Recent Henry Yee eBay auction questions

[obcbeatle]

I recently received an email from Net54 or a Net54 member regarding the Henry Yee eBay auctions this week. I don't collect old photo's per se but took a peek at most of the photo's, photo slides and photo negatives in Yee's auction and was astounded at the quantity of nice photo's being auctioned, and also the prices being paid for these photo's! My questions are:

1) Is there a good online resource for better understanding the hobby of vintage baseball photo collecting? I saw the Fogel/Yee book on Amazon but it's over $40 dollars and I'm not sure I'm ready to fork over that amount yet since I'm just beginning my research into this area of collecting.

2) The prices I saw paid for some of Yee's slides and negatives seemed awfully high to me. Do/can buyers turn around and reproduce photo's for re-sale from these slides/negatives? It looked like most of the slides were originally from famous photographers. I'm just curious because I have an old slide projector and thought I would bid on a few slides only to find out that they were being bought at much higher prices than I expected.

3) Is vintage sports photo collecting increasing dramatically as a hobby? I saw an online PSA article that implied that it is, but PSA is in the business of trying to authenticate sports memoribilia. So I suppose it was a bit of a biased article.

I've been collecting baseball cards for many years and only have a couple vintage baseball photo's. I really like the old photo's, but I'm not sure I'm ready to add them to my collecting habit just yet ... thus all my questions. Any comments appreciated.Thanks!

[bcbgcbrcb]

I would definitely recommend shelling out the $40 or so and buying the book. This area of the hobby has certainly grown by leaps and bounds over the past few years. It will probably never be as popular as cards but the key is: how much more room for growth is there?

[Lordstan]

1) Is there a good online resource for better understanding the hobby of vintage baseball photo collecting? I saw the Fogel/Yee book on Amazon but it's over $40 dollars and I'm not sure I'm ready to fork over that amount yet since I'm just beginning my research into this area of collecting.

Fork over the money. This is one of the two best resources for understanding photographs. The other in an online? book written by our own Dr David Cycleback. Does anyone have the link? I can't find it.

2) The prices I saw paid for some of Yee's slides and negatives seemed awfully high to me. Do/can buyers turn around and reproduce photo's for re-sale from these slides/negatives? It looked like most of the slides were originally from famous photographers. I'm just curious because I have an old slide projector and thought I would bid on a few slides only to find out that they were being bought at much higher prices than I expected.

Within the photography category, negatives are a new field of interest, but it appears people certainly are interested. There is another thread speaking about image rights regarding negatives. If you search, it will answer your questions.

3) Is vintage sports photo collecting increasing dramatically as a hobby? I saw an online PSA article that implied that it is, but PSA is in the business of trying to authenticate sports memoribilia. So I suppose it was a bit of a biased article.

Recently this category of collectibles has shot up. They're visually attractive, easy to both store and display, and they can be very hard to get(especially if you're looking for a specific pose/subject).

[GKreindler]

If you're looking at getting into photos for investment purposes, then I agree with what Phil said - I just don't think that they're many (if any) things in the hobby that will unseat the popularity and collectibility of cards. I still feel that photos are still in their infancy stages in that regard, but with major auction houses and people like John Rogers thrusting them into the spotlight, I can imagine that more and more people will start to take that corner of the hobby more seriously. Whether or not that'll effect prices positively or negatively, it's really hard to say.

However, if you're into the whole thing just because you love the aesthetics of photography, then I think it's a great time to be getting into the medium.

Regardless, the $40 should DEFINITELY be spent on Henry and Marshall's book, as should the $20 for Cycleback's publication. Both have a wealth of knowledge that will inspire you. And I can say that without a doubt, this board is a perfect place for people to fuel that hunger for photography.

Enjoy!

Graig

[GKreindler]

...and Mark and I like echoing each other!

http://www.amazon.com/Judging-Authen.../dp/1257018965

[Lordstan]

Hey Now!
You're echoing me. echoing me. echoing me.

[collectbaseball]

Where can you even get it for $40? Every time I look for it, it's nearly a hundred bucks. I even asked Mr. Yee if he had any extra copies I could buy and he doesn't

[travrosty]

if you buy a photo, you cant turn around and reprint, sell copies because you dont own the copyright to do so, the photographer does, so unless you buy it with the reproduction rights from the photographer, it is for your own personal use only. now i suppose some people do anyway, but technically they are not allowed to sell prints.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by travrosty

if you buy a photo, you cant turn around and reprint, sell copies because you dont own the copyright to do so, the photographer does, so unless you buy it with the reproduction rights from the photographer, it is for your own personal use only. now i suppose some people do anyway, but technically they are not allowed to sell prints.

