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???

[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.

[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.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

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

What Ben said.

[batsballsbases]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

What Ben said.

Dave I think I got it now!

[Scott Garner]

One thing is for certain, The Big Bam looks pretty lean and mean so you know that the image itself is pretty early in his Yankees career....

[batsballsbases]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

One thing is for certain, The Big Bam looks pretty lean and mean so you know that the image itself is pretty early in his Yankees career....

Scott exactly that is what made me go back and say 1922 and up a little. And also that is why sometimes you buy the picture and not the 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.

[thecatspajamas]

I'm coming to this a bit late, but here's my thoughts on this particular photo. Let me preface everything by emphasizing the need to analyze each photo based on its own indicators. This is not a blanket analysis to be applied to any photo that you may see with "similar stamping" on the back.

First of all, the image is definitely from 1922. You can tell the year based on the New York Giants player's uniform in the background on the left. That style of socks was only used by the Giants in 1922 and 1923. In 1923, the jersey had a large NY emblem on the player's left side of the chest (your right when facing him) that is absent from this player's uniform. The 1922 Giants jersey did not have this large emblem on the chest. You could further narrow the date to a few possibilities by looking at when the Giants played the Yankees in 1922: The World Series. So that narrows the date to some time between October 4 and 8 of 1922.

That's when the image was produced, meaning that's when the photographer looking on the scene depicted pressed the button on his camera. This is not the same as when the print was produced. The two are different, whether by hours, days, or years, and you would do well to remember that just because a photo depicts a scene (image) from a particular date, the physical photograph itself (print) could have been produced years later, and was not necessarily developed from the original negative. It is often much more difficult (or impossible) to determine exactly when a photograph (print) was produced, even if you can accurately date the scene (image) depicted in the photo.

To get an idea of when the physical photo (print) was produced, you have to look at other evidence. In this case, without being able to examine the print itself, the primary evidence is on the back of the photo. Here you have two bits of information. 1) The typed information at the top, which identifies the subjects in the foreground and gives the year the photo was taken. 2) The news service stamping. Since 1) tells us when the photo was taken, but not when the print was produced, we have to rely on 2) for that information.

As others have pointed out, the International News stamping style used on the back dates to 1940-1948. The biggest tell is the second line on the scroll portion which reads "A UNIT OF KING FEATURES SYND." While there is a similar stamping style with that line on the scroll that was used by the Chicago Bureau into the 1950's, the "235 East 46th Street, New York, N.Y." address together with the King Features text line is exclusive to this particular stamping style.

With the information present, that's as close as I can date the photo: It is a print produced between 1940 and 1948 of an image that was taken by the photographer during the 1922 World Series.

If you want to get into what that means as far as a "Type" classification, it would be either a Type 2 or a Type 4 since the print was developed at a date more than 2 years removed from when the image was shot. The difference between the two would be whether it was developed from the original negative (Type 2) or a copy negative or wire photo process (Type 4). It's hard to tell from the small scan shown in the eBay listing, but the image looks to be quite sharp and clear, which leads me to believe it was developed from the original negative rather than a copy negative.

As to why the photo could have been issued by the International News at a date so far removed from the original event, there are plenty of possibilities, but the strongest in my mind would be the failing health or death of Ruth himself in 1948. Newspapers nationwide were publishing stories dealing with the many grand accomplishments of The Bambino, and a sharp image of him in his prime with the Yankees in the 1922 World Series would have been prime fodder for accompanying any of those stories. It was an opportunity for the news agency to get paid again for an image that they already had on file, without the additional expense of hiring a photographer. Since these news agencies were in the business of selling the use of their images, if they could make additional money off of an image they already had in stock, you better believe they jumped at any opportunity to do so! It is quite common to see photos of players in their prime released years later in conjunction with their death for use in obituaries and related stories.

As for the question of whether these news agencies kept negatives or prints on file, the answer for any given image could be either or both. However, it is very unlikely that a print would have been produced in 1922, filed away without any stamping, then pulled back out in the 1940's, stamped with the 1940's stamp style, and then sent out to subscribers. The scenario of a negative of the image having been produced in 1922, filed away for 20 years, then pulled out in the 1940's to produce a new print of the photo which was then stamped with the then-current 1940's stamp style and sent out to subscribers is much more likely.

