Type II photos?

[71buc]

I noticed in Henry Yee’s most recent auction that he described some photos as “vintage originals” while others were described as Type 1 originals,” photograph has been authenticated by PSA/DNA as a TYPE I, period 1st generation exemplar” .

I could find only one photo that was listed as a Type II photo in it’s title. http://www.ebay.com/itm/TYPE-II-Phot...item3cc7560b8c

There were a number of pictures that were called 2nd Gen photos in the listing title and subsequently described as Type II photos in their description. http://www.ebay.com/itm/2nd-Gen-Phot...item3cc761255f. There were also photos that were called 2nd Gen photos and not described as Type II photos. http://www.ebay.com/itm/2nd-Gen-Phot...item3a75b0ede0

I recently purchased this 1947 Jackie Robinson picture and it arrived today. The paper slug and stamping identifies it as a ACME photo attributed to photographer Ed Jerry dated 10/05/1947. Based on it's attributes I THINK() this is a Type I photo.

Henry Yee sold the same image in his most recent auction (see below). He described it in the following manner.

AIRBORNE !
An AWESOME action image is featured in this Vintage 1947 ORIGINAL News Service Photo issued by United Press depicting Brooklyn Dodgers rookie Jackie Robinson causing havoc on the base paths. New York Yankees shortstop Phil Rizzuto is captured by the cameras suspended in midair as Robinson slides in safely. Original press stamp on the reverse of this 7" x 9" photo. Just a terrific action shot taken during the World Series - frozen in time ! http://www.ebay.com/itm/1947-Origina...item3cc75609ec

The United Press Association on the reverse was used between 1955-1957 (see page 167 of A Portrait of Baseball Photography). Since this image was taken during the 1947 World Series wouldn’t it be classified as a Type II photo?

Are Type II photos now classified as vintage originals or are they called 2nd Gen photos? The classification of photos based on their stamping is confusing enough without changing the definition of the Type II classification. I love collecting photos but just when I think I have an understanding of their classification...

Perhaps one of the more knowledgeable and advanced photo collectors like Jimmy (K.O.C.) can shed some light on this?

[bcbgcbrcb]

Mike:

The way that I understand it, the Type II photo was produced from the original negative and thus classified as original, not a second generation or later photograph. Based on the stampings on the back, paper stock, etc. though, it is considered to have been produced more than two years after the actual photo was taken.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by 71buc

I noticed in Henry Yee’s most recent auction that he described some photos as “vintage originals” while others were described as Type 1 originals,” photograph has been authenticated by PSA/DNA as a TYPE I, period 1st generation exemplar” .

I could find only one photo that was listed as a Type II photo in it’s title. http://www.ebay.com/itm/TYPE-II-Phot...item3cc7560b8c

There were a number of pictures that were called 2nd Gen photos in the listing title and subsequently described as Type II photos in their description. http://www.ebay.com/itm/2nd-Gen-Phot...item3cc761255f. There were also photos that were called 2nd Gen photos and not described as Type II photos. http://www.ebay.com/itm/2nd-Gen-Phot...item3a75b0ede0

I recently purchased this 1947 Jackie Robinson picture and it arrived today. The paper slug and stamping identifies it as a ACME photo attributed to photographer Ed Jerry dated 10/05/1947. Based on it's attributes I THINK() this is a Type I photo.

Henry Yee sold the same image in his most recent auction (see below). He described it in the following manner.

AIRBORNE !
An AWESOME action image is featured in this Vintage 1947 ORIGINAL News Service Photo issued by United Press depicting Brooklyn Dodgers rookie Jackie Robinson causing havoc on the base paths. New York Yankees shortstop Phil Rizzuto is captured by the cameras suspended in midair as Robinson slides in safely. Original press stamp on the reverse of this 7" x 9" photo. Just a terrific action shot taken during the World Series - frozen in time ! http://www.ebay.com/itm/1947-Origina...item3cc75609ec

The United Press Association on the reverse was used between 1955-1957 (see page 167 of A Portrait of Baseball Photography). Since this image was taken during the 1947 World Series wouldn’t it be classified as a Type II photo?

Are Type II photos now classified as vintage originals or are they called 2nd Gen photos? The classification of photos based on their stamping is confusing enough without changing the definition of the Type II classification. I love collecting photos but just when I think I have an understanding of their classification...

Perhaps one of the more knowledgeable and advanced photo collectors like Jimmy (K.O.C.) can shed some light on this?

I spoke to Henry a few minutes ago and he said that United Press was a parent of Acme and N.E.A. (Newspaper Enterprise Association), they were all under the same umbrella. Both stamps are correct and both photos were issued in 1947 as the paper composition is identical. The book he, Marshall and Khyber Oser wrote is a bit outdated and ideally he would love to put together a new one. I know he mentioned to me once that he was looking for a publisher. Henry said if you have any further questions, you can contact him directly at hyee@mindspring.com. I have always found him to be friendly and helpful - a bit slow to respond sometimes as he always seems to be traveling but he does eventually get back to you every time.
Ben

[71buc]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Mike:

The way that I understand it, the Type II photo was produced from the original negative and thus classified as original, not a second generation or later photograph. Based on the stampings on the back, paper stock, etc. though, it is considered to have been produced more than two years after the actual photo was taken.

