A Portrait of Baseball Photography - Additions/Corrections?

[thecatspajamas]

From the outset, let me be clear that in no way is this thread intended to be a criticism of Marshall Fogel and Henry Yee's work. I have found their research into the various back-stampings of news service photographs to be particularly helpful, as well as their brief histories of the various news agencies and biographies of a number of the photographers who shot the photos we love.

That said, I have read comments in several posts over the last couple of years that, if the book were to be done now, there are certain corrections that would be made and/or additional information that would be included.

Soooo, since nobody seems to know if/when another edition will be published, how about we go ahead and talk about those corrections, additions, etc. that would/should be included if the book were to be re-done. That way, those of us who are so-inclined can get out our pencils and start adding notes in the margins of our already well-worn copies :D

P.S. I am specifically NOT referring to proposed corrections to/gripes about the "Type" classification system for this thread (Type 1, Type 2, etc). I think that has been hashed out quite thoroughly in other threads and, like it or not, use it or not, doesn't look poised to change any time soon.

P.P.S. I will follow up below with a post of the kind of "correction" I am referring to, just in case anyone jumps in here before I have a chance to get it posted.

[Frozen in Time]

From the outset, let me be clear that in no way is this thread intended to be a criticism of Marshall Fogel and Henry Yee's work. I have found their research into the various back-stampings of news service photographs to be particularly helpful, as well as their brief histories of the various news agencies and biographies of a number of the photographers who shot the photos we love.

That said, I have read comments in several posts over the last couple of years that, if the book were to be done now, there are certain corrections that would be made and/or additional information that would be included.

Soooo, since nobody seems to know if/when another edition will be published, how about we go ahead and talk about those corrections, additions, etc. that would/should be included if the book were to be re-done. That way, those of us who are so-inclined can get out our pencils and start adding notes in the margins of our already well-worn copies :D

P.S. I am specifically NOT referring to proposed corrections to/gripes about the "Type" classification system for this thread (Type 1, Type 2, etc). I think that has been hashed out quite thoroughly in other threads and, like it or not, use it or not, doesn't look poised to change any time soon.

P.P.S. I will follow up below with a post of the kind of "correction" I am referring to, just in case anyone jumps in here before I have a chance to get it posted.

Well, for one, I would like to see an update of the types of stampings found on the backs of photos. I believe Henry (or someone) told me that this has already been done. After looking at far to many photos for my own good, I've seen a number of variations in AP, INS and UP stamps that could narrow the time window of use to one or two years. Of course the problem with that is not all the agencies/newsrooms had the most recent stamping and often used an older version for several years after it had been replaced.

A second topic that I think would be useful would be a more detailed history of RC paper and its processing. I believe that the general public initially had access to this type of paper in the late '60's and early '70's. But I have also seen and touched some photos from the middle to late 50's that have a similar feel and coated plastic texture leading me to believe that an early version of that type of paper (and the developing process) may have been available for commercial use earlier than its release to the general public.

And finally a more complete description of optical brightners (spelling?) and how accurate their presence or absence are in determining the relative age of a print.

Sure I can think of some more. I know you have left out the Type classification for now but, and please forgive me but I have to once again get this out of my system, I sure wish the approximately 2 years for the Type 1 would have been approximately 5 years.

[prewarsports]

Almost all the issues you are going to find stem at least partially from the type system. I really cant think of a single "mistake" or "error" with the book otherwise. It is a wonderful resource and like all ventures int unchartered territory, it has its flaws. However, the hobby is better for it, even if a new system for classifying photos is necessary at this point!

Rhys

[thecatspajamas]

Whoops, got called to dinner immediately after that last post, then baths and bedtime for the boys, and now I'm finally back.

Rhys, I agree with you completely that even if the "Type" system were to be scrapped completely, the other information in the book remains a wonderful resource. I hope it didn't sound like I was coming down on it. As Craig alluded though, there are a few minor details that could use some tweaking as more (much more) material has hit the market since the book was written and we can cast our collective gaze over many many more examples than were available to the writers at the time.

Okay, so here is an example of a little tweak like I was envisioning for this thread. On page 175, at the bottom left of the page, there is an example of a Wide World Photo stamping style which gives a date range of "Mid-1940's - 1954".

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll13/thecatspajamas99/L-/25/WWP.jpg

While working with a collection that had a lot of WWP examples in it recently, I came across several examples with that stamp style that dated as late as 1959. So I made a note in my copy of the book for future reference.

