?

[Brian]

I recently acquired this photo of Walter Johnson, and pencil notation puts the date of the actual photo around 1924. I have seen many similar images of him around the same date.

Here's my question: based on the Yee book, the Acme stamp suggests that the photo was printed in the latter half of the 30s, although the NEA stamp dates it to 1941. So based on this information, it is either a Type II printed over 10 years after it was taken or a second generation photo made from a duplicate negative. Is there any way to tell? The photo clarity is a bit better than the scans, but the image could be sharper, suggesting it could be the latter.
Either way, it's okay, I am just trying to educate myself on photos as I am somewhat of a novice--and I paid very little for it and like it nonetheless.
Thanks much, Brian

[Hankphenom]

I don't think there's any way to know whether it's a Type II or IV. Clarity is your only clue, really, but I don't see how that could be considered definitive. wonderful image in any case.

[prewarsports]

The NEA stamp is a file date by that organization which was seperate from Acme, but linked in a sort of brother-sister relationship when this photo was issued. Sometimes the NEA stamp is the same day the photo is issued, other times NEA would receive a photo from 1921 and stamp it "NEA 1951" if that is when they received it into THEIR archives. So, rule of thumb is that it cant be any LATER than the NEA stamp, but it can be earlier by a day, a year, a decade etc. They are usually VERY close (especially in acme-Nea stuff since they were connected) but in rare occasions can be off so the NEA stamp is a good starting point. In this case, its safe to say this is a c. 1940 image and that gives you a year or two on either end. It is most likely a "type 2" but as was said before, it is impossible to tell unless I was holding the image and could look at it under magnification. It really doesn't matter too much, dont get hung up on the classification system. Just like the NEA stamps, its just a starting point in the process of enjoying a beautiful vintage photograph.

Rhys

[Brian]

Thanks, guys, that is pretty much what I thought. Like grading, I don't get too caught up in classification systems, but I just wondered if there were any other clues for judging photos and how they are printed...
Happy with the photo either way since I only paid a bit more than 20 bucks for it.
Cheers,
Brian

[drc]

I would guess it was not made from the original negative, but you can't tell for certan. Originals can be a bit burry and grainy, especially distance and action shots. Less likely on a closeup-- unless it was a zoom in closeup from a team photo or such. Many times, it is obvious the original negative was not use and many times it's obvious it was. But sometimes you can't be sure.

As it was printed later (but is still old), I don't think it's a big deal. Clearly from the dating it's not a vintage original, so whether or not it was printed from the original negative is secondary issue. If it was stamp dated 1924 then you'd be more concerned if the image was first generation.

At resale, most buyers base their bids on the date of the physical photo versus the date of the image and the quality of the image.