That was my understanding as well. It was suggested by another board member that I ask Mr. Yee directly. I emailed him through eBay seeking clarification. Lately photos are my favorite part of the hobby. I have tried to educate myself but I seem to be perpetually confused.

[71buc]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

I spoke to Henry a few minutes ago and he said that United Press was a parent of Acme and N.E.A. (Newspaper Enterprise Association), they were all under the same umbrella. Both stamps are correct and both photos were issued in 1947 as the paper composition is identical. The book he, Marshall and Khyber Oser wrote is a bit outdated and ideally he would love to put together a new one. I know he mentioned to me once that he was looking for a publisher. Henry said if you have any further questions, you can contact him directly at hyee@mindspring.com. I have always found him to be friendly and helpful - a bit slow to respond sometimes as he always seems to be traveling but he does eventually get back to you every time.
Ben

Thanks I appreciate the feedback and look forward to a second edition of his book.

[drc]

Vintage original means type I.

Type IIs aren't originals, as originals are type Is.

[ibuysportsephemera]

FWIW, I like yours better Mike. My favorite photos are the ones with original captions.

Jeff

[71buc]

Originally Posted by drc

Vintage original means type I.

Type IIs aren't originals, as originals are type Is.

I have no problem with that definition. However, I have frequently been relying on stamping styles of issuers to make that determination when looking at photos. It seems that this is not a completely accurate approach. I am learning that there are many other variables needing consideration when determining if a photo is an original. I lack the expertise to consider those variables. How many collectors actually have that level of knowledge. Mr. Yee sent me his contact information. I have been impressed with his work and hear great things about him from many. As a photo collector i look forward to talking to him.

[drc]

Yours had the date printed on it, so you were safe with yours.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by 71buc

I have no problem with that definition. However, I have frequently been relying on stamping styles of issuers to make that determination when looking at photos. It seems that this is not a completely accurate approach. I am learning that there are many other variables needing consideration when determining if a photo is an original. I lack the expertise to consider those variables. How many collectors actually have that level of knowledge. Mr. Yee sent me his contact information. I have been impressed with his work and hear great things about him from many. As a photo collector i look forward to talking to him.

Correct... the only way that the approach exists is because of Henry's countless hours of research which is always growing(hence the need for a second volume). If fact, there are many so called experts that have adopted his work/classifications who rely on it too(and don't admit it).
The stamps are one variable like you said. Others include: Paper fibers, indicators under a black light, image under a loop, inks, knowledge of other type 1s/data base/exemplars(to name a few).
There are also ways to tell if there have been fake stamps applied(and believe me, there are more forgeries every day). You can imagine that it would be relatively easy for someone to make a rubber stamp to look like one in Henry's book, put the photo on ebay and prey on people who only look for that. It would be PARTICULARLY easy for a crook to simply put a fake date stamp on the back.
I also see a lot of TYPE 1 classifications being thrown around by sellers on ebay as well as other "major" authenticating companies that are just flat out wrong(NOT EVEN CLOSE).
As in...labeling a 1930s image that was produced on a dupe negative in the 70s a TYPE 1. I have one of those "expert's" slabs in hand.

Originally Posted by drc

Yours had the date printed on it, so you were safe with yours.

I would say Henry's is good if he says it is. I would take his word for it over a picture of a photo with a date stamp any day of the week. Besides, he said both were good.

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Correct... the only way that the approach exists is because of Henry's countless hours of research which is always growing(hence the need for a second volume). If fact, there are many so called experts that have adopted his work/classifications who rely on it too(and don't admit it).
The stamps are one variable like you said. Others include: Paper fibers, indicators under a black light, image under a loop, inks, knowledge of other type 1s/data base/exemplars(to name a few).
There are also ways to tell if there have been fake stamps applied(and believe me, there are more forgeries every day). You can imagine that it would be relatively easy for someone to make a rubber stamp to look like one in Henry's book, put the photo on ebay and prey on people who only look for that. It would be PARTICULARLY easy to put a fake date stamp.
I also see a lot of TYPE 1 classifications being thrown around by sellers on ebay as well as other "major" authenticating companies that are just flat out wrong(NOT EVEN CLOSE).
As in...labeling a 1930s image that was produced on a dupe negative in the 70s a TYPE 1. I have one of those "expert's" slabs in hand.



I would say Henry's is good if he says it is. I would take his word for it over a picture of a photo with a date stamp any day of the week.

Ben is absolutely correct. This is a constantly evolving segment of the hobby with new information being added virtually every week. Most of this new information regarding stamping varieties, agency variables, individual photographer vagaries and time windows, etc. comes largely from three sources.

First, is the enormous number of vintage photographs now reaching the market from the Roger's acquisitions. Second, the increased interest from collectors regarding this subject matter and their attempts to educate themselves about it. Third, the remarkable body of scientific scrutiny regarding all aspects of photo identification and classification over the last 20 years or so by Henry and his colleagues as well as his auctions which afford collectors the opportunity to see all of the important information that appears on the backs of photos.

