[Johnphotoman]

Type I – A 1st generation photograph, developed from the original negative, during the period (within approximately two years of when the picture was taken).
Type II – A photograph, developed from the original negative, during the period (more than approximately two years after the picture was taken).
Type III – A 2nd generation photograph, developed from a duplicate negative or wire transmission, during the period (within approximately two years of when the picture was taken).
Type IV – A 2nd generation photograph (or 3rd or later generation), developed from a duplicate negative or wire transmission, during a later period (more than approximately two years after the picture was taken).
Type 1 photographs are the most desirable and valuable of the four photograph types because of their vintage and originality.

Many Type 4's were issued after 1970, either for latter-era publication of earlier original images or for the general public consumption.

Duplicate negatives are produced by taking a photograph of an existing original photograph thereby creating a second negative that is of inferior quality to the original

All photograph types are collectible; a Type 3 photograph of a Hall of Famer Mickey Mantle may be worth considerably more than a Type 1 photograph of a common player from the 1920's.


Let's say in 1947 I am a photographer and have a new project to take pictures of baseball players. The person who hired wants the names on photos. I go and take said photos, print them out. Now I will have to add the names to photos, much like the ones I have. The only way to do that was to make a photostat of the original photo and add a name, now you make a new negative and print out the new photo with the name on them. But these would be a Type 3 photo and not a Type 1. Do you see where all this going?

I forgot to say that I did not mean to imply this was the only way to put names on photos, but this is what all the people I have talked to said it was done. Had to use 2nd generation negative. But I know better, as some had aready said. Thanks John