August Pick Ups

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

Lance,
You know what, I believe that you are correct now that I've looked closely.
I have looked at these two images before and wondered about them and why...

I wonder what in the photographic process would make them look like this. Do you think the shot that includes Paul Derringer has been altered so as to create this look? I guess I might know more once I have it in hand...

Only thing I can think of is the lighting source each photographer relied on for his shot. Perhaps that's the difference between having a good flash, and relying on ambient light? There are probably other more-technical aspects that I'm not familiar with that can affect it as well, but in the one you got from me, it looks like a flashbomb just went off, providing enough light that you can see it reflected from the paint on the back of the dugout.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Only thing I can think of is the lighting source each photographer relied on for his shot. Perhaps that's the difference between having a good flash, and relying on ambient light? There are probably other more-technical aspects that I'm not familiar with that can affect it as well, but in the one you got from me, it looks like a flashbomb just went off, providing enough light that you can see it reflected from the paint on the back of the dugout.

I said it before, but the lighting in the photo that you sold me was like cracking The Davinci Code as far as revealing where the dugout was in my Kreindler painting...

I'm glad that your Vandy/Babe photo answered the riddle that Graig and I puzzled over...

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

I said it before, but the lighting in the photo that you sold to me was like The Davinci Code in cracking the mystery of where my dugout was in my Kreindler painting...

I'm glad that your Vandy/Babe photo answered the riddle that Graig and I puzzled over...

I'm just glad that it found a good new home. That it helped to solve the mystery made it all the more satisfying. All deals should have such a happy ending

[Lordstan]

Great pics Scott.
I wonder if the top one could be a copy of an original print. There seems to be so much less detail in the top one as compared to the bottom one of Vandy and Ruth. Notice the bat the Derringer is holding in the top photo. Ruth is holding it in the second. The printing of the band is sharper in the second picture, but the overall color is pretty much the same. Could the first be from a copy negative where the photographer did something to the print to make the jackets and hats not be able to show the logos?

[Butch7999]

FWIW:
A) the wrinkles/folds in Vandermeer's jacket look (to us) almost identical in both photos.
B) Some black-&-white film will see red as black, and blue (even dark blue) as grey.
C) Cincinnati wore blue caps with red peaks in 1938.

The Reds caps both Vandy and the Babe are wearing in the pic with Derringer look grey with black peaks in our browser.
The caps look black with light-colored peaks in the two-shot,
and Vandy's jacket in that pic looks to have a black front and light sleeves, which would mean the front is blue and the sleeves red.
Which would account for the all-black look of the jacket in the three-shot.

Our best guess: one photographer was using better-quality film.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by Butch7999

FWIW:
A) the wrinkles/folds in Vandermeer's jacket look (to us) almost identical in both photos.
B) Some black-&-white film will see red as black, and blue (even dark blue) as grey.
C) Cincinnati wore blue caps with red peaks in 1938.

The Reds caps both Vandy and the Babe are wearing in the pic with Derringer look grey with black peaks in our browser.
The caps look black with light-colored peaks in the two-shot,
and Vandy's jacket in that pic looks to have a black front and light sleeves, which would mean the front is blue and the sleeves red.
Which would account for the all-black look of the jacket in the three-shot.

Our best guess: one photographer was using better-quality film.

Butch,
Excellent detective work! I appreciate your input.

[Runscott]

Picked up four bats the other day: 1930's 34" "Atlanta Cracker", 36" hand-lathed flat-end ash, 34" Louisville Slugger 125 (can't read signature, if any), Louisville Slugger 'Edd Roush'.

Here's the label of the 'Atlanta Cracker', 34", no damage other than worn label and some marks. Also, the hand-turned one.

[Runscott]

Here's 'before' pics of the Roush '40 ER'. It was very dry and splotchy with separated dead wood and some reddish-brown stains that wouldn't come off with thinner or stripper - all the dark areas in the photos were even more pronounced. It looked like someone had tried to remove the varnish, or it had been left in water - you can see a wiggly line on the bottom pic that looks like what worms do to driftwood. Some will shoot me for this, but the bat was 'all there', but unsightly, so I made a project out of it, and I expect it to be quite a looker when done.

1. injected wood glue beneath separated pieces and clamped - you can see where the 'Edd J Roush' signature is almost totally lifted from the wood - it is now flush and looks very nice.
2. removed as much of the dark splotches as possible, using thinner, then stripper
3. removed a bit more using 220 sandpaper
4. stained with 'red oak', guessing that was close to the original color
5. it's now drying. I'll add a light coat of bullseye French polish tomorrow and post pics

[Mark]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Picked up four bats the other day: 1930's 34" "Atlanta Cracker", 36" hand-lathed flat-end ash, 34" Louisville Slugger 125 (can't read signature, if any), Louisville Slugger 'Edd Roush'.