As little as 15 years ago virtually every vintage photo was simply described (usually incorrectly) as a "wire" or "press" photo. We have come a long way and, in my opinion, have Henry (and some others) to thank for this new interest and appreciation of vintage sports photography.

Craig

[repsher]

I'm confused.. Are both photos Type 1's? I need that 2nd edition, I can't even find the 1st (for a reasonable price). I'd love to be able to get an electronic version.

Ryan

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by repsher

I'm confused.. Are both photos Type 1's? I need that 2nd edition, I can't even find the 1st (for a reasonable price). I'd love to be able to get an electronic version.

Ryan

Please see my response I posted below from Henry. Also, I agree.. an electronic version would rule but who then would pay for all the hours putting it together? You can find them on ebay every now and again relatively inexpensive. It is by far the best resource for baseball photography so I would pick one up if you are serious in collecting photos even if you have to pay a premium. I think I paid 30-40 bucks for the last one I bought(other rone was too worn).

[Hankphenom]

The second photo is a Type II, according to Henry's book, which has that stamping as dating from 1955-57.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

The second photo is a Type II, according to Henry's book, which has that stamping as dating from 1955-57.

Again.. Read My message with Henry's response within this thread. They are both type 1s

[drc]

How can they both by type Is if only one has typing on it?

[drc]

(That was a joke by the way.)

[thecatspajamas]

I think the most important thing to do before diving into serious photo collecting is to learn what goes into the terminology used and the methodology used to determine a photo's "Type," whether you choose to use the term "Type" or not. In the same way that you don't learn algebra just by looking at the answer key, or learn history by staring at a list of events with dates beside them, it would be quite difficult to learn to accurately analyze a photo just by reading the seller's description.

For one thing, sellers' descriptions are often wrong, or misleading (or both), as the sellers' primary objective is not always to educate the buyer. In no way am I including Henry Yee in that group, as his descriptions are typically accurate to a fault. But there are plenty of sellers (including auction houses) that make liberal use of the terms "original," "Type 1," "wire photo," etc when a knowledgable buyer can look at the scans provided and arrive at a far more precise (and accurate) judgement of the photo without being able to physically examine it.

I would love to see a second edition of Fogel and Yee's book if for no other reason than to see more copies of it out there, available and being used. An expanded and refined catalog of stamping styles would also be helpful, but I wouldn't expect any radical changes to the "Type" classification system to be put forth.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

I think the most important thing to do before diving into serious photo collecting is to learn what goes into the terminology used and the methodology used to determine a photo's "Type," whether you choose to use the term "Type" or not. In the same way that you don't learn algebra just by looking at the answer key, or learn history by staring at a list of events with dates beside them, it would be quite difficult to learn to accurately analyze a photo just by reading the seller's description.

For one thing, sellers' descriptions are often wrong, or misleading (or both), as the sellers' primary objective is not always to educate the buyer. In no way am I including Henry Yee in that group, as his descriptions are typically accurate to a fault. But there are plenty of sellers (including auction houses) that make liberal use of the terms "original," "Type 1," "wire photo," etc when a knowledgable buyer can look at the scans provided and arrive at a far more precise (and accurate) judgement of the photo without being able to physically examine it.

I would love to see a second edition of Fogel and Yee's book if for no other reason than to see more copies of it out there, available and being used. An expanded and refined catalog of stamping styles would also be helpful, but I wouldn't expect any radical changes to the "Type" classification system to be put forth.

WELL STATED LANCE. I have made many many errors over the years. I have learned to be aware and avoid those who try to create confusion, muddy the waters as they are not doing it for your best interest(believe me). It is definitely no laughing matter. Ask for scans and guarantees that it passes psa as a type 1(if that is what you are going for). If they do not provide either, it is up to you in taking the risk. Sometimes you might hit a home run and sometimes you will lose. I have definitely experienced both. I will tell you, any auction house that doesn't show the backs of any of their photos.. I tend to question as there is no way you can even form your own opinion. Perhaps they want it that way...

[Hankphenom]

So Henry's book is wrong on the second stamping, which is listed as 1955-57, is that the story here?

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

So Henry's book is wrong on the second stamping, which is listed as 1955-57, is that the story here?

The story is Henry's book is outdated as it relates to this particular stamp. More has been learned since the book was published.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Ask for scans and guarantees that it passes psa as a type 1(if that is what you are going for). If they do not provide either, it is up to you in taking the risk. Sometimes you might hit a home run and sometimes you will lose. I have definitely experienced both. I will tell you, any auction house that doesn't show the backs of any of their photos.. I tend to question as there is no way you can even form your own opinion. Perhaps they want it that way...

I would even take it one step further and instead of asking whether PSA would pass it as a Type 1, ask for details about the photo that you know would either confirm or deny it as such. Many of the same sellers who don't know how to use terminology correctly also won't have a clue as to what PSA would verify as a photo's Type, but can provide the necessary details if asked appropriate questions. If they're being intentionally deceitful, they will see that you are fishing for the same details that they are trying to hide and will usually give the same squirmy responses.