I'm pretty sure you can do anything you want with a pre 1923 image.

[obcbeatle]

Originally Posted by collectbaseball

Where can you even get it for $40? Every time I look for it, it's nearly a hundred bucks. I even asked Mr. Yee if he had any extra copies I could buy and he doesn't

Thanks for all the replies and info. The Fogel/Yee book was on Amazon (used) earlier today ... and now I see it's gone (I assume sold today). Anyway ... I'll keep an eye out for it again on Amazon or Abe books for hopefully < $50 ... I've a lot to learn about collecting baseball and sports photo's. In fact ... I'd like to collect photo's of popular movie and music stars from the 50's/60's too, but then I don't have very deep pockets ... so probably just a dream :-) I did just read about John Rogers and checked out his eBay store. Thanks again for the info!

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

I'm pretty sure you can do anything you want with a pre 1923 image.

That is my understanding as well, though I'm not sure how the whole thing with separate rights for the team logos and certain players' images would work in conjunction with that. Maybe free to use the image, but a separate fee to MLB and/or the player's estate would be required? I have no idea if that's actually the case, but would be interested to hear from anyone who does.

As for Yee/Fogel's book, I actually pick up extra copies of it whenever I see them reasonably priced. I don't normally push my product on the boards, but seems appropriate in this thread, sooo...

Right now, I have a spare copy in good used condition for $45 shipped. PM me if interested.

[prewarsports]

Also, feel free to ask ANY and ALL questions here. Some of us on here who have devoted literally thousands of hours to antique photography would love to help no matter how easy or difficult the question is. There are things that it took me years and years to learn and then something hits you after looking at like your one millionth photo that you could pass along to someone else in 2 seconds and save them the agony! Especially since the "Type 1-4" system has its flaws and while the book is wonderful, its not perfect and much has been learned since the publication as well. Let em fly!

Rhys

[billyb]

Here is a question to help us new Photo collectors:
Do you clean up your photos before selling, (removing crop marks)?
f you do, then should that information be included when selling?

Sorry to jump in into your thread OBC, but question seems appropriate for topic.

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by billyb

Here is a question to help us new Photo collectors:
Do you clean up your photos before selling, (removing crop marks)?
f you do, then should that information be included when selling?

Sorry to jump in into your thread OBC, but question seems appropriate for topic.

Let me jump in here for a moment. I agree (echo - feel like I'm back in the bathroom in the 60's singing Doo-Woop) much that has already been said. In regards to the Fogel et al. book - GET IT!!!! DAVID'S PUBLICATIONS ARE ALSO VERY HELPFUL!! As you begin to assimilate some of this new information also include looking at each of Henry's auctions. Their is a wealth of information in the write-ups and very useful information on the images of the back of photos (stamping etc.) that will help you in ascertaining the time window within which it was taken.

With regard to removing editorial markings, the consensus is more or less divided on that issue. Many collectors (including Henry and myself) prefer the image as it was developed with all of the photographer's conceptual influences intact. On the other hand, just as many collectors prefer the inclusion of all of the editorial handy work as this demonstrates the process that preceded publication. Either way it generally does not effect the market value.

Finally, I have been collecting vintage baseball photos (exclusively Mantle) for nearly 30 years now, During the early days one could pick up most for $1-$5. The process of learning at that time was just that - touch and examine as many photos as possible, look at the differences in image clarity, the type of stamping and slugs (paper captions on the back). It was great fun and I learned a lot. I have been delighted with the increased attention to this segment of the Hobby which began to take off in earnest after the Baseball Magazine auction in the mid '90's and only see a continuation of interest and participation for collectors going forward.

Cheers,

Craig

[D. Bergin]

Rule #1.

Photos are not cards, and many of the rules for cards do not necessarily apply to photos.

example - the quality of the image itself is much more important then whether or not there's a crease somewhere on the border, or whether there is writing on the back. Most photos were generally meant to be handled in one way or another.

As of now, nobody really cares if a photo grades a PSA 5 or a PSA 10.........and I hope it stays that way.

Sorry, I get a little annoyed when card guys try to treat photos in the collectibles world, as if they should be razor sharp cards.

[Lordstan]

Rhys, Craig, and Dave have all given you excellent advice. This forum is an incredible resource as the members are both knowledgeable and willing to share.

While evaluating a picture from a technical standpoint may be a more concrete process, never forget to collect what you enjoy and handle the items with care. There are no right or wrong answers to many of the questions posed.

