Wire photos

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>edacra</b><p><br />I'm wondering, what's the rule of thumb when identifying if a wire photo is first generation or even original? I know some of it has to do with the markings on the back, but I noticed a recent lot on Ebay where the typed print almost looked burnt in to the front of the print itself or worse, a reproduction of the glued on label. Here's one example: <br /><br /><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/1957-Wire-Photo-Ted-Williams-Safe-at-3rd-n-Detroit_W0QQitemZ290012736854QQihZ019QQcategoryZ50 129QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/1957-Wire-Photo-Ted-Williams-Safe-at-3rd-n-Detroit_W0QQitemZ290012736854QQihZ019QQcategoryZ50 129QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem</a><br /><br />That particular item isn't pre-war, but I've noticed the same issue on older press photos where the identification notes appear stamped on with that mimeographed looking print somehow.<br /><br />Are there any websites or guides that cover this stuff?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>joe</b><p>Not sure if this helps, but here are 2 examples of 1st generation. Funny thing is I have 4 different Detroit Tiger copies and 3 different photographers, Holcomb, Seiter, and MacGregor, all Detroit News, 3 are dated 1956, 1 is dated 1954. The Basketball is printed like the one you are looking at, 1975.<br /><br />Joe<br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1154705096.JPG"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1154705148.JPG"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1154705213.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p><a href="http://www.cycleback.com/sportsphotos.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.cycleback.com/sportsphotos.html</a><br /><br />edited to add comments on the book:<br />I bought David Cycleback's book on sports photographs about a month ago. There is a bunch of useful info that I will use as reference. I don't think it made me an expert by any means, but it was educating and shows a novice like me how much people do know about photos. It is definitely worth the price. Good job David!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>The Ted Williams is not first generation/original, but it was made in the year<br />the photo was shot (1957). When there's an 'in the image' caption like that, <br />the photo is as old as the date in the caption, but the photo is not first <br />generation. The original photo would literally have the paper caption pasted <br />across the photo, and the resulting wirephoto copy of it will only have an image<br />of the caption rather than the physical caption. You can find photos with<br />the physical caption still pasted on.<br /><br />Most Pre-1930 news service photos are first generation, as the wirephoto <br />process, which duplicates images, wasn't around. If it isn't first generation,<br />the image will likely be of at least somewhat lesser quality.<br /><br />A key for original versus later generation or wirephotocopy, is that the<br />original will have the clearest image, so will be aesthetically most pleasing.<br /><br />If the wirephoto is of a special event, ala Roger Maris' 61st home run, the <br />wirephoto will can have high value as it is a historical artifact.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>John S</b><p>David is the expert regarding photos on this board...take his advice and if you are really interested his books are a must have. Crop marks on a photo often (but not always) are an indicator that it is a first generation photo. Use your eyes, 10x or greater magnification (a dot pattern indicates a copy), and other clues like paper stock to determine a photo's generation. The photo below is a first generation Ernie Nevers from 1925 (International News Photos). A copy of this photo (or possibly this one) was used to make Nevers 1955 Topps All American card.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1154713701.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>When bidding in an online auction, like eBay, one advice I can tell you is<br />that is there's a good big scan of of the photo, the photo has vintage stamping<br />and the image in the scan is really sharp, clear and rich, that's consistant<br />with the photo being first generation original. If it's a copy or wirephoto,<br />the image will usually be of less detail and quality. This is not only for a 1925<br />photo, but a 1955 or 1965 photo of Mickey Mantle.<br /><br />The problem is that that eBay scans often are of lesser quality so you can't tell until<br />you get the photo in person. But a number of sellers provide high quality scans.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>edacra</b><p>Thanks David! (and everyone else who responded with examples too.) Much appreciated. I'll definely pick up that book if it looks like I'm really going to start buying these things.<br /><br />I think I'm still a bit hazy on the terminology as to what constitutes an "original" though. <br /><br />I get that a print made by the news agency who contracted the photographer should be stamped accordingly - indicating what we can call an "original" or first generation print made off the negative. <br /><br />But are there any other prints made by a news agency which can be properly called an "original"? <br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>An original is made from the original negative soon after the image is shot. Anything<br />that isn't made from the original negative or is made from the original years later is <br />not an original. These later generation images will often be of noticable lesser quality,<br />while the originals will often be crystal clear (thus, their higher value).<br /><br />If you know what stamps are old, that's half the battle as a collector. If you see a <br />Mickey Mantle photo with an ACME News Service, whether or not the image was made from<br />the original negative, you know the photo's vintage. ACME went out of business in the<br />1950s. Even in an only auction, you can see a stamp and be sure the photo's no modern<br />reprint. So once you know the stamps, life is a lot easier for the collector.<br /><br />If the ACME Mantle photo has a crystal clear image, you own an original. Vintage <br />stamp + crystal clear image = original.<br /><br />And if you get the photo and realize the Mantle image is a bit too muddy to be first<br />generation, the photo will still have value as it's vintage. As with baseball cards<br />the age itself of the photo has value.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>I hesitate to single out auctions, but Leland's has a whole big section<br />of news service photos, sport and non-sport. I like the 1929 Clara Bow<br />with Felix the Cat.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.lelands.com/App_Themes/Images/Auctions_Images/605/popups/42527.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>edacra</b><p>David, thanks again for that clarification.<br /><br />It's interesting to see an aspect of the hobby which isn't entirely formalized yet, at least in terms of pricing. I still see boxes of wirephotos selling for $1 each at flea markets right next to the dealers with the binders of better stuff, still priced a lot lower then those opening bids at Lelands. <br /><br />I've noticed a lot of these prints weren't of the highest quality, and look like they missed a few minutes of a good soak in a chemical bath during the rush processing. does that jive with your experience at all?<br /><br />Does your book cover the various stamps by chance?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>Common old news service stamps include ACME Newspictures,<br />International News Photos, Atlantic & Pacific, Keystone View,<br />Bain News Service (George Grantham Bain), United Press and <br />United Press Association. All of these companies went out<br />of business or changed their name 1950s or earlier, so their<br />stamps only appear on older photos. <br /><br />United Press International (UPI) is modern (late 1950s and after). <br />Associated Press has been around for a long, long time and <br />their stamp can appear on both old and new photos.<br /><br />Image quality is in the eye of the beholder, and I'm not about to <br />tell collectors what they are supposed to buy. Forgetting the issue<br />of first or second or fourth generation, what matters about the image is<br />how the image, including the clarity, appeals to you. If you like the <br />image, you like it. If you feel the image is too underdeveloped, you<br />don't need a photo historian to tell you about the image's quality.<br /><br />It's like with baseball cards. You don't have to be an SGC grader<br />or Bill Mastro to decide which baseball card appeals to you aestheticly.<br />A beginning collector might want some outside advice to determine age, <br />authenticity and value, but his opinion on the beauty of a set is as<br />valid as Mastro's.<br /><br />Amongst the best aesthetic education is look at a wide variety of photos,<br />decide what you like, what you don't, what is rare, what is common. To say,<br />"That's the sweetest Ted Williams photo I've seen," impies that you've seen<br />a number of Ted Williams photos before.