Above all, just posting a scan of the back will save everyone some headaches

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

I would even take it one step further and instead of asking whether PSA would pass it as a Type 1, ask for details about the photo that you know would either confirm or deny it as such. Many of the same sellers who don't know how to use terminology correctly also won't have a clue as to what PSA would verify as a photo's Type, but can provide the necessary details if asked appropriate questions. If they're being intentionally deceitful, they will see that you are fishing for the same details that they are trying to hide and will usually give the same squirmy responses.

Above all, just posting a scan of the back will save everyone some headaches

Yes..but those who don't know what questions to ask and/or new in photos might benefit from the simple psa question. Again, if that is what is important to them. Agree though.. many sellers would not have a clue especially on ebay(but major auctions houses would). Also, ebay sellers might not put the scans on the back simply because it costs more money and would be more than willing to provide a scan if requested. It is the ones that will not that you might want to stay away from These points are probably pretty obvious to the board members as most everyone here has been to the rodeo before.

[ukkilla05]

Hey Guys!! I am new to this forum and wanted to see what you thought about all these photos being sold recently. Since this industry is in its infancy, do you think these media photos will be extremely valuable in the future, like baseball cards? If so, do you think a "price guide" will be produced, eg by Henry Yee?

Also, have any of you every purchased any photos and negative off of EBAY?
As far as type of photos go, does it personally matter if an item is a type 1 or a type 3 (wire photo). And finally, how many type 3 (wire photos) of a specific shot/scene do you think exist, 5, 10, 25?

Hope to hear what you think!


Thanks,
D

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by ukkilla05

Hey Guys!! I am new to this forum and wanted to see what you thought about all these photos being sold recently. Since this industry is in its infancy, do you think these media photos will be extremely valuable in the future, like baseball cards? If so, do you think a "price guide" will be produced, eg by Henry Yee?

Also, have any of you every purchased any photos and negative off of EBAY?
As far as type of photos go, does it personally matter if an item is a type 1 or a type 3 (wire photo). And finally, how many type 3 (wire photos) of a specific shot/scene do you think exist, 5, 10, 25?

Hope to hear what you think!


Thanks,
D

Welcome to the forum!

Although a price guide for vintage photos and perhaps negatives is always a possibility sometime down the road, the extraordinary number of different images would, I think, make such an undertaking a daunting task, even for Henry!

In terms of whether it personally matters whether a photo is a Type 1 or a Type 3, the answer is obviously dependent on each individual's tastes. Many collectors are solely attracted to the image and don't really care what classification the photo falls into.

On the other hand, several advanced collectors actively seek out Type 1 photos because of the improved quality of the print image and their rarity. Neither form of collecting is better or worse than the other - the bottom line is if you collect what you are passionate about and don't concern yourself about things like future value, you will always be a happy camper.

Most Type 1 photos were taken by staff or associated photographers for the major News Agencies (Acme, INP, AP, United Press and UPI, etc.). When newspapers across America and in other countries wanted a particular image for a story they received a somewhat degraded copy of the original Type 1 transmitted over the phone lines. The same often occurred in other publications such as magazines, etc. where images from duplicate negatives were sometimes used.

In terms of corresponding numbers. Type 1 prints almost always exist in much smaller numbers compared to Type 3 or 4 and will usually cost much more. The precise ratio depends on the image and how many have survived. There are many images where no Type 1 prints have surfaced (in these cases a Type 3 print would be highly desirable and probably quite expensive). I would say for more common images something like one Type 1 and 10-15 Type 3 for the same image is probably not unreasonable.

Having said all this, you should also be aware that there are a number of really passionate (bordering on insane) collectors of vintage photos (many are members of this forum, unfortunately, myself included) - who literally will go to any extreme in their pursuit of a quality vintage print. As crazy as it sounds ,from all of my correspondence with fellow photo collectors , we would not have it any other way.

Hope some of this has been helpful.

Craig

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by Frozen in Time

Welcome to the forum!

Although a price guide for vintage photos and perhaps negatives is always a possibility sometime down the road, the extraordinary number of different images would, I think, make such an undertaking a daunting task, even for Henry!

In terms of whether it personally matters whether a photo is a Type 1 or a Type 3, the answer is obviously dependent on each individual's tastes. Many collectors are solely attracted to the image and don't really care what classification the photo falls into.

On the other hand, several advanced collectors actively seek out Type 1 photos because of the improved quality of the print image and their rarity. Neither form of collecting is better or worse than the other - the bottom line is if you collect what you are passionate about and don't concern yourself about things like future value, you will always be a happy camper.

Most Type 1 photos were taken by staff or associated photographers for the major News Agencies (Acme, INP, AP, United Press and UPI, etc.). When newspapers across America and in other countries wanted a particular image for a story they received a somewhat degraded copy of the original Type 1 transmitted over the phone lines. The same often occurred in other publications such as magazines, etc. where images from duplicate negatives were sometimes used.

In terms of corresponding numbers. Type 1 prints almost always exist in much smaller numbers compared to Type 3 or 4 and will usually cost much more. The precise ratio depends on the image and how many have survived. There are many images where no Type 1 prints have surfaced (in these cases a Type 3 print would be highly desirable and probably quite expensive). I would say for more common images something like one Type 1 and 10-15 Type 3 for the same image is probably not unreasonable.