Examples:

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll13/thecatspajamas99/L-/23/X00878_2.jpg
http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll13/thecatspajamas99/L-/23/X00878_3.jpg
http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll13/thecatspajamas99/L-/23/X00899_1.jpg
http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll13/thecatspajamas99/L-/23/X00899_3.jpg
http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll13/thecatspajamas99/L-/23/X00912_2.jpg
http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll13/thecatspajamas99/L-/23/X00912_3.jpg

[Lordstan]

Lance,
The book and system have been debated ad nauseam, but I think your question is awesome.

Like Craig, I think the Type 1 category should be expanded to 5yrs as well. I also think a Type 5 category for unclassifiable should be added. It would have subcategories of original neg or copy, so Type Va and Vb. This would allow pictures that appear to be printed from the original negative, but have not other time defining marks to be placed reasonably well.

Considering the volume of photos you and Rhys handle, I'll let you two add to the knowledge base regarding the specific stamps.

[r2678]

Lance - I don't have either of the books mentioned nor have I studied news service photographs. With that said, and strictly from the photos you show, while the WWP styles my be the same or similar, they are different. Take a look at the example from page 175 and the three later photos you posted. Look at where the word NOTICE is positioned in relation to the words below it, most noticeable the N in NOTICE to "is" in the sentence below. Also look at the ending of the last word in the copy, pictures, and how it is positioned to the D in WORLD. The stamp used in the three examples you use are different than the "mid 1940-s - 1954" stamp. I don't know if this means you have discovered a new stamp, a variety of an older stamp, or...?

[thecatspajamas]

John,
Huh. What do you know. Clearly, you're right, and this is going to be a little tougher than I originally thought. I guess this is one of the slight variations like Craig was referring to that is similar to the one in the book, but just different enough to refine the date range. So I wonder if this was perhaps 1955-1959? I'll have to look for more exemplars to test...

[D. Bergin]

Whoops, got called to dinner immediately after that last post, then baths and bedtime for the boys, and now I'm finally back.

Rhys, I agree with you completely that even if the "Type" system were to be scrapped completely, the other information in the book remains a wonderful resource. I hope it didn't sound like I was coming down on it. As Craig alluded though, there are a few minor details that could use some tweaking as more (much more) material has hit the market since the book was written and we can cast our collective gaze over many many more examples than were available to the writers at the time.

Okay, so here is an example of a little tweak like I was envisioning for this thread. On page 175, at the bottom left of the page, there is an example of a Wide World Photo stamping style which gives a date range of "Mid-1940's - 1954".

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll13/thecatspajamas99/L-/25/WWP.jpg

While working with a collection that had a lot of WWP examples in it recently, I came across several examples with that stamp style that dated as late as 1959. So I made a note in my copy of the book for future reference.

Examples:

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll13/thecatspajamas99/L-/23/X00878_2.jpg
http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll13/thecatspajamas99/L-/23/X00878_3.jpg
http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll13/thecatspajamas99/L-/23/X00899_1.jpg
http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll13/thecatspajamas99/L-/23/X00899_3.jpg
http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll13/thecatspajamas99/L-/23/X00912_2.jpg
http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll13/thecatspajamas99/L-/23/X00912_3.jpg


The font on the newer ones you showed seems different. Check the design of the "W's".

[D. Bergin]

Lance - I don't have either of the books mentioned nor have I studied news service photographs. With that said, and strictly from the photos you show, while the WWP styles my be the same or similar, they are different. Take a look at the example from page 175 and the three later photos you posted. Look at where the word NOTICE is positioned in relation to the words below it, most noticeable the N in NOTICE to "is" in the sentence below. Also look at the ending of the last word in the copy, pictures, and how it is positioned to the D in WORLD. The stamp used in the three examples you use are different than the "mid 1940-s - 1954" stamp. I don't know if this means you have discovered a new stamp, a variety of an older stamp, or...?


Sorry, John beat me to it. I should have read further.

[bmarlowe1]

Here's a correction. This portrait of Matty claimed to be taken in 1910 (see page 90). He is wearing a unique to 1916 Giants uni.

[thecatspajamas]

Ha! Not quite what I was expecting, but good catch Mark. Duly noted.

[horzverti]

Here is an addition to the book. More specifically, an additional stamp to include with the two 1920s versions shown on bottom of page 144. The book shows the 1921-22 eagle design for the News stamp which includes the words "WHEN PUBLISHED PLEASE CREDIT" to the right of the eagle. The book defines the 1922-28 Newsreel stamp as not including the above words. Here is an example of the Newsreel stamp with the credit line included. Not a life changing discovery...I just wanted to share the info. Date stamp on back of news service stamp reads Jun 30 1922.

Please see attached pic.

Curt