Wow, that explanation went much longer than I intended! Hopefully that helps to show at least some of what can go into accurately dating a photo (print) as well as the image it depicts, and shows that you cannot just apply a blanket analysis to all photos with a "similar" style of stamping on the back. For the stamping styles used by the various news agencies, you would do very well to pick up a copy of Henry Yee and Marshall Fogel's book "A Portrait of Baseball Photography" which has numerous dated examples of the various agencies' stamping styles as well as a wealth of information about the history of baseball photography and photographers, as well as the photographs themselves. I agree with the sentiments of others that, first and foremost, you should collect photographs that have an image that appeals to you above and beyond the value of the physical print itself. But if you're getting into identifying "Type 1" photos and trying to identify when the print itself was produced, you really should add that book to your library.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

I'm coming to this a bit late, but here's my thoughts on this particular photo. Let me preface everything by emphasizing the need to analyze each photo based on its own indicators. This is not a blanket analysis to be applied to any photo that you may see with "similar stamping" on the back.

First of all, the image is definitely from 1922. You can tell the year based on the New York Giants player's uniform in the background on the left. That style of socks was only used by the Giants in 1922 and 1923. In 1923, the jersey had a large NY emblem on the player's left side of the chest (your right when facing him) that is absent from this player's uniform. The 1922 Giants jersey did not have this large emblem on the chest. You could further narrow the date to a few possibilities by looking at when the Giants played the Yankees in 1922: The World Series. So that narrows the date to some time between October 4 and 8 of 1922.

That's when the image was produced, meaning that's when the photographer looking on the scene depicted pressed the button on his camera. This is not the same as when the print was produced. The two are different, whether by hours, days, or years, and you would do well to remember that just because a photo depicts a scene (image) from a particular date, the physical photograph itself (print) could have been produced years later, and was not necessarily developed from the original negative. It is often much more difficult (or impossible) to determine exactly when a photograph (print) was produced, even if you can accurately date the scene (image) depicted in the photo.

To get an idea of when the physical photo (print) was produced, you have to look at other evidence. In this case, without being able to examine the print itself, the primary evidence is on the back of the photo. Here you have two bits of information. 1) The typed information at the top, which identifies the subjects in the foreground and gives the year the photo was taken. 2) The news service stamping. Since 1) tells us when the photo was taken, but not when the print was produced, we have to rely on 2) for that information.

As others have pointed out, the International News stamping style used on the back dates to 1940-1948. The biggest tell is the second line on the scroll portion which reads "A UNIT OF KING FEATURES SYND." While there is a similar stamping style with that line on the scroll that was used by the Chicago Bureau into the 1950's, the "235 East 46th Street, New York, N.Y." address together with the King Features text line is exclusive to this particular stamping style.

With the information present, that's as close as I can date the photo: It is a print produced between 1940 and 1948 of an image that was taken by the photographer during the 1922 World Series.

If you want to get into what that means as far as a "Type" classification, it would be either a Type 2 or a Type 4 since the print was developed at a date more than 2 years removed from when the image was shot. The difference between the two would be whether it was developed from the original negative (Type 2) or a copy negative or wire photo process (Type 4). It's hard to tell from the small scan shown in the eBay listing, but the image looks to be quite sharp and clear, which leads me to believe it was developed from the original negative rather than a copy negative.

As to why the photo could have been issued by the International News at a date so far removed from the original event, there are plenty of possibilities, but the strongest in my mind would be the failing health or death of Ruth himself in 1948. Newspapers nationwide were publishing stories dealing with the many grand accomplishments of The Bambino, and a sharp image of him in his prime with the Yankees in the 1922 World Series would have been prime fodder for accompanying any of those stories. It was an opportunity for the news agency to get paid again for an image that they already had on file, without the additional expense of hiring a photographer. Since these news agencies were in the business of selling the use of their images, if they could make additional money off of an image they already had in stock, you better believe they jumped at any opportunity to do so! It is quite common to see photos of players in their prime released years later in conjunction with their death for use in obituaries and related stories.

As for the question of whether these news agencies kept negatives or prints on file, the answer for any given image could be either or both. However, it is very unlikely that a print would have been produced in 1922, filed away without any stamping, then pulled back out in the 1940's, stamped with the 1940's stamp style, and then sent out to subscribers. The scenario of a negative of the image having been produced in 1922, filed away for 20 years, then pulled out in the 1940's to produce a new print of the photo which was then stamped with the then-current 1940's stamp style and sent out to subscribers is much more likely.