Having said all this, you should also be aware that there are a number of really passionate (bordering on insane) collectors of vintage photos (many are members of this forum, unfortunately, myself included) - who literally will go to any extreme in their pursuit of a quality vintage print. As crazy as it sounds ,from all of my correspondence with fellow photo collectors , we would not have it any other way.

Hope some of this has been helpful.

Craig

Well said Craig.
It's too bad I am in the fraternity as well.

[71buc]

Originally Posted by ukkilla05

Hey Guys!! I am new to this forum and wanted to see what you thought about all these photos being sold recently. Since this industry is in its infancy, do you think these media photos will be extremely valuable in the future, like baseball cards? If so, do you think a "price guide" will be produced, eg by Henry Yee?

Also, have any of you every purchased any photos and negative off of EBAY?
As far as type of photos go, does it personally matter if an item is a type 1 or a type 3 (wire photo). And finally, how many type 3 (wire photos) of a specific shot/scene do you think exist, 5, 10, 25?

Hope to hear what you think!


Thanks,
D

I am relatively new to this section of the hobby. I collect all things pertaining to members of the MLB HOF. That being said I must admit that for the past year 80% of my purchases have been photos. I believe you will find that photo collecting shares many of the same elements as other baseball collectibles. Players such as Cobb, Ruth, Gehrig, Mantle, Williams and DiMaggio command top dollar. Works by the major photographers Conlon, Bain, Thompson and their ilk are highly sought after and out of my fiscal reach.

That being said what I enjoy the most is the hunt. I have found that if you are diligent you can build a nice collection without a second mortgage. Due to the sheer volume of vintage News Service photos coupled with the lack of knowledge by some sellers you can find some nice examples very cheaply. As an example, I have been looking to buy a nice Mickey Mantle photo for my collection but did not want to pay a fortune. To accomplish this I looked up the opening day match ups between all teams and the Yankees for each season that Mantle played. I used phrases such as Yankees Senators 1955 photo. My rationale was that opening day is highly photographed and occasionally there are sellers who don't recognize the players depicted if the photo does not have a caption attached to the back. This was a lot of work but fun nonetheless. Last week the words "Yankees vs Orioles 1959 photo" yielded a very attractive 8x10 picture of Mantle sliding into third base taken from an unusual angle. The seller did not include his name in the description as a result I paid $14.99.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/BS-PHOTO-aev...item3cc74a6301

I too don't believe that there will ever be a price guide or catalog of photos for the same reasons addressed by Craig. I am also very pleased by that. Like other collectors I prefer Type 1 vintage originals but learning to consistently identify them has been confusing. The book A Portrait of Baseball Photography was essential but apparently is now out dated. I hope that Mr. Yee is able to publish his recent findings soon. In the meantime you will find many advanced and knowledgeable friendly collectors here who are more than willing to share their insight.

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by 71buc

I am relatively new to this section of the hobby. I collect all things pertaining to members of the MLB HOF. That being said I must admit that for the past year 80% of my purchases have been photos. I believe you will find that photo collecting shares many of the same elements as other baseball collectibles. Players such as Cobb, Ruth, Gehrig, Mantle, Williams and DiMaggio command top dollar. Works by the major photographers Conlon, Bain, Thompson and their ilk are highly sought after and out of my fiscal reach.

That being said what I enjoy the most is the hunt. I have found that if you are diligent you can build a nice collection without a second mortgage. Due to the sheer volume of vintage News Service photos coupled with the lack of knowledge by some sellers you can find some nice examples very cheaply. As an example, I have been looking to buy a nice Mickey Mantle photo for my collection but did not want to pay a fortune. To accomplish this I looked up the opening day match ups between all teams and the Yankees for each season that Mantle played. I used phrases such as Yankees Senators 1955 photo. My rationale was that opening day is highly photographed and occasionally there are sellers who don't recognize the players depicted if the photo does not have a caption attached to the back. This was a lot of work but fun nonetheless. Last week the words "Yankees vs Orioles 1959 photo" yielded a very attractive 8x10 picture of Mantle sliding into third base taken from an unusual angle. The seller did not include his name in the description as a result I paid $14.99.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/BS-PHOTO-aev...item3cc74a6301

I too don't believe that there will ever be a price guide or catalog of photos for the same reasons addressed by Craig. I am also very pleased by that. Like other collectors I prefer Type 1 vintage originals but learning to consistently identify them has been confusing. The book A Portrait of Baseball Photography was essential but apparently is now out dated. I hope that Mr. Yee is able to publish his recent findings soon. In the meantime you will find many advanced and knowledgeable friendly collectors here who are more than willing to share their insight.

I fully agree Mike, often the most rewarding finds are those that bear the fruit of hard work and, in this particular case, rather ingenious criteria for the search.

20 or 25 years ago there were only a handful of collectors who even found vintage photos to be interesting. Whereas that number has expanded significantly in recent years, even more surprising has been the inclusion of collectors such as yourself whose primary interests appear to lie in other segments of the hobby but now (because of the increased exposure?) have also been captured by these remarkable vintage images frozen in time.

I just think its great!!!