In the beginning of the Yee/Fogel book, the 4 C's are described. I think they help define the basics of what most photos collectors look for in a picture.
Content
Clarity
Contrast
Condition

For myself, Content is King. Clarity and contrast are next. Condition only matters if it's an image I know there is more than one copy of and I can get one better. For many images only a handful have been seen, so condition becomes less important.

I am torn about editors marks. Sometimes I think they add to the picture, sometimes take away, and sometimes don't matter. It all comes down to personal preference. I also think, for me at least, I don't remove them because I don't want to take a chance of damaging the picture.

Here is one of mine, bought in a Yee auction last year, that I have debated whether to remove the editors marks. I think I got it for a very reasonable price, at least in part, because of the markings.

[HRBAKER]

I leave the marks on any of mine that have them and the marks have never kept me from bidding on a photo I wanted. The marks are intrinsic to that area of the hobby I think and as such make them unique.

[billyb]

Thank you all for your input about the editors marks. Your knowledge is much respected.

[prewarsports]

Sometimes I leave them, sometimes I clean them. I think if it ads to the historical appeal of the photo, they stay. If they turn a beautiful photo into something that looks like my 3 year old colored all over it, they go. Personal opinion and that is what makes photo collecting so enjoyable, YOU MAKE THE RULES for your own collection and what you like.

[CW]

I don't collect photos, but one solution for the editorial marks, when possible, would be to have the photo framed in a way that the marks are left behind the matting. This way the photo is left intact, and the viewer can see the image without distracting crop marks.

[ethicsprof]

Since I collect examples of individual photographer's photos even more than
I acquire particular baseball players, I am very happy to see information on the photo which elucidates elements regarding the photographers and presses. I am ecstatic when I compare the reverse of my various Conlon
photos and see his signature, various notations such as player's name, and
the stamp such as Evening Telegram. Most any editorial 'marks' are fine with me if
they give me a deeper sense of the photographer and presses 'doing their
thing.' I love seeing the Bain photos with the various notations derived from
etchings done on the negatives. Comparing the press stamps on the backs
is great fun and most educational as I learn more and more about the various
acquisitions and mergers of presses over the years. I also have found my way of collecting as a key way to gain 'pictures' of lesser known players,
who often have no baseball cards. Here I think of my 1920 van oeyen photo of Cleveland Indians player Clark who played only a couple of years but was
on their rare World Series winning team.
A great hobby, this is, and I highly recommend the Yee,Fogel, Oser volume
that has a central place on my desk.
all the best,
barry

[billyb]

And I am assuming that when a photo says on the back, Reference Dept., gives a date and states Press, that the photo comes out of the newspaper archive in which the photograaphers worked. (Print on side is on holder, not the photo). Attachment 101324

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by billyb

And I am assuming that when a photo says on the back, Reference Dept., gives a date and states Press, that the photo comes out of the newspaper archive in which the photograaphers worked. (Print on side is on holder, not the photo). Attachment 101324

The "Reference Dept." stamp does indicate that it came out of the newspaper's (or other publication's) archive, and very often, though not always, the stamping will also refer to the particular paper's archive in which the photo was filed. The photographer who took the shot may or may not have worked directly for the newspaper though.

Also worth noting is that the date on the "Reference Dept." stamp is when the photo was filed, NOT when it was shot. Very often the two dates will be within a few days of each other, but especially with a photo that early, it would be rare for the file date to coincide exactly with the date of the event photographed.

[billyb]

Lance,
That is great information, I thought the date on the back was the publication date. This photo came out of the Cleveland Press, and the historical Society, which stores all of VanOeyen negatives, checked on this photo and they were able to come up with a match, with reverse image, but could not find the newspaper article. But I told them to just search the date or a couple days after. I wish I had this information then.
Thanks Lance, we have more photos to research and with this information, this will help us locate the newspaper articles also.
Here is the photo and the distorted copy from the Historical Society that they sent for us to compare. Attachment 101328

Attachment 101330

[thecatspajamas]

Just keep in mind that the date the photo was shot, the publication date of the photo (if published), and the file date (literally, the date the photo was physically placed in the files) are often all different dates.

[billyb]

Thank You Lance, this thread has been very informative.

[thecatspajamas]

Had to do some digging to find a photo that had all of the dates, but take a look at the Bobby Richardson photo below for an example. The actual photo was taken on October 8, 1961 then transmitted "over the wire" on October 9 by The AP to the receiving newspaper (in this case, the San Francisco Examiner) who ran it in their October 11 edition of the paper, filing the physical photo in their archives the next day, October 12 (with a clipping from the previous day's paper of the photo as it ran affixed to the back).

