Opinions on this photo

[JoeyF1981]

Waiting for my Henry Yee book to arrive, but in the meantime I wanted to get peoples opinions if this indeed is a Type 1 and if its a press photo or wire photo. Seller says he made a mistake in the listing and says its a press photo, but wanted to be sure before I pull the trigger.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by JoeyF1981

Waiting for my Henry Yee book to arrive, but in the meantime I wanted to get peoples opinions if this indeed is a Type 1 and if its a press photo or wire photo. Seller says he made a mistake in the listing and says its a press photo, but wanted to be sure before I pull the trigger.

What photo?

You forgot a link.

[JoeyF1981]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Lou-Gehrig-1...#ht_336wt_1399

[JoeyF1981]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

What photo?

You forgot a link.

lol..thanks for the heads up...a link would probably help

[thecatspajamas]

It's not a "wire photo" (photo transmitted "over the wire"). It's tough to make out the news service stamping on the back. Clearly it is an International News stamp with the broader stylized eagle at the top of the stamp (stamp is upside down in the image). There are variations to the wording of the text in the stamp that help to narrow down the date the photo was produced. About the only text that I can see to help though is the last 3 words "appearing in it" which, according to Yee's book, did not appear until 1933 when the body of the copyright paragraph was expanded. With the photo in hand, you might be able to make the stamping out better to arrive at a more definite conclusion, but from what I can see, I would say that it narrowly misses the 2-year window for strict Type 1 classification and falls into that "very early Type 2" category that causes much consternation for those debating the finer points of the Type classification system.

Edited to add: I wouldn't fault the seller for referring to it as a Type 1 photo, as it very nearly is, and would be a good candidate for debating the window of eligibility for Type 1 status. If calling it a Type 1 is a mistake at all, it appears to be an honest one, and doesn't make or break the desirablity of the photo in my mind at all.