By the way, the Mantle photo is super and highlighted by both the unusual angle from which it was taken as well as the relatively large image of Mickey,especially for an action shot. Well done!!!!!

Craig

[Runscott]

• learn what goes into the terminology used and the methodology used to determine a photo's "Type," whether you choose to use the term "Type" or not.
• sellers' descriptions are often wrong, or misleading (or both), as the sellers' primary objective is not always to educate the buyer.
• a knowledgable buyer can look at the scans provided and arrive at a far more precise (and accurate) judgement of the photo without being able to physically examine it.

Great points, Lance.

Other posts in this thread have mentioned buyers demanding that a photo they win be backed by a guarantee that it pass PSA's 'type I' requirements. I understand such reasoning, but can't imagine sending a photo to a grading company to be hidden in a plastic case. Ask for a backscan, make a purchase decision, send it back if you think there was fraud involved.

I personally have never even opened a copy of Yee's book, but I'm glad to hear everyone else has one - now when I sell my collection, I won't have to worry about identifying each photo by 'type', as you guys can simply look at my super-clear scans and do all that yourselves.

[drc]

I've never been a fan of the type I, type II, etc classification, but do think Yee's book is good. Even if one plans to never adopt or use the PSA type system, the book has a lot of practical information. The type I et al is just the book's idiosyncratic way of classifying photo types.

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by drc

I've never been a fan of the type I, type II, etc classification, but do think Yee's book is good. Even if one plans to never adopt or use the PSA type system, the book has a lot of practical information. The type I et al is just the book's idiosyncratic way of classifying photo types.

The first publication I ever purchased regarding vintage photos was David's "News Service Photographs" which I found to be very helpful in both understanding the general process as well as introducing specific types of photos, paper captions, stampings, etc. His subsequent online (and paper back) offerings have continued to inform.

The second publication I got was the Fogel, Oser and Yee Guide which expanded the topics originally covered by David and provided even more examples of stampings, photographic images, etc.

Although some may not have fully embraced the classification of four Types of photographs introduced in this guide (there are clearly shortcomings in certain instances), I have found it to be the best attempt yet to define photographic origin (and potential value) amongst the myriad of diverse photos that comprise the current marketplace.

One of the joys that I get from collecting (aside from the items themselves) is the education and historical significance associated with each piece that I acquire. Sometimes obtaining this information requires a considerable amount of time and effort (which I embrace) but when a well-researched guide can provide a significant body of information on specific topics I can only view it as a plus for collectors.

One of the essential features in collecting anything is a cogent base of related information and for me the above mentioned guides and publications have certainly enhanced my abilities to more fully understand, appreciate and evaluate vintage photos.

Craig

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Frozen in Time

The first publication I ever purchased regarding vintage photos was David's "News Service Photographs" which I found to be very helpful in both understanding the general process as well as introducing specific types of photos, paper captions, stampings, etc. His subsequent online (and paper back) offerings have continued to inform.

The second publication I got was the Fogel, Oser and Yee Guide which expanded the topics originally covered by David and provided even more examples of stampings, photographic images, etc.

Although some may not have fully embraced the classification of four Types of photographs introduced in this guide (there are clearly shortcomings in certain instances), I have found it to be the best attempt yet to define photographic origin (and potential value) amongst the myriad of diverse photos that comprise the current marketplace.

One of the joys that I get from collecting (aside from the items themselves) is the education and historical significance associated with each piece that I acquire. Sometimes obtaining this information requires a considerable amount of time and effort (which I embrace) but when a well-researched guide can provide a significant body of information on specific topics I can only view it as a plus for collectors.

One of the essential features in collecting anything is a cogent base of related information and for me the above mentioned guides and publications have certainly enhanced my abilities to more fully understand, appreciate and evaluate vintage photos.

Craig

Craig, my education on photos also began with David's books, followed by asking LOTS of questions - I was quite a pest. I followed this up by grabbing inexpensive photos regularly, over a 10+ year period. Nothing beats personally examining many examples of photos, then asking pertinent questions. I have generally purchased photos based on whether or not they would be worth that much as a piece of art, hanging on my wall. With that in mind, the 'Type' classification system didn't mean much. I still generally go for famous photographers (with stamps or signatures), so pricing them is not difficult. Outside of Bain, most such photos are Type I's, so again, it just doesn't matter.

I used to also be able to pick up Type I's of famous players, but with non-famous-photographer stamps. Such photos were cheap ten years ago, but now the 'Type I' thing has caused them to go up in price. For instance, a nice original Babe Ruth (or any famous player for that matter), that was not taken by Thompson, Conlon, Frances Burke, Van Oeyen, etc., could be had for nothing. Not so anymore. Wish I had saved all of mine.

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Craig, my education on photos also began with David's books, followed by asking LOTS of questions - I was quite a pest. I followed this up by grabbing inexpensive photos regularly, over a 10+ year period. Nothing beats personally examining many examples of photos, then asking pertinent questions. I have generally purchased photos based on whether or not they would be worth that much as a piece of art, hanging on my wall. With that in mind, the 'Type' classification system didn't mean much. I still generally go for famous photographers (with stamps or signatures), so pricing them is not difficult. Outside of Bain, most such photos are Type I's, so again, it just doesn't matter.

