Ruth Red Sox photo, type 1 ??

[ScottR81]

Just picked this up I beleive this to be a type 1 photo but not sure, what do you guys think?

[Hankphenom]

Undoubtedly genuine. Or to put it another way, if it's a forgery it's a spectacular job. Actually, if it was a forgery, they'd have given it a postcard back to double the value.
Hank Thomas

[bcbgcbrcb]

Nice pick-up!

[thecatspajamas]

Definitely looks vintage, but not "Type 1". To be a Type 1 photo, it had to be printed from the original negative unless that lettering at the bottom right corner is applied to the actual print you have (run your finger across it and see if it's raised if you have any doubt). If it's "embedded in the image" then the photo can't have been printed from the original negative. Typically to get lettering like that in the photo, they would produce a print from the original negative, apply the lettering by hand using a white paint or something similar, then re-shoot the photo to produce a new (second generation) negative from which they could then produce prints with the lettering appearing in each one (saving them the trouble of hand-lettering each print).

If anyone has a different opinion, feel free to share, but I don't think you can truly call it a "Type 1." Still a nice piece, mind you, but the original question seemed to be related specifically to the Type 1 labelling.

[Hankphenom]

This is the type of photo that the Yee/Fogel system doesn't really categorize in a meaningful way, and needs to change to do that. Though not a "Type I,", this photo is just so much more collectible, in my opinion, than the typical "Type III" designation is meant to describe. The fact that it was presumably printed contemporaneously with the event depicted (Ruth as a Red Sox in this case) should completely overwhelm the question of whether it is a first or second generation print as to make that almost irrelevant. In other words, it is "original" and "genuine," just not a type I. And if photo collectors are going to restrict themselves to Type I only, they're going to miss out on adding a lot of great photos, like this one, to their collection.

Question for Lance. Do you know if the Bain photos we see are also Type IIIs?
Hank Thomas

[prewarsports]

I thought the white lettering like that was etched into the negative so it would still be considered a "Type 1"?

Doesn't really matter either way to most people as long as it is vintage despite the "type". It is a beautiful original and vintage piece!

Rhys