Wow, that explanation went much longer than I intended! Hopefully that helps to show at least some of what can go into accurately dating a photo (print) as well as the image it depicts, and shows that you cannot just apply a blanket analysis to all photos with a "similar" style of stamping on the back. For the stamping styles used by the various news agencies, you would do very well to pick up a copy of Henry Yee and Marshall Fogel's book "A Portrait of Baseball Photography" which has numerous dated examples of the various agencies' stamping styles as well as a wealth of information about the history of baseball photography and photographers, as well as the photographs themselves. I agree with the sentiments of others that, first and foremost, you should collect photographs that have an image that appeals to you above and beyond the value of the physical print itself. But if you're getting into identifying "Type 1" photos and trying to identify when the print itself was produced, you really should add that book to your library.

Outstanding explanation, Lance!

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

As for the question of whether these news agencies kept negatives or prints on file, the answer for any given image could be either or both. However, it is very unlikely that a print would have been produced in 1922, filed away without any stamping, then pulled back out in the 1940's, stamped with the 1940's stamp style, and then sent out to subscribers. The scenario of a negative of the image having been produced in 1922, filed away for 20 years, then pulled out in the 1940's to produce a new print of the photo which was then stamped with the then-current 1940's stamp style and sent out to subscribers is much more likely.

This cabinet photo was used by Culver as a subscriber photo for 100 years without a date stamp, then finally got one at decommission time - 1992. I have a few others that hung around the vaults quite a while before getting dated by the news service, but in general you have to go by the stamp unless you can date it by qualities of the actual physical photo.

removed: replaced with smaller scan on next page

[thecatspajamas]

Scott, is it just on my end, or was there a problem with the image upload on your post? I'm just getting the white box with a red x.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Scott, is it just on my end, or was there a problem with the image upload on your post? I'm just getting the white box with a red x.

Weird - I'm getting the same thing, but when I go directly to the server I can see it fine

Try this:

[drc]

I've noticed a few other image problems on Net54 lately, so it isn't just your photo Scott

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by drc

I've noticed a few other image problems on Net54 lately, so it isn't just your photo Scott

David, are you saying I have an 'image issue'?

And you, one of my few friends on the board

edited to add: fixed it - it was indeed my mistake, not a Net54 problem.

[thecatspajamas]

Scott, second posting of the pic shows up fine, for me at least.

I'm not as familiar with Culver's stamping styles, and they are unfortunately not covered in Yee/Fogel's book, but it looks to me like there are at least 3 distinct stampings on the back of your photo (possibly four, depending on what is underneath the 2-strip masking label). It looks to me like, of the stampings visible, the Culver Pictures, Inc. stamping with the marked-out address was applied first, along with the "This picture is loaned for..." text block underneath (possibly the two were on the same stamp block, though I can't quite tell if the alignment is there by eyeballing the scan). At some point, Culver moved or changed addresses, and the stamping with phone number at the bottom was added. Research into the history of Culver (which I have not done) would help to give a date range to both of those stamps, even absent from other dated examples to compare to. Finally, the "DEACCESSIONED" stamping at the top was applied in 1992. Judging by the blanks left in the stamp to be filled in by hand, that stamp was likely used over a number of years for whenever photos were removed or sold from the archive, and in this case could be definitively dated to February of 1992. All stamping aside, the original cabinet card is commonly known as an 1895 Newsboy Cabinet (ACC #N566) which was issued in the mid-1890's as evidenced by the logo and number on the front of the card/photo (and now that I think about it, probably has advertising on the back underneath the masking label rather than another Culver stamp). It would have been picked up by Culver at some time later and added to their archive of images as a nice example of an early Ward photo. This practice too was not uncommon, though their claiming of rights for the photo to be used in advertising is pretty bold considering the source of the image, and probably would not have been enforceable.

