Photo Question.

[Frozen in Time]

I tend to agree with all the comments posted thus far. The first thing that I consider when buying a photo is the image. If I like it, then I will buy it. However, other factors do come into play when I make the decision of what I am willing to pay.

Having said that, my collecting interests are quite different and much more narrow than most as I tend to focus primarily on early - 1949-1956 (with an emphasis on 1951), Type 1 images of Mantle.

These choices have obviously required a great deal of homework on my part aided by a number of publications, viewing the front and backs of thousands of photos in auctions and at shows, participation in numerous vintage photo threads on this forum and countless conversations with fellow collectors, in particular Henry Yee.

Whereas, there is still some healthy debate regarding the approximate two year time window for Type 1 photos, there is a learning curve for consideration of criteria such as news agency /photographer stamps, date stamps, emulsion and paper fiber composition, etc. If you enjoy this type of thing (which I do) you will ultimately be in a better position to judge the past history of any photo. I believe acquiring this knowledge provides as important a foundation for the collector as does determining the specific baseball history associated with each photo.

You will often come across photos which lack enough of the above mentioned "criteria" to make an "informed" judgement as to "Type". United Press International photos are particularly inconsistent after the acquisition of Acme and the merger with INS in 1958. Numerous, previously unstamped Acme or INS photos were stamped with the new UPI stamps and many bureaus did not keep up to date with newer versions of the stamping so a substantial overlap of the same stamp was quite common during this period. By the way, this also occurred, although much less frequently, with earlier INS and World Wide stamping.

I guess my bottom line for all of this is no different than what probably applies to all other areas of collecting:

1) Try to gain as much knowledge as possible.

and

2) Collect what you like.

All of the other factors "Type", history, vintage, original, etc. are primarily indicators of general market value and price.

Hope some of this helps.

Cheers,

Craig

[71buc]

Lance, Scott, and Craig you all make excellent points. I have never purchased a photo anywhere other than Ebay so I am unable to examine photos in person prior to purchasing them. Due to this I use the Yee Fogel book as my reference when buying online. I have paid 300 for a Ruth photo and 150 for a Robinson but due to the issue I discussed in my post I typically avoid spending more than 60. I don't have the confidence in the classification system or knowledge to risk more than nominal amounts of cash. I buy photos that I find pleasing to my own taste and believe if I make an error I still have an image that appeals to me. Thanks for sharing your opinions and knowledge I remain a neophyte in this section of the hobby but I do enjoy collecting and discussing these photos.

Mike

[Leon]

Great discussion guys. I got out of collecting photos as I need to be more disciplined with my limited resources. That being said there are some images that are so cool I can't help myself. (and they don't cost thousands though some aren't cheap)

[Runscott]

That should be titled "Sporting Wood"

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by Leon

Great discussion guys. I got out of collecting photos as I need to be more disciplined with my limited resources. That being said there are some images that are so cool I can't help myself. (and they don't cost thousands though some aren't cheap)

Fantastic image Leon. Raw materials in the cart, finished product in the window?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Frozen in Time

Fantastic image Leon. Raw materials in the cart, finished product in the window?

I never really looked in the window? It does look like finished bats. I will have to take a magnifying glass to it.

And yes Scott, it could be "sporting wood" for sure.

[Nashvol]

As an aside to that awesome photo, if a trip to Louisville is in anyone's plans, a visit to Louisville Slugger is a "must see"!

[drc]

World Wide Photos was around after 1954. I have a 1960s photo with a World Wide Photo stamp on back. If a "1920-54" time period stamp is on a 1957 photo, that would say that "1920-54" dates were incorrect.

I do think there are details about the stamps, including when exactly they were used, that is currently unknown. Future adjustments may happen-- though I don't expect radical ones. I think the current published dates are generally correct.

The 2 year rule is arbitrary. It's not a number I would chose-- though I was never asked I don't think it's a horrible number, just arbitrary. It could as easily be something different.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by drc

World Wide Photos was around after 1954. I have a 1960s photo with a World Wide Photo stamp on back. If a "1920-54" time period stamp is on a 1957 photo, that would say that "1920-54" dates were incorrect.

I do think there are details about the stamps, including when exactly they were used, that is currently unknown. Future adjustments may happen-- though I don't expect radical ones. I think the current published dates are generally correct.

The 2 year rule is arbitrary. It's not a number I would chose-- though I was never asked I don't think it's a horrible number, just arbitrary. It could as easily be something different.

In the old days, if I told you: "It's an old photo with a clear image that in my opinion, was almost certainly printed by the photographer's studio from the original negative, around the time that the photo was taken", and you looked at it and thought, "hmmm....that looks more like it was printed around 2.3 years after the photo was shot"....well, that wouldn't happen. If you had questions, you'd ask me, and if you respected my opinion, we'd deal. With the 'type' system, you no longer have to consider the seller's expertise with photographs - the little slip under the plastic tells you everything you need to know.

These days, when describing a photo, I sometimes find myself thinking, "Is this a Type 1? Was it printed within 2 years, or possibly 2.1 or 2.2?!? " And if it doesn't have a back-stamp? WE'RE SCREWED!!!!

[drc]

Clearly a problem with the 2 year cutoff date (beyond the question is 2 the correct number) is there are many photos where you can't tell what day it was made. It may have been made 2 years and 1 day or 1 year and 364 days and none one knows. And the 2 day different even matter?