So if anything, you would want to start with the file date and then search a few days earlier for the published photo. Since it would have been all in-house work at that point, I would think you usually wouldn't have to go further than the previous day, but I guess that could vary depending on the particular paper's practices.

[billyb]

Lance,
Thank you, Good photo by the way. You have saved us, who knows how much time, in researching.

OBC,
Again I apologize for jumping in, I hope you found some information from my questions as well.

[obcbeatle]

Originally Posted by billyb

Lance,
Thank you, Good photo by the way. You have saved us, who knows how much time, in researching.

OBC,
Again I apologize for jumping in, I hope you found some information from my questions as well.

No problem at all! Thanks for asking all these questions. Some great info ... and I'm learning a lot via this thread. I started searching for people selling sports photo's on eBay. I've been looking at the news photo's front and back and learning. Some eBay sellers include the back of the photo which is helpful in understanding info from this thread.

Lance ... in case someone else hasn't come forward yet feel free to sell your copies of the Fogel/Yee books to anyone else that is interested. I'm a little short of cash right now as I bought some baseball card lots earlier in the week. Thank you for your offer ... I will eventually purchase the book somewhere at some point! Also ... if there are any reputable sellers of baseball/sports photo's on eBay besides Yee that anyone wants to recommend I would like to see some of their auctions/listings. The few sellers I've found I know nothing about, but it's pretty clear that they are buying and re-selling old newspaper photo's. Thanks again for all the great info!

PS: I see what you mean about some photo's having great composition that overrides any editing/marking issues. I've seen some really nice photo's like that! Also ... as a baseball card collector who isn't too picky about condition ... it looks like some of the photo's I see would fit nicely in my collection w/o breaking the bank. Maybe a great way to get a pic of Mantle, Robinson and other stars from the 1950's/60's that can otherwise be pretty pricey as Bowman or Topps cards!

[obcbeatle]

OK ... I do have a new question about old sports photographs from newspapers. Perhaps I should start a new thread but will ask here for now. I am seeing many sports photo's being sold on eBay that include typed editorial comments on the front side of the photo. They are usually action photo's but not always. Would I expect to pay less for these photo's (perhaps excepting photo's of HOFER's ...) since there are markings on the front side of the photo? As opposed to photo's with editorial comments only on the back? I can understand that having the provenance of the photo being of value, but wondered that in general if the provenance were just on the back I would expect to pay more for a photo, than if the provenance were on the front/side of the photo or on the back AND front of the photo. Hope that made sense :-)

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by obcbeatle

OK ... I do have a new question about old sports photographs from newspapers. Perhaps I should start a new thread but will ask here for now. I am seeing many sports photo's being sold on eBay that include typed editorial comments on the front side of the photo. They are usually action photo's but not always. Would I expect to pay less for these photo's (perhaps excepting photo's of HOFER's ...) since there are markings on the front side of the photo? As opposed to photo's with editorial comments only on the back? I can understand that having the provenance of the photo being of value, but wondered that in general if the provenance were just on the back I would expect to pay more for a photo, than if the provenance were on the front/side of the photo or on the back AND front of the photo. Hope that made sense :-)

In most cases, when the typed comments are on the front, it's generally an indication that the photo has been through the wire, sound, tele or radio photo process. Generally considered a Type III, although I'm not a big fan of the classification system.

Not as desirable as a photo from the original neg or contact neg because you can usually see the process in the photos, as it robs it of much of it's clarity.

Still, they are usually of the period and can have plenty of value themselves, especially if it is of a popular shot that is tough to find in 1st generation form, like Ali standing over Liston with his arm flexed, that I believe went for over 300 bucks in the Yee auction.

Not to say, some wire, sound, etc., type photos can be found with back type slugs instead of front captions, but it is not typical, and sometimes collectors will trim off the front wire tag to make a wire photo more aesthetically pleasing to them.

Easiest way to tell a wire photo, is to put a light and lower power magnifying glass over it, and you will see the wavy lines in the wire process.

Ironically, the highest quality wire photos seem to be from the mid-30's, when the process first became widely used, and if the front tag is trimmed off, you may need to put it under magnification to be sure it's a wire process shot.

As the years went on, the process became cheaper, but lower quality, and 60's-70's era's wire shots are usually very easy to spot with just the naked eye.

[billyb]

OBC,
I believe they started to put the comments on the front in the 40s, if I am wrong, please someone correct me.
I would think that the value is what the photo is about. The photos with comments on the back, would be worth more only because they would be older and possibly more rare. But there are more modern photos that are worth more that the vintage ones.
So, subject, story, condition and clarity, is what we are to look for, whether comments are on front or back, it should not matter.
Myself, if photo is not of any significance, I prefer comments on back.