So like with any stamped news photo, you have to proceed backwards through the various stampings and markings to get to the earliest one (in this case, not the stamping of the news agency, but the original Newsboy commercial markings on the cabinet card itself) to date when the photo (print) was produced. Clearly, the 1992 date, being the most recent marking on the photo, is not the date the photo (print) was produced (as you said yourself). Even disregarding the original Newsboy markings though, I don't think this is a case of a photo that was sitting in Culver's archives unstamped for 100 years, only to be pulled out and stamped in 1992 when it was removed from the archive. If you further researched the other Culver stampings, I believe you would find that the earlier stamp was applied much much earlier than 1992, most likely when Culver added the photo to their archives.

[drc]

Scott, just quit using in your posts the f-word and "The South will rise again", and you will be okay.

Scott was suspicious of me when he found out I was a Northerner until he learned all my relatives immigrated to the US after the Civil War.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Scott, second posting of the pic shows up fine, for me at least.

I'm not as familiar with Culver's stamping styles, and they are unfortunately not covered in Yee/Fogel's book, but it looks to me like there are at least 3 distinct stampings on the back of your photo (possibly four, depending on what is underneath the 2-strip masking label). It looks to me like, of the stampings visible, the Culver Pictures, Inc. stamping with the marked-out address was applied first, along with the "This picture is loaned for..." text block underneath (possibly the two were on the same stamp block, though I can't quite tell if the alignment is there by eyeballing the scan). At some point, Culver moved or changed addresses, and the stamping with phone number at the bottom was added. Research into the history of Culver (which I have not done) would help to give a date range to both of those stamps, even absent from other dated examples to compare to. Finally, the "DEACCESSIONED" stamping at the top was applied in 1992. Judging by the blanks left in the stamp to be filled in by hand, that stamp was likely used over a number of years for whenever photos were removed or sold from the archive, and in this case could be definitively dated to February of 1992. All stamping aside, the original cabinet card is commonly known as an 1895 Newsboy Cabinet (ACC #N566) which was issued in the mid-1890's as evidenced by the logo and number on the front of the card/photo (and now that I think about it, probably has advertising on the back underneath the masking label rather than another Culver stamp). It would have been picked up by Culver at some time later and added to their archive of images as a nice example of an early Ward photo. This practice too was not uncommon, though their claiming of rights for the photo to be used in advertising is pretty bold considering the source of the image, and probably would not have been enforceable.

So like with any stamped news photo, you have to proceed backwards through the various stampings and markings to get to the earliest one (in this case, not the stamping of the news agency, but the original Newsboy commercial markings on the cabinet card itself) to date when the photo (print) was produced. Clearly, the 1992 date, being the most recent marking on the photo, is not the date the photo (print) was produced (as you said yourself). Even disregarding the original Newsboy markings though, I don't think this is a case of a photo that was sitting in Culver's archives unstamped for 100 years, only to be pulled out and stamped in 1992 when it was removed from the archive. If you further researched the other Culver stampings, I believe you would find that the earlier stamp was applied much much earlier than 1992, most likely when Culver added the photo to their archives.

Yes, of course. I did go through all that back when I owned it - you probably can't see it because it's scribbled over, but I was able to come up with an earlier date based on the phone number that no longer is visible. It was just an interesting example, so thought I'd share. Your post was great and I certainly wasn't contradicting anything you said - trust me, the board crocodiles would have been all over me by now. I'm bleeding in the water at this point and probably shouldn't be sharing ideas at all.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Yes, of course. I did go through all that back when I owned it - you probably can't see it because it's scribbled over, but I was able to come up with an earlier date based on the phone number that no longer is visible. It was just an interesting example, so thought I'd share. Your post was great and I certainly wasn't contradicting anything you said - trust me, the board crocodiles would have been all over me by now. I'm bleeding in the water at this point and probably shouldn't be sharing ideas at all.

Scott, I didn't mean to be poo-pooing your example or implying that you didn't know what you have. I just wanted to make sure it was clear for other readers of these posts with regards to the various stampings and how they are used to date a photo, as it seems there is a lot of misconception out there. I didn't mean it to sound like I was taking offense or being defensive.

And I am glad that you showed the example, as it reminded me that I do need to do more research on Culver (they seem to come up regularly in these photo threads). Unfortunately, that's one news service that I haven't yet found any "giants' shoulders" to stand on in terms of reference material I would be glad to hear anything you may have found in your own diggings!