Here's the label of the 'Atlanta Cracker', 34", no damage other than worn label and some marks. Also, the hand-turned one.

Beautiful job. It seems to me that you saved a fine bat. Any chance that you happened to measure how much weight was added via restoration?

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

Great pics Scott.
I wonder if the top one could be a copy of an original print. There seems to be so much less detail in the top one as compared to the bottom one of Vandy and Ruth. Notice the bat the Derringer is holding in the top photo. Ruth is holding it in the second. The printing of the band is sharper in the second picture, but the overall color is pretty much the same. Could the first be from a copy negative where the photographer did something to the print to make the jackets and hats not be able to show the logos?

Mark,
IDK, but you are certainly correct that the clarity is much better in the second photo that features Vandy and Babe only. Lance called this photo a Type II as I recall...

The photo that I just bought (Vandy, Babe, Derringer) is supposedly a Type I and the slug indicates that it is from 1938. I'll know more when it's in hand. I really like the image regardless....

[repsher]

It could also be that the photo was poorly scanned. Those photos are great. He certainly looks like a boy meeting his idol.

[Runscott]

Couldn't it be that someone touched up the negative in the darker one? Even Babe Ruth's cap appears to have been 'darkened' substantially - doesn't look like something that either lighting or different file would cause.

Maybe David (Cycleback) has some ideas?

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

Mark,
IDK, but you are certainly correct that the clarity is much better in the second photo that features Vandy and Babe only. Lance called this photo a Type II as I recall...

The photo that I just bought (Vandy, Babe, Derringer) is supposedly a Type I and the slug indicates that it is from 1938. I'll know more when it's in hand. I really like the image regardless....

No doubt it's a great image of a boy and his hero.

[Lordstan]

My newest Lou pic. Direct from Curt(Thanks)

1934 in action with Oscar Melillo.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Butch7999

B) Some black-&-white film will see red as black, and blue (even dark blue) as grey.

Well that explains a few things, both here and with other confusing b/w images I have seen. Thank you VERY much for that added insight. This tidbit made it onto a sticky note on my "wall of reference"

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

Mark,
IDK, but you are certainly correct that the clarity is much better in the second photo that features Vandy and Babe only. Lance called this photo a Type II as I recall...

The photo that I just bought (Vandy, Babe, Derringer) is supposedly a Type I and the slug indicates that it is from 1938. I'll know more when it's in hand. I really like the image regardless....

Type I vs. Type II shouldn't necessarily speak to image quality, as both are necessarily printed from the original negative. The one I sold is a Type II because it was printed some 20 years after the event, when UPI re-issued a slew of images following the merger of United Press and International News in 1958. It was still printed from the original negative, so the image quality should be identical to a Type I, but being that the print was produced well after the original event, it doesn't qualify as a Type I.

Your more recent acquisition, although a Type I produced in the period, appears to have been shot by a less-skilled photographer or, as Butch noted, one using lesser-quality film and equipment (or both). Looks like there must have been a number of photographers popping off shots of Vandy's meeting with Babe!

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Well that explains a few things, both here and with other confusing b/w images I have seen. Thank you VERY much for that added insight. This tidbit made it onto a sticky note on my "wall of reference"



Type I vs. Type II shouldn't necessarily speak to image quality, as both are necessarily printed from the original negative. The one I sold is a Type II because it was printed some 20 years after the event, when UPI re-issued a slew of images following the merger of United Press and International News in 1958. It was still printed from the original negative, so the image quality should be identical to a Type I, but being that the print was produced well after the original event, it doesn't qualify as a Type I.

Your more recent acquisition, although a Type I produced in the period, appears to have been shot by a less-skilled photographer or, as Butch noted, one using lesser-quality film and equipment (or both). Looks like there must have been a number of photographers popping off shots of Vandy's meeting with Babe!

Lance,
Thanks for the insight!

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Type I vs. Type II shouldn't necessarily speak to image quality, as both are necessarily printed from the original negative.

This is where the 'Type' designations get confusing and why I couldn't give a flip about it (yes, bad pun). Most photo collectors I know are interested in the following, and always have been. If you could get a sharp, well-composed print of something you were interested in, and it was printed from the original negative at around the time the photo was taken, then you were happy. And if it was printed yesterday, but would look good on your wall and the price was fair, then you were still happy. Now a 'Type 1' designation within a plastic holder makes up for problems that in the past wouldn't have been acceptable.

• image clarity and composition
• subject
• date printed (either specifically or general)