Dave,
I just read your post, I stand corrected, comments on front in the 30s.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by billyb

OBC,
I believe they started to put the provenance on the front in the 40s, if I am wrong, please someone correct me.
I would think that the value is what the photo is about. The photos with the provenance on the back, would be worth more only because they would be older and possibly more rare. But there are more modern photos that are worth more that the vintage ones.
So, subject, story, condition and clarity, is what we are to look for, whether provenance is on front or back, it should not matter.
Now to me, if the photo is not of any significance, I would rather the provenance be on the back.

It was around 1935 or so, they started using front style captions for wire photos.

Like I said, some of these are very high quality, compared to later wire process shots from the 60's and 70's.

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

In most cases, when the typed comments are on the front, it's generally an indication that the photo has been through the wire, sound, tele or radio photo process. Generally considered a Type III, although I'm not a big fan of the classification system.

Not as desirable as a photo from the original neg or contact neg because you can usually see the process in the photos, as it robs it of much of it's clarity.

Still, they are usually of the period and can have plenty of value themselves, especially if it is of a popular shot that is tough to find in 1st generation form, like Ali standing over Liston with his arm flexed, that I believe went for over 300 bucks in the Yee auction.

Not to say, some wire, sound, etc., type photos can be found with back type slugs instead of front captions, but it is not typical, and sometimes collectors will trim off the front wire tag to make a wire photo more aesthetically pleasing to them.

Easiest way to tell a wire photo, is to put a light and lower power magnifying glass over it, and you will see the wavy lines in the wire process.

Ironically, the highest quality wire photos seem to be from the mid-30's, when the process first became widely used, and if the front tag is trimmed off, you may need to put it under magnification to be sure it's a wire process shot.

As the years went on, the process became cheaper, but lower quality, and 60's-70's era's wire shots are usually very easy to spot with just the naked eye.

Just to add a few additional comments to the excellent points Dave has already made. Most "wire photos" are typically second generation images where a first generation photo with the written caption physically attached to the front was placed on a wire photo machine at one agency, "scanned" and transmitted over the phone lines and received at a second news agency and the image printed (line by line) on a second wire photo machine. The resultant wire photo now has the written caption as part of the photo the image of which has been degraded by the process.

AP invented the wire photo process and in general their wire photo images are usually far superior (the scanning lines are much closer together ) than the corresponding wire photos of United Press (Telephoto) or INS (Sound Photo), especially those from the early '50's. Occasionally, you can find the original Type 1 photo with the caption physically attached to the front as well as Type 1 original, first generation photos with a paper caption containing "Telephoto or Sound Photo" at the bottom. Both are Type 1 photos. If you are unsure, just check the image with a 10X loop, even the best wire photos will be comprised of parallel scan lines.

[D. Bergin]

Not to forget, even before the wire process, there was a radiophoto transfer process. Slugs or notations were on the back. I believe it was very expensive at the time, but the quality was pretty primitive looking.

[obcbeatle]

Originally Posted by Frozen in Time

Just to add a few additional comments to the excellent points Dave has already made. Most "wire photos" are typically second generation images where a first generation photo with the written caption physically attached to the front was placed on a wire photo machine at one agency, "scanned" and transmitted over the phone lines and received at a second news agency and the image printed (line by line) on a second wire photo machine. The resultant wire photo now has the written caption as part of the photo the image of which has been degraded by the process.

AP invented the wire photo process and in general their wire photo images are usually far superior (the scanning lines are much closer together ) than the corresponding wire photos of United Press (Telephoto) or INS (Sound Photo), especially those from the early '50's. Occasionally, you can find the original Type 1 photo with the caption physically attached to the front as well as Type 1 original, first generation photos with a paper caption containing "Telephoto or Sound Photo" at the bottom. Both are Type 1 photos. If you are unsure, just check the image with a 10X loop, even the best wire photos will be comprised of parallel scan lines.

OK ... I think I understand. So the following photo that includes Ernie Banks looks like a second generation wire photo since the editorial info doesn't look attached, but looks as part of the picture (hope this link of an active eBay auction works):

http://www.ebay.com/itm/390602203122...84.m1423.l2649

I have seen a couple wire photo's that look like the editorial info is attached to the front side of the photo, but can't find one now. This seller appears to have a bunch of second generation wire photo's up today. The watermark makes it hard to see the quality of the photo as well. I still haven't found an eBay seller similar to Henry Yee selling photo's right now. But I'll keep looking. Thanks again for all the great feedback!

