Chicago Tribune/Balt Sun Photos

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

I do have one question along those lines. When the newspaper stamping (logo, address, etc.) appears on the back of an original photo, with or without a date stamp, does that necessarily mean that the photo was produced at that time or could the photo have been produced much earlier and that was just the date/time that the particular newspaper used it for printing? I'm sure that the newspaper photographers did not take many of the photos originally that were printed in their publications over the years.

While that COULD be the case, I think you'd be taking quite a leap to come to that conclusion without supporting evidence. The more likely scenario would be that the photo with the later-date stamping is a re-strike from the original negative or second-generation photo re-shot from an earlier original photo. While not all papers were particularly diligent about stamping dates on the backs of photos, I think the scenario you are describing of an unmarked photo sitting in the archives for years before being pulled out, used for production, and then stamped at that later date would be far less likely than it simply being a re-strike.

Just my 2 cents based on this hypothetical scenario...