I used to also be able to pick up Type I's of famous players, but with non-famous-photographer stamps. Such photos were cheap ten years ago, but now the 'Type I' thing has caused them to go up in price. For instance, a nice original Babe Ruth (or any famous player for that matter), that was not taken by Thompson, Conlon, Frances Burke, Van Oeyen, etc., could be had for nothing. Not so anymore. Wish I had saved all of mine.

Scott, I think we are more or less on the same page and I completely understand your position with regard to Type classifications. I'm certain that from the perspective of many dealers, I too was a "pest" trying to understand as much as I could about individual photos - often to the point that some of them, in an attempt to get rid of me and service other customers, would finally say "I think so and so has some nice photos in that booth across the room". And I could not agree more about holding a photo in your hand - the feel, texture, smell, condition of the surface emulsion and all the info on the back -- just an invaluable experience.

I do remember early on, and before I truly understood their significance, that I did (luckily) gravitate towards images that were very clear and backs that had a brown paper caption and/or a date stamp. In addition, compared to yourself and several others on this forum, I probably also suffered to some degree by the narrow focus of my collecting interests. Rather than the broad array of subject matter (and photographers) that you have mentioned I only focused on Mantle - and in more recent years only on vintage, first generation photos of the Mick from 1949-1951

Nonetheless, I continue to find the search and occasional find of such images a rewarding experience. Even in this rather limited area I have been fortunate to acquire some fantastic images of Mickey taken by some pretty good post-war photographers, including: Wm. Greene, George Dorill, Mastro, E. Sisto, Anthony Bernato, Emmons, Scharfman, Olen, Wingfield, Osvaldo Salas, Bill Jacobellis, Barney Stein, Wingfield and Ossie Sweet.

The gist of all my posting on this forum is certainly not to criticize or diminish in any way others perspectives or views but rather to try to share some of my own limited experiences in this area of the hobby that I am so passionate about.

The ability to view so many of the photos posted from other established collectors and hear their comments and views is the primary reason that I joined this forum and why I enjoy it so much.

Craig

[thecatspajamas]

On the subject of publications, are there others that you guys have found helpful in relation to photos? I keep touting Fogel/Yee's book primarily because of the catalog of back stamp styles which I have found particularly useful, but am wondering if there may be others I am overlooking.

I did recently picked up David's "Guide To Sports Photographs" (is that the same one you referred to, Craig?) and "Forensic Light: A Beginner's Guide" but haven't had opportunity to dig into them yet.

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

On the subject of publications, are there others that you guys have found helpful in relation to photos? I keep touting Fogel/Yee's book primarily because of the catalog of back stamp styles which I have found particularly useful, but am wondering if there may be others I am overlooking.

I did recently picked up David's "Guide To Sports Photographs" (is that the same one you referred to, Craig?) and "Forensic Light: A Beginner's Guide" but haven't had opportunity to dig into them yet.

Hi Lance,

I believe that the "Guide to Sports Photographs" is a later and more extensive treatment on the subject compared to the earlier pamphlet that I mentioned by David. That and the Fogel et al. guides are the two best that I have found although I am sure that many other more specific books exist on the newspaper printing and wirephoto process as well as more detailed surveys on the photographic image etc.

I too would like to hear from others on the forum if any other useful guides exist relating to the evaluation of baseball vintage photos.

Craig

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

On the subject of publications, are there others that you guys have found helpful in relation to photos? I keep touting Fogel/Yee's book primarily because of the catalog of back stamp styles which I have found particularly useful, but am wondering if there may be others I am overlooking.

I did recently picked up David's "Guide To Sports Photographs" (is that the same one you referred to, Craig?) and "Forensic Light: A Beginner's Guide" but haven't had opportunity to dig into them yet.

All I ever needed was David's series of books, accompanied by exchanges with him on the old forums beginning ten or so years ago, then conversations over the years and my own observations. I'm certain that Yee has produced something quite useful to those who need that sort of stuff, as I know many people who have the book and they speak very highly of it. I'm told that t's primary usefulness to those who are new to the hobby is it's backstamp identification. From conversations I've had with photo collectors on the board recently, I'm sure that's all true, as they've brought up nuances of backstamps from Yee's book that I was unaware of, and would never have bothered memorizing or writing down. Somehow I've survived without it, but perhaps I'm just blissfully unaware. I do have one Ruth photo that is slabbed, but will trim off the labeling now that I've decided to make it 'permanent'.

In any case, Henry and I had many conversations back in his early days. While I disagreed with his early methods, he was pleasant and generally willing to talk.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

On the subject of publications, are there others that you guys have found helpful in relation to photos? I keep touting Fogel/Yee's book primarily because of the catalog of back stamp styles which I have found particularly useful, but am wondering if there may be others I am overlooking.

I did recently picked up David's "Guide To Sports Photographs" (is that the same one you referred to, Craig?) and "Forensic Light: A Beginner's Guide" but haven't had opportunity to dig into them yet.