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by obcbeatle

OK ... I think I understand. So the following photo that includes Ernie Banks looks like a second generation wire photo since the editorial info doesn't look attached, but looks as part of the picture (hope this link of an active eBay auction works):

http://www.ebay.com/itm/390602203122...84.m1423.l2649

I have seen a couple wire photo's that look like the editorial info is attached to the front side of the photo, but can't find one now. This seller appears to have a bunch of second generation wire photo's up today. The watermark makes it hard to see the quality of the photo as well. I still haven't found an eBay seller similar to Henry Yee selling photo's right now. But I'll keep looking. Thanks again for all the great feedback!

Yes, but it is vintage and of the era. I don't really like attaching the term, 2nd generation to of the era wire photos, even if that's technically what they are.

I usually save that term for photos printed at somewhat later point, then the original image was taken.

Most Baseball cards are also considered some form of a later generation print, when it comes right down to it.

[billyb]

Conlon's famous photo of Ruth's eyes, is it not a second generation photo??

[thecatspajamas]

Watch this 1937 short film, "Spot News," which should shed some light on exactly what a "wire photo" is and the process by which they were produced:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRTlm_cKZ8Y

The photo you see them attaching to the cylindar on the sending end is the Type 1, Original, 1st Generation print made from the original negative. It would have a paper caption affixed to the front of the photo so that, when the photo was developed on the receiving end, that same caption text would be embedded in the image, actually part of the photo produced on the receiving end. The photo produced on the receiving end would be the Type 3, Second Generation, Duplicate, Wire Photo. Either the Type 1 or the Type 3 may have additional editorial comments, markings or stamps on the back, though it is very common for a Wire Photo to have no markings or only a stamped file date on the back since most of the necessary information is contained in the embedded caption text on the front. Also, both Type 1 and Type 3 photos may have crop marks, touch-up/masking paint, or other editorial markings on the front, depending on their use and the whims of the editor.

Also keep in mind that MANY sellers, collectors, and auction houses will mistakenly refer to ALL news/press photos as "wire photos" (which is especially humorous for those early photographs produced before the wire photo process was invented).

P.S. The Bobby Richardson photo that I posted earlier is a Type 3 "Wire Photo." Technically a second generation image, since it was produced by duplicating a print via the wire photo process rather than developed from the original negative.

P.P.S. The sellers like Henry Yee, who deal primarily in vintage sports photography AND who are knowledgable about both the photographs themselves and the subjects they depict, are few and far between. There are several who are members here though. There are also a number of sellers on eBay who are, shall I say, efficient at selling large numbers of news photos on eBay, yet apparently know little or nothing about what they are selling. Players' names are misspelled, obviously incorrect dates for depicted events are given, terms are misused, etc. Thankfully, most of these sellers also post large and clear enough scans of the front and back that, if YOU know what to look for, you can disregard most of what they have written and decide for yourself whether to go after the photo or not (and as others have pointed out, may wind up getting a bargain because of the seller's mistakes).

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by billyb

Conlon's famous photo of Ruth's eyes, is it not a second generation photo??

That depends on which print of the photo you are referring to.

1st Generation = a print produced directly from the original negative
2nd Generation = a print produced from a duplicate negative

Both 1st and 2nd generation prints may exist for any given image, the "Ruth's eyes" photo included.

Technically, you could produce a "1st Generation" print of the "Ruth's eyes" photo today if you had the original negative to work with (presumably the original negative is in the Conlon Collection presently owned by John Rogers, though I haven't checked to confirm).

[obcbeatle]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Watch this 1937 short film, "Spot News," which should shed some light on exactly what a "wire photo" is and the process by which they were produced:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRTlm_cKZ8Y

The photo you see them attaching to the cylindar on the sending end is the Type 1, Original, 1st Generation print made from the original negative. It would have a paper caption affixed to the front of the photo so that, when the photo was developed on the receiving end, that same caption text would be embedded in the image, actually part of the photo produced on the receiving end. The photo produced on the receiving end would be the Type 3, Second Generation, Duplicate, Wire Photo. Either the Type 1 or the Type 3 may have additional editorial comments, markings or stamps on the back, though it is very common for a Wire Photo to have no markings or only a stamped file date on the back since most of the necessary information is contained in the embedded caption text on the front. Also, both Type 1 and Type 3 photos may have crop marks, touch-up/masking paint, or other editorial markings on the front, depending on their use and the whims of the editor.

Also keep in mind that MANY sellers, collectors, and auction houses will mistakenly refer to ALL news/press photos as "wire photos" (which is especially humorous for those early photographs produced before the wire photo process was invented).

P.S. The Bobby Richardson photo that I posted earlier is a Type 3 "Wire Photo." Technically a second generation image, since it was produced by duplicating a print via the wire photo process rather than developed from the original negative.

