Type 1 Photo Hornsby & Sisler

[queencitysportscards]

Looking for help from all photo experts...can you confirm this is a TYPE 1 photo of George Sisler and Rogers Hornsby? Also trying to confirm era pic was taken.

Thanks!

Hank

[Brian Van Horn]

Hank,

Referencing the stamp on the back and that Hornsby was only in Boston for one year the date/year would be 1928.

[sporteq]

I owned a similar photo that was a type 1. The markings look the same, if I remember correctly.


Albert

[thecatspajamas]

The Acme stamping is consistent with what they used from about 1925-1930.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by queencitysportscards

Looking for help from all photo experts...can you confirm this is a TYPE 1 photo of George Sisler and Rogers Hornsby? Also trying to confirm era pic was taken.

Thanks!

Hank

Do yourself a favor and buy the book below. It is what EVERYONE USES for reference whether they want to admit it or not in dating stamps/photos. It is a ground breaking reference book. Since it has come out, everyone is an "expert" in dating photos by stamps It is a MUST photography reference.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/2005-A-Portr...item233a65191b

[Runscott]

Ben, what's a fair price for that book?

I don't use it and have never even opened a copy, but since you are bigger than me I figure I'll buy one and start using it, as opposed to calling you a liar and having to face the consequences in a hotel bar in Cleveland.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Ben, what's a fair price for that book?

I don't use it and have never even opened a copy, but since you are bigger than me I figure I'll buy one and start using it, as opposed to calling you a liar and having to face the consequences in a hotel bar in Cleveland.

The book is not being printed anymore so if you can get it for $75 or lower, I would jump on it as the demand will do nothing but go up.

[queencitysportscards]

Thanks for your help guys! I will check out the book too!

Hank

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Do yourself a favor and buy the book below. It is what EVERYONE USES for reference whether they want to admit it or not in dating stamps/photos. It is a ground breaking reference book. Since it has come out, everyone is an "expert" in dating photos by stamps It is a MUST photography reference.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/2005-A-Portr...item233a65191b

Originally Posted by Forever Young

The book is not being printed anymore so if you can get it for $75 or lower, I would jump on it as the demand will do nothing but go up.

No reason to buy the one listed at $69. Put it as a search with email results and wait for one to pop up. Two have sold this month for $51 and $45.95 including the shipping (compared to $73.35). I recently got mine. I knew I was looking in the $50 range and that is where they seem to be ending in auction format.

Of course if you are unwilling to be patient then I would say go with the one linked as it did take me a few months to get mine at the price range I wanted.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

No reason to buy the one listed at $69. Put it as a search with email results and wait for one to pop up. Two have sold this month for $51 and $45.95 including the shipping (compared to $73.35). I recently got mine. I knew I was looking in the $50 range and that is where they seem to be ending in auction format.

Of course if you are unwilling to be patient then I would say go with the one linked as it did take me a few months to get mine at the price range I wanted.

Wow...

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

The Acme stamping is consistent with what they used from about 1925-1930.

I should probably add that I did simply flip open the book to the Acme section for the date info. It is a very good, quick, easy resource in that respect. I usually try to give what source I am drawing from lest I be lumped in with the experts (I prefer to be forever on the path of learning), but neglected to do so in this case for some reason.

I might also add that simply owning the book won't make you an expert, as I know some collectors who do and still can't tell their Type 1's from a hole in the ground (none gave posted here, so nobody take offense). If you actually read it and exercise some common sense though, you'll be well on your way.

[horzverti]

Lance you are selling yourself short. You already are an expert. Especially with Burke and Brace photos. Everyone knows that.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

I might also add that simply owning the book won't make you an expert, as I know some collectors who do and still can't tell their Type 1's from a hole in the ground (none gave posted here, so nobody take offense). If you actually read it and exercise some common sense though, you'll be well on your way.

hmmmm.....well, I hesitate to say this, but WTH. One person who posted here contacted me on ebay to tell me that one of my photos was a modern reprint. he used Henry's book as his backing. He definitely did not know his Type 1's from a hole in the ground, and I told him as much. I even challenged him to post here on Net54 and ask your opinions. He did not.

As you say, owning the book is not enough. The fellow who contacted me on ebay made at least two mistakes in arriving at his conclusion, the most glaring being: because my photo had a more modern backstamp, he said that that fact alone defined its age. I don't own Henry's book, but I'm sure he lets his readers know that some photos are not stamped when printed, but sometimes get stamped years later. He also ignored the dated slug, fixated on that backstamp.

The book is a reference tool, not a reference for tools.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by runscott

the book is a reference tool, not a reference for tools.

quote of week??

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by Runscott

The book is a reference tool, not a reference for tools.

Quote of the year!

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[Runscott]

In fairness, I apologize for saying that Albert doesn't know his Type I's from a hole in the ground. I think that making definitive statements about paper thickness and quality based on a front scan alone, is not something you should do, but my eyes aren't what they used to be.

My excuse for crankiness last night - we had a bad weekend that would sound like a Joey story, so I'll spare you. Well, wait - no I won't. We went out to a park Sunday where I run every day (Point Defiance), got back to the car and found that the car next to us had been broken into. We drove off and then found that another had been broken into...and another. Then we came up on the thieves and followed them in and out of parking lots for the remaining 2 miles of the loop. There were five teenagers in a sedan, one jumping out while the car was still moving, breaking into a car and then running and jumping back in. I learned a lot about car break-ins. We held back and would catch up to them just as they were opening the car door, so they were pretty pissed. End result is that they didn't do any more break-ins, but the Tacoma police pretty much ignored us, even though we had plates and descriptions. The girls whose cars were broken into were a mess - keys, homework, purses, broken car windows. All for $20. If I knew the police were going to ignore us, I would have followed the thieves, so I'm kind of kicking myself at the moment. Besides, I probably would have gotten a ticket for speeding or turning right on red, and the police still would have ignored the thieves. I haven't been to the park in 3 days, which really pisses me off.

We got home and experienced the 2nd consecutive of 3 all-night graduations parties held next door at the University's version of Animal House, which means also outside our bedroom window. Cops came, everything. No sleep for 3 nights.

So I was even crankier than usual yesterday.

To make this post baseball-related, I'm looking forward to finally obtaining a copy of Henry's book and to meeting him at the National. He has always been extremely personable via email, and I think we actually talked on the phone about ten years ago and he was also very pleasant.