As I said, I would have picked the 2 year rule.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by drc

Clearly a problem with the 2 year cutoff date (beyond the question is 2 the correct number) is there are many photos where you can't tell what day it was made. It may have been made 2 years and 1 day or 1 year and 364 days and none one knows. And the 2 day different even matter?

As I said, I would have picked the 2 year rule.

I think you mean "would not have".

Also, the word 'original', when describing old photos, used to mean 'not second generation'. And if it was a later print from the original negative, you'd have to add a bit more description than simply 'original print'. Now I'm noticing auction houses and photo sellers using 'original' to simply denote that it's a picture printed on paper, I guess as opposed to a xerox?

Even worse is when something's described as 'vintage.' I doubt many people here really know what that word means, but it doesn't mean 'old'.

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by drc

World Wide Photos was around after 1954. I have a 1960s photo with a World Wide Photo stamp on back. If a "1920-54" time period stamp is on a 1957 photo, that would say that "1920-54" dates were incorrect.

I do think there are details about the stamps, including when exactly they were used, that is currently unknown. Future adjustments may happen-- though I don't expect radical ones. I think the current published dates are generally correct.

The 2 year rule is arbitrary. It's not a number I would chose-- though I was never asked I don't think it's a horrible number, just arbitrary. It could as easily be something different.

Hi David. World Wide Photo(s) stamps existed from the early 1920's to the mid 40's for the main office (NYC), the latter overlapping with the World Wide Phot(o) stamp from the mid 40's to 1954. All of these differ from one another as do the later World Wide Photo(s) stampings from '55'-57, late 1950's-1962, 1962 -early 1970's, mid 70's- late 80's and late 80's to the present.

Most of the confusion that I have seen with these stamps can be attributed to what I have seen for similar cases with other stampings i.e., some bureaus and news agencies simply did not keep up with (or have) the most recent stamps. In the case of World Wide Phot(o) stamps many photos with this stamp also have AP stamps that will allow the collector to narrow down further the date of publication.

With regard to the 2 year rule, I agree and feel something between 3-5 years would still be appropriate. Nevertheless, I think we all have to realize that with some first generation photos we will never know for sure (because of the lack of suitable criteria) whether or not they are Type 1 prints.

Craig

[Hankphenom]

As has been said before, and in my opinion, it's not perfect, but the "Type" system is an improvement in describing photos on what came before. The problem with trying to identify them with words like "vintage," "original," etc., is that those words can mean whatever you want them to. But the bottom line for collectors is this, and applies to everything else you buy: If you don't know anything about it, what in the hell are you are doing spending your hard-earned money on it? You like old photos, and want to collect them? Then do your homework and learn all you can about them. Not only will you buy more wisely, but you'll enjoy them more, too!

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

As has been said before, and in my opinion, it's not perfect, but the "Type" system is an improvement in describing photos on what came before. The problem with trying to identify them with words like "vintage," "original," etc., is that those words can mean whatever you want them to. But the bottom line for collectors is this, and applies to everything else you buy: If you don't know anything about it, what in the hell are you are doing spending your hard-earned money on it? You like old photos, and want to collect them? Then do your homework and learn all you can about them. Not only will you buy more wisely, but you'll enjoy them more, too!

+1

[GrayGhost]

I think if you are planning on dumping a boatload of Dinero on some old photo, you BETTER know what you are doing. honestly, some prices Ive seen , to me, are RIDICULOUS for certain "Type 1" photos. Again tho, its up to people if they have the means/want to spend that much.

Bottom line, if you MUST have a first generation, first printing, first minute it was made, one of a kind vintage image that sears into your soul, be sure you aren't buying a photo that may be Type 2, or just cool and Older. That would be a TRAVESTY of life..

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by GrayGhost

I think if you are planning on dumping a boatload of Dinero on some old photo, you BETTER know what you are doing. honestly, some prices Ive seen , to me, are RIDICULOUS for certain "Type 1" photos. Again tho, its up to people if they have the means/want to spend that much.

Bottom line, if you MUST have a first generation, first printing, first minute it was made, one of a kind vintage image that sears into your soul, be sure you aren't buying a photo that may be Type 2, or just cool and Older. That would be a TRAVESTY of life..

Hi Scott. I agree 100% that one should ideally have as much knowledge as possible before spending a significant amount of money on a vintage photo and, in particular, as you have pointed out - a Type 1 photo. But I don't consider this to be RIDICULOUS nor do I see how this is any different than buying any other vintage item in the hobby.

For instance, even though I personally can't understand why some people are willing to spend 10's or even 100's of thousands of dollars on tiny pieces of cardboard, which in most cases multiple examples exist, I realize that for these individuals this represents their passion and the fulfillment of their hobby-related interests. Compared to cards, collecting vintage photos is still in its infancy and my guess is that as the true rarity of some of these images continues to be appreciated we have not seen the last of significant amounts being spent to acquire them.

Craig

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by GrayGhost

I think if you are planning on dumping a boatload of Dinero on some old photo, you BETTER know what you are doing. honestly, some prices Ive seen , to me, are RIDICULOUS for certain "Type 1" photos. Again tho, its up to people if they have the means/want to spend that much.

Bottom line, if you MUST have a first generation, first printing, first minute it was made, one of a kind vintage image that sears into your soul, be sure you aren't buying a photo that may be Type 2, or just cool and Older. That would be a TRAVESTY of life..

lol. +1