P.P.S. The sellers like Henry Yee, who deal primarily in vintage sports photography AND who are knowledgable about both the photographs themselves and the subjects they depict, are few and far between. There are several who are members here though. There are also a number of sellers on eBay who are, shall I say, efficient at selling large numbers of news photos on eBay, yet apparently know little or nothing about what they are selling. Players' names are misspelled, obviously incorrect dates for depicted events are given, terms are misused, etc. Thankfully, most of these sellers also post large and clear enough scans of the front and back that, if YOU know what to look for, you can disregard most of what they have written and decide for yourself whether to go after the photo or not (and as others have pointed out, may wind up getting a bargain because of the seller's mistakes).

Great film ... thanks for sharing ... I now understand the wire process much better! I'm seeing some interesting wire photo's on eBay and although they may not be as good as an investment as Type 1's (I'm using that term liberally since I'm new to all this), the wire photo's seem affordable (I also may still be a bit naive about pricing too) so maybe the wire photo's that are not originals may be a good way to get some photo's of some players from the 1940's-1950's that are otherwise tough (expensive) to get as a Topps or Bowman baseball cards. Just sort of spitting out some thoughts I guess :-) Anyway ... I wish Henry Yee or others like him had some auctions going right now so I could see more great original photo's!

[billyb]

Lance,
I have a photo, nothing on the back except dried glue, no backing. I am guessing the photo was to be used with a front caption, but they changed their minds. It is the only reason I can think of why the cut out portion with no cardboard type backing at all.

I sent you a PM about another photo. Attachment 101452

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by billyb

Lance,
I have a photo, nothing on the back except dried glue, no backing. I am guessing the photo was to be used with a front caption, but they changed their minds. It is the only reason I can think of why the cut out portion with no cardboard type backing at all.

I sent you a PM about another photo. Attachment 101452

Is the entire back covered with dried glue? If so, it looks to me like it was at one time glued to board, presumably with a caption or other text at the upper left where the cut-out is now. I've had photos in this condition before, with the remnants of an orangish-colored glue dried to the back, but no longer affixed to the board. And have on a couple of occasions had a photo affixed to a board but the glue was coming loose so that you could easily grasp one corner and pull the photo free from the board. Apparently the glue doesn't hold forever.

[billyb]

Lance,
Exactly, orange in color, but no evidence that a board was ever attached. Even though the photo was cut, I really like the photo because it is so vivid. It really stands out. This particular copy, I believe is a recopy, from my cousin's original. I was practicing my editing skills with this one and I did not do too well. So this copy does not do the photo justice, but only scan I have left of this particular photo.

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

1) Is there a good online resource for better understanding the hobby of vintage baseball photo collecting? I saw the Fogel/Yee book on Amazon but it's over $40 dollars and I'm not sure I'm ready to fork over that amount yet since I'm just beginning my research into this area of collecting.

Fork over the money. This is one of the two best resources for understanding photographs. The other in an online? book written by our own Dr David Cycleback. Does anyone have the link? I can't find it.

2) The prices I saw paid for some of Yee's slides and negatives seemed awfully high to me. Do/can buyers turn around and reproduce photo's for re-sale from these slides/negatives? It looked like most of the slides were originally from famous photographers. I'm just curious because I have an old slide projector and thought I would bid on a few slides only to find out that they were being bought at much higher prices than I expected.

Within the photography category, negatives are a new field of interest, but it appears people certainly are interested. There is another thread speaking about image rights regarding negatives. If you search, it will answer your questions.

3) Is vintage sports photo collecting increasing dramatically as a hobby? I saw an online PSA article that implied that it is, but PSA is in the business of trying to authenticate sports memoribilia. So I suppose it was a bit of a biased article.

Recently this category of collectibles has shot up. They're visually attractive, easy to both store and display, and they can be very hard to get(especially if you're looking for a specific pose/subject).

Here is the link to David's web site. He has a few articles on line about photography & judging authenticity, etc.::>

http://www.cycleback.com/

ZWheat

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Zach Wheat

Here is the link to David's web site. He has a few articles on line about photography & judging authenticity, etc.::>

http://www.cycleback.com/

ZWheat

Yup, with respect to the Yee/Fogel book, David's reference guides were always my first fallback when I started getting into photos over a dozen years ago or so. They are required reading for any photo collector.

I'm not a big fan of the Type Classification system that Yee and Fogel tout in their book, but it's worth whatever it costs to obtain a copy, just for the exhaustive research they put into back stamps and the history of each news organization.

