Type 1 versus wire photo help
 

I have a few photos which I believe are type 1 photos, but unsure in the differentation between a type 1 photo and a wire photo. Is there stamping that one would be able to tell one from another? The photo is dated Sept 7, 1954 and is referencing the game played on Sept 6, 1954. Thanks for any help

Thanks for posting this as I would love someone to explain this to me as well. Also, what happens when there is no date stamp?

A type 1 original photo is developed off the original negative at the time the photo was taken(winthin approx 2 years). Type 2.. same thing. It developed later(after 2 years). Both developed of ORIGINAL NEG.

A wire photo is a product of a wire machine. They can also be done at the time the photo was taken. However, they are created in a much different way and the photo quality is not close to as good. It is done with a series of lines one after the other. How the picture is established is extreme lights to darks and everything in between on each line. Wires are type 3s in the type system.

So.. if you look closely and under magnification, you will actually see the lines that compose a wire photo.

Re stamps: sometimes a stamp will literally say wire photo or give a exact time the wire was received. Many times you won’t be able to tell by stamps alone. You need to look at clarity and what i mentioned above. Also, many wire photos if not trimme, have the embedded caption on the front.

I wrote this on phone with voice to text so sorry if things are lost in translation. Pm me if you need more info or have other questions as i am always willing to help new photo guys. Ben

Everything Ben said. He's the guy.

Only thing I would add is that pre-1935, wire photos were very rarely used for sports photographs. So if you see a Babe Ruth picture from 1928 described as a wire photo that is likely inaccurate. Wire photo technology really wasn't perfected (if that's the right term) before 1934-35 when AP installed a much improved system.

photo
 

so is the Mathews photo above a wire photo (aka Type 3)?

It looks like it could be a Type 1 photo...or at least a Type 2 IMO.

Jeff

Ok so how would this be a Type II if the date if on the back ? Sorry for all the questions but just trying to learn.

Probably a Type 1 based on the date. But without knowing the dimensions and seeing the photo in person..it is hard to tell if it was trimmed or not (which would make possibly a wire photo).

As for the Type 2, Newspapers kept these photos in files and would use them over and over again but in this case it would have other dates on it.

When I responded to you, I was really trying to get across that it was probably not a wire photo...it was an original photo made from the negative.

Jeff

I didn’t look closely at your example and now see newspaper clipping...

90% of the time, if it is credited AP Wirephoto (with the words together, it is a wire photo). The press were usually pretty good in appropriately crediting AP Wirephoto division vs AP.

Look under magnification like i mentioned for line transmissions.

Type 1
 

The photo is a type 1, it is apparent that it was developed from a negative and does not have the tell-tale lines of a wire photo. Everything matches up with the photo being from the game the previous day as well:
https://www.baseball-reference.com/t...e-scores.shtml
Pretty big day as Mathews went 5 for 5 in the first game and 3 for 4 in the second.

As far as being trimmed, it measures just under 4X6 so I am not sure how that would affect it.

As stated it is a wirephoto. It states as such on the slug on the back. Also, though, I can see the lines on the photo. I am looking at it on my computer, therefor may be seeing things more clearly that those looking at a smaller version on a phone can't see. The lines, for me, are more clearly seen to the right of Ernie Johnson's face (I can see it other places, but that is where it jumped out at me).

If your eyes aren't very good you may need a magnifying glass, but otherwise the lines should be very noticeable while holding the photo in hand.

Guys - First thank you so much for the education on photos! I purchased on recently that had Joe D and Yogi on it, its not trimmed, decent clarity, the back is stamped October 10, 1949. There is a World Wide Photos big red stamp on the photo and another Photofest sticker on top of it. The photo does not appear to be trimmed.

The seller had the following description:

" Size is 7" x 9" The photographs are Originals taken from file archives used by different news/media agencies. They are not perfect or reprints, if they are printed at a later time we labeled them "2nd Generation Restrike" or "Vtg 2nd Gen Restrike" The photographs are in various conditions, some cut to different sizes. Some may have dates and/or descriptions written/typed/stamped on the back or the front. They could have bent corners, tears or light stains."

My photo was not labeled a 2nd generation in the listing (others were).

https://www.ebay.com/itm/LP102-1949-...vip=true&rt=nc

Thoughts?

Alternative view
 

Here is a different view where you can see it has been developed on glossy photo paper. What you might be seeing to the right of his face are indentations made when writing his name on the back. The photo is also cracked just above that.

Nicely-done Ben.

What Ben said (which is fact by our hobby) also alludes to why collectors really need to consider why they are acquiring a photo. David Cycleback and I talk about this often, as we both appreciate the actual composition and quality of photos in terms of how they will look when hung on a wall. David has said that if the print looks like it's worth the price to hang on your wall then it doesn't matter if it's Type I, 2, 3, 4 or whatever. Such discussions make it seem absurd to even consider buying a photo that is encapsulated in plastic, or to buy a photo with such a thing in mind.

Photos aren't cards - cards are generally mass-produced pieces of cardboard with inferior-quality images affixed to them (exception being the late 1800's lithos), while photos can be things of absolute beauty. Two different animals - two different ways of thinking. For years I owned a beautiful 8x10 type I Burke photo of Ruth and Claire encased in plastic with a stupid-looking strip of identification at the top. I still kick myself in the butt for not removing it from the plastic and hanging it on my wall with a nice matt and frame. I really did that piece a disservice by selling it.

That new image doesn't help at all as it has too much glare. As I said, though, I can see lines throughout the image. I just pointed to one spot. The lines are horizontal, this is not due to writing on the back.

Also as mentioned. The slug specifically states it is a wirephoto.

anyone have any thoughts to the one I posted above in the link?