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

And I am glad that you showed the example, as it reminded me that I do need to do more research on Culver (they seem to come up regularly in these photo threads). Unfortunately, that's one news service that I haven't yet found any "giants' shoulders" to stand on in terms of reference material I would be glad to hear anything you may have found in your own diggings!

This is the only Culver that ever stood out for me - most that I owned were fairly run of the mill. This one was interesting because they used a cabinet photo to distribute, and because it had two addresses on it (my mistake - not a phone number scribbled out), and the two pieces of paper had been glued over something (I didn't want to remove them to look). At one point I had determined the date that they moved from the first (top) address, so I knew the card had been in their files for at least 'x' number of years.

To me, that was interesting - obviously the piece wasn't perceived as valuable. I also found it curious that they had never stamped a date anywhere on the photo - yes, they could date it based on the fact that it was a Newsboy cabinet, but they were distributing it without that date indicated, leaving it up to the publisher to indicate whatever date they wanted in their publication. I guess it's really not that important - I just found the whole piece interesting.

I enjoyed your Ruth assessment. It's always tempting to want such a photo to be older than it likely is, but as you state - almost certainly a reprint from the 1940's.

[Runscott]

Digging through my photos for a better Culver example, I came across this Willie Hoppe stamped 1940. Has a similar news service stamp, but missing the 'King Features Synd' line. Also found this 1909-stamped Culver of Hoppe.

[D. Bergin]

I have found the Culver stampings to generally be pretty irrelevant.

Most of their material looks to be culled from other sources.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Digging through my photos for a better Culver example, I came across this Willie Hoppe stamped 1940. Has a similar news service stamp, but missing the 'King Features Synd' line. Also found this 1909-stamped Culver of Hoppe.

The 1909 date on the Hoppe looks like it's simply and handwritten ID of the date of the image, that could have been added at any time.

The most important stamp on that piece appears to be the one that's obscured by the Culver tag and the bar code.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

The 1909 date on the Hoppe looks like it's simply and handwritten ID of the date of the image, that could have been added at any time.

The most important stamp on that piece appears to be the one that's obscured by the Culver tag and the bar code.

Lance expressed some interest, so I posted a Culver photo. That's the Bain News Service stamp that's obscurred. The Culver stamp is somewhat useful in that they moved from the 660 address sometime after 1935. I don't know the exact date. Also, there's a Culver photo in the 'Feb pick-up' thread with an address of 205 East 42nd - another way to narrow down age using the Culver stamps. But I agree, they are fairly useless - Culver seemed to have picked up a lot of photos that had been used for years by other services, such as this Bain photo.

The actual print is definitely 1910-ish - a Bain, probably Type 1. It's the one on the right. (The photo on the left is NOT the front of the other scan I posted - I just happened to scan these two together a while back)

[D. Bergin]

Yup. Thought it might be a Bain. That's a great image of Hoppe.

As an aside, there was a boxer around the same period also named Willie Hoppe. I always assumed he took the name of the more famous Billiards player as a marketing tool, but have never stumbled across confirmation of this.

Willie would have been jealous of the digits possessed by Mordecai Brown. Most of his career he fought with a total of 4 fingers..............both hands combined.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

I have found the Culver stampings to generally be pretty irrelevant.

Most of their material looks to be culled from other sources.

That has been my understanding as well: that Culver never employed photographers of their own but utilized images from other sources. Now that I think about it, that could be the reason they were not included in Fogel/Yee's book as any stamping by Culver would be secondary at best.

The one blurb relating to Culver is actually in the Bain's News Service section and says, "After Bain's death in 1944, the United States Library of Congress purchased the preponderance of his archives from Culver Pictures in New York (Culver is still in business today at their 150 West 22nd Street location in Manhattan). The Library's George Grantham Bain Collection consists of an estimated 40,000 glass plate negatives and 50,000 photographic prints. Culver's remaining Bain photos were used in publication until 1992, when they were "deaccessioned" from service. Many of these have since surfaced on the auction block, most notably in Christie's 1996 sale of the Baseball Magazine archives."

[aelefson]

Hi-
It is great to read this thread after purchasing my own example at the Wilmington MA show this weekend. I bought it presuming it to be a later print of an older photo but I really liked the clarity. The back is virtually identical to the one linked to in this thread (same syndicate line). Attached are scans of the front and back of my example scanned at 400 dpi.
Alan Elefson
aelefson@hotmail.com