[billyb]

ZWheat,
Thank You, I have read parts of David's site, and just read about authenticating, which I have not read before.
Judging the authentication, with no stamps is not easy, but I know the history of the above photo. Judging what David says, and the clarity, and what I know about the photo, it is a type one photo.
That was a question of mine, is this photo a type one, or just an unknown photo. But without the backing, it still hurts the value.
One of these days, this photo will go up for sale, and somebody will get a great photo for a good price.

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Watch this 1937 short film, "Spot News," which should shed some light on exactly what a "wire photo" is and the process by which they were produced:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRTlm_cKZ8Y

The photo you see them attaching to the cylindar on the sending end is the Type 1, Original, 1st Generation print made from the original negative. It would have a paper caption affixed to the front of the photo so that, when the photo was developed on the receiving end, that same caption text would be embedded in the image, actually part of the photo produced on the receiving end. The photo produced on the receiving end would be the Type 3, Second Generation, Duplicate, Wire Photo. Either the Type 1 or the Type 3 may have additional editorial comments, markings or stamps on the back, though it is very common for a Wire Photo to have no markings or only a stamped file date on the back since most of the necessary information is contained in the embedded caption text on the front. Also, both Type 1 and Type 3 photos may have crop marks, touch-up/masking paint, or other editorial markings on the front, depending on their use and the whims of the editor.

Also keep in mind that MANY sellers, collectors, and auction houses will mistakenly refer to ALL news/press photos as "wire photos" (which is especially humorous for those early photographs produced before the wire photo process was invented).

P.S. The Bobby Richardson photo that I posted earlier is a Type 3 "Wire Photo." Technically a second generation image, since it was produced by duplicating a print via the wire photo process rather than developed from the original negative.

P.P.S. The sellers like Henry Yee, who deal primarily in vintage sports photography AND who are knowledgable about both the photographs themselves and the subjects they depict, are few and far between. There are several who are members here though. There are also a number of sellers on eBay who are, shall I say, efficient at selling large numbers of news photos on eBay, yet apparently know little or nothing about what they are selling. Players' names are misspelled, obviously incorrect dates for depicted events are given, terms are misused, etc. Thankfully, most of these sellers also post large and clear enough scans of the front and back that, if YOU know what to look for, you can disregard most of what they have written and decide for yourself whether to go after the photo or not (and as others have pointed out, may wind up getting a bargain because of the seller's mistakes).

Lance,

That "Spot News" film is just super!!! I always thought the "machine" was much larger and did not realize it also was used in a self-contained vehicle for transmission from the field. A pretty sophisticated design for the time period and the video was absolutely complete showing the entire process from start to finish. Thanks again for posting it - I really learned a lot!!!

Craig

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Frozen in Time

Lance,

That "Spot News" film is just super!!! I always thought the "machine" was much larger and did not realize it also was used in a self-contained vehicle for transmission from the field. A pretty sophisticated design for the time period and the video was absolutely complete showing the entire process from start to finish. Thanks again for posting it - I really learned a lot!!!

Craig

I can't remember how it was that I stumbled across that film in the first place, but it connected so many dots for me in understanding the whole wire photo process that I feel I have to share it whenever possible. If only there were old informational films dealing with every question I have about the "good ol' days" and exactly how things worked! I still find the whole system pretty amazing, especially considering when it was implemented.

But yeah, I'm glad everyone appreciated it, and I'm sure I'll trot it out again next time a question is asked about wire photos

[obcbeatle]

Originally Posted by Zach Wheat

Here is the link to David's web site. He has a few articles on line about photography & judging authenticity, etc.::>

http://www.cycleback.com/

ZWheat

Thanks for sharing this link. Lots of good information like the names of the most common U.S. news and photo services, ACME, etc. In conjunction with the YouTube video about the wire services that Lance shared I've learned a lot. If fact, I bought my first wire photo and a negative last night on eBay. Can't wait till they arrive! Which leads me to a question ... does the Cycleback book(s) or Fogel/Yee book cover slides, negatives and transparencies? The transparencies and negatives in the last Yee auction really caught my eye. There were some color SF Giants slide transparencies that I bid way too low on that were beautiful (Mays/Cepeda ...). I lived in SF from 1965-1971 and saw Mays, McCovey et al at "The Stick" many times. So when I saw those slides and remembered I had a slide projector I did a quick bid on a few of those Yee slides. Anyway ... I was just wondering if the Cycleback and Fogel/Yee books covered that type of film format? I've been Googling today to find out about how to deal with negatives and slides these days (digital scanning, etc.) because I also got out some of my old family photo's and found some negatives. So my interest is piqued :-) Thanks again for sharing. This board/thread is full of a lot of expertise!