Lance,

Fogel/Yee is by far the best resource that is out there IMO so you definitely started in the right place. I also believe that is pre-dates all the other books mentioned. It was/is the groundbreaking book in baseball photography.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Lance,

Fogel/Yee is by far the best resource that is out there IMO so you definitely started in the right place. I also believe that is pre-dates all the other books mentioned. It was/is the groundbreaking book in baseball photography.

That's incorrect - David (Cycleback) was publishing books about photography while Henry was still cutting his ..... teeth

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Runscott

That's incorrect - David (Cycleback) was publishing books about photography while Henry was still cutting his ..... teeth

It is clear that you have a personal isssue with Henry. This, coupled with the fact you have not even opened his book makes your opinion on this matter a wee bit jaded.. but ok

[ibuysportsephemera]

The first publication on Sports Photography that I was ever aware of was David's (Cycleback). Not stating one way or another who was first...both are great and a must for the collector of photographs.

Jeff

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by ibuysportsephemera

The first publication on Sports Photography that I was ever aware of was David's (Cycleback). Not stating one way or another who was first...both are great and a must for the collector of photographs.

Jeff

Agreed in that anything one can read and learn from is good. Content is most important to me in a read as I assess its value.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

It is clear that you have a personal isssue with Henry. This, coupled with the fact you have not even opened his book makes your opinion on this matter a wee bit jaded.. but ok

My opinion that David's books came out before Henry's? Your logic is a bit flawed, Ben, but carry on.

edited to add: it's not an opinion, it's a fact

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Runscott

My opinion that David's books came out before Henry's? Your logic is a bit flawed, Ben, but carry on.

edited to add: it's not an opinion, it's a fact

Runscott.. look at the content... look at the different additions as it relates to the time frame of when "a portrait of baseball photography" came out. That is all I am going to say.. people can come to their own conclusions based on facts. You clearly have underlying issues with Henry. I am not going to degrade what David has done as it does take work to put a book together. I am sorry that I added to any negative comparison. I suggest you open a copy of "a portrait of baseball photography" as you would undoubtedly learn a lot.

ps: what does "cutting his...teeth " mean?

David, I have asked you before if you authenticate for Beckett with no response. Do you? If not, who does?

[drc]

Sorry, I don't read all posts, I'm not avoiding answering questions.

I don't authenticate at Beckett and never did. I was an advisor before, which meant I answered their pressing question and gave opinions on the occasional hard photo they emailed me. Last I knew Andy Broome was the head photograph guy. He also is their Pre-War baseball card specialist. All questions sent to me came through Mark Anderson who is the director of grading. Mark himself seems to be knowledgeable about photos, and I would guess he is in on the photo grading.

I originally went down to Dallas and gave a seminar or identifying photographs to the graders. They also had me write a series of photo articles for one of the magazines. Then retained me for a while to answer questions long distance.

But, no, I've never physically handled a photograph for Beckett.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by drc

Sorry, I don't read all posts, I'm not avoiding answering questions.

I don't authenticate at Beckett and never did. I was an advisor before, which meant I answered their pressing question and gave opinions on the occasional hard photo they emailed me. Last I knew Andy Broome was the head photograph guy. He also is their Pre-War baseball card specialist. All questions sent to me came through Mark Anderson who is the director of grading. Mark himself seems to be knowledgeable about photos, and I would guess he is in on the photo grading.

I originally went down to Dallas and gave a seminar or identifying photographs to the graders. They also had me write a series of photo articles for one of the magazines. Then retained me for a while to answer questions long distance.

But, no, I've never physically handled a photograph for Beckett.

David, thank you for your response. I am actually quite relieved that you are not the authenticator as their classifications are inconsistent at best. Many of the authenticated examples are so horrendously inaccurate that it appears it is done intentionally. I find it interesting that they have adopted YEE/FOGEL'S Classification system yet do not follow it.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Runscott.. look at the content... look at the different additions as it relates to the time frame of when "a portrait of baseball photography" came out. That is all I am going to say.. people can come to their own conclusions based on facts. You clearly have underlying issues with Henry. I am not going to degrade what David has done as it does take work to put a book together. I am sorry that I added to any negative comparison. I suggest you open a copy of "a portrait of baseball photography" as you would undoubtedly learn a lot.

I was reading David's books on photography long before Henry wrote a book. David has written many books over the years - they were not all published before Henry wrote his, but some of them were. I'm sure Henry learned quite a bit from David and his publications. I'm even more certain that Henry learned a lot by reading this forum and its predecessors.

I don't think you added any negative comparisons - you were just supporting Henry.

[repsher]

Thanks for mentioning David's book. I didn't know it was available and it's now sitting on my Ipad. The Yee/Fogel book still eludes me...For a decent price anyway.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I was reading David's books on photography long before Henry wrote a book. David has written many books over the years - they were not all published before Henry wrote his, but some of them were. I'm sure Henry learned quite a bit from David and his publications. I'm even more certain that Henry learned a lot by reading this forum and its predecessors.

I don't think you added any negative comparisons - you were just supporting Henry.

Actually, I am quite confident that these books had absolutely no bearing on "A Portrait of Baseball Photography".

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by repsher

Thanks for mentioning David's book. I didn't know it was available and it's now sitting on my Ipad.

Good to hear. I'll see about getting a copy on my Nook.