International News Photos

[Ulidia]

I wonder if any of the photo collectors can help me. I'm trying to gauge the dating / period of the type of International News stamp that's on the below photograph:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Babe-Ruth-19...item20c138680c


The reason for asking isn't specific to this photo (although I do like the image) but, rather, I've a number of photos of images from 1920 through to 1922 / 1923 that have similar stamps to this photo on their back.

In fact, one or two of these photos were purchased as PSA authenticated "Type 1" photos but I think that this type of stamp may date to a later period (probably 1930s). Am I correct?

[Ladder7]

1933-40

Type 1, Type 2 years, Type 3, Type 4


This issue makes many collectors a bit verklempt.

My wag., Only some shots would make it to press in a timely fashion. Some significant negatives may have sat in files 'til relative much later.

[ibuysportsephemera]

According to A portrait of Baseball Photography by Fogel & Yee, that stamp was used between 1940 and 1948.

The second line under the International News Photo makes it easy to identify.

Jeff

[D. Bergin]

You have to pay attention to the wording. "Similar" does not mean "Same".

The photo in the Ebay auctions has a 1940's stamp.

However, the Eagle on the back goes all the way back to 1921 or so.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

You have to pay attention to the wording. "Similar" does not mean "Same".

The photo in the Ebay auctions has a 1940's stamp.

However, the Eagle on the back goes all the way back to 1921 or so.

SPOT ON

Also, a stamp is not always 100 percent telling. 1 particular stamp could have been used for publication years after the photo was originally developed. You would need to see the photo in person to be sure on this one.

[batsballsbases]

Originally Posted by Ladder7

1933-40

Type 1, Type 2 years, Type 3, Type 4


This issue makes many collectors a bit verklempt.

My wag., Only some shots would make it to press in a timely fashion. Some significant negatives may have sat in files 'til relative much later.

Here is where I feel the stamps are and could be wrong. I tend to agree with Steve on this one. The photo based on the stamp cant be from the 1940 period. The obvious is because John McGraw died in 1934. So the photo has to be 1934 and down. This is why sometimes you cant go by the stamping on the back.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by batsballsbases

Here is where I feel the stamps are and could be wrong. I tend to agree with Steve on this one. The photo based on the stamp cant be from the 1940 period. The obvious is because John McGraw died in 1934. So the photo has to be 1934 and down. This is why sometimes you cant go by the stamping on the back.

The photo itself looks like it's from 1922.

What the stamp can possibly indicate is that it was not developed until the 1940's, although the possibility always exists that it was developed in the 20's and put in a file and not used until the 40's.

That is possible and did happen often enough, though it is not necessarily typical.

[batsballsbases]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

The photo itself looks like it's from 1922.

What the stamp can possibly indicate is that it was not developed until the 1940's, although the possibility always exists that it was developed in the 20's and put in a file and not used until the 40's.

That is possible and did happen often enough, though it is not necessarily typical.

Dave,
I also agree that the photo could be and most probably is from 1922 and above lets just say the 20s period. What I cant see is what you said that the photo wasnt developed until the 40s. Why? In that case it shoots to hell the back stamping of the photos in general. If certain characteristics of the stamps date it to that time period then what your saying is maybe someone waited and stamped that photo lets say 20+ years later with the early photo stamp? Then you might as well throw out all possible dating of any pictures.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by batsballsbases

Dave,
I also agree that the photo could be and most probably is from 1922 and above lets just say the 20s period. What I cant see is what you said that the photo wasnt developed until the 40s. Why? In that case it shoots to hell the back stamping of the photos in general. If certain characteristics of the stamps date it to that time period then what your saying is maybe someone waited and stamped that photo lets say 20+ years later with the early photo stamp? Then you might as well throw out all possible dating of any pictures.

I believe, by characteristics, he meant the image itself. NOT the actual item(paper, date stamp ink..etc). Just guessing???

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by batsballsbases

Dave,
I also agree that the photo could be and most probably is from 1922 and above lets just say the 20s period. What I cant see is what you said that the photo wasnt developed until the 40s. Why? In that case it shoots to hell the back stamping of the photos in general. If certain characteristics of the stamps date it to that time period then what your saying is maybe someone waited and stamped that photo lets say 20+ years later with the early photo stamp? Then you might as well throw out all possible dating of any pictures.

I think we are agreeing, though somehow miss-communicating our points to each other.

[Ladder7]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

The photo itself looks like it's from 1922.

What the stamp can possibly indicate is that it was not developed until the 1940's, although the possibility always exists that it was developed in the 20's and put in a file and not used until the 40's.

That is possible and did happen often enough, though it is not necessarily typical.

David, I would think they'd stamp, then file the finished photos for future use. Come to think of it, Wouldn't it make sense to store the negs for later printing to reduce degradation?

Also, The typing directly on the paper (modern copy?), lack of date stamps as well as toning is vexing.

I now agree with Jeff, that this is a 1940s- stamp.

[drc]

The stamps are usually reliable as period. However, it is true that news services might refile/catalog or acquire older photos from somewhere else and add their stamp on it-- so the stamp is newer than the photo. You sometimes see on a photo stamps from different eras, and obviously they can't both be period. It is not uncommon for a Culver photo to have a stamp much newer than the photos.

But the stamps are mostly period, especially for International News.