Type II photos?

[71buc]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

I spoke to Henry a few minutes ago and he said that United Press was a parent of Acme and N.E.A. (Newspaper Enterprise Association), they were all under the same umbrella. Both stamps are correct and both photos were issued in 1947 as the paper composition is identical. The book he, Marshall and Khyber Oser wrote is a bit outdated and ideally he would love to put together a new one. I know he mentioned to me once that he was looking for a publisher. Henry said if you have any further questions, you can contact him directly at hyee@mindspring.com. I have always found him to be friendly and helpful - a bit slow to respond sometimes as he always seems to be traveling but he does eventually get back to you every time.
Ben

Thanks I appreciate the feedback and look forward to a second edition of his book.

[drc]

Vintage original means type I.

Type IIs aren't originals, as originals are type Is.

[ibuysportsephemera]

FWIW, I like yours better Mike. My favorite photos are the ones with original captions.

Jeff

[71buc]

Originally Posted by drc

Vintage original means type I.

Type IIs aren't originals, as originals are type Is.

I have no problem with that definition. However, I have frequently been relying on stamping styles of issuers to make that determination when looking at photos. It seems that this is not a completely accurate approach. I am learning that there are many other variables needing consideration when determining if a photo is an original. I lack the expertise to consider those variables. How many collectors actually have that level of knowledge. Mr. Yee sent me his contact information. I have been impressed with his work and hear great things about him from many. As a photo collector i look forward to talking to him.

[drc]

Yours had the date printed on it, so you were safe with yours.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by 71buc

I have no problem with that definition. However, I have frequently been relying on stamping styles of issuers to make that determination when looking at photos. It seems that this is not a completely accurate approach. I am learning that there are many other variables needing consideration when determining if a photo is an original. I lack the expertise to consider those variables. How many collectors actually have that level of knowledge. Mr. Yee sent me his contact information. I have been impressed with his work and hear great things about him from many. As a photo collector i look forward to talking to him.

Correct... the only way that the approach exists is because of Henry's countless hours of research which is always growing(hence the need for a second volume). If fact, there are many so called experts that have adopted his work/classifications who rely on it too(and don't admit it).
The stamps are one variable like you said. Others include: Paper fibers, indicators under a black light, image under a loop, inks, knowledge of other type 1s/data base/exemplars(to name a few).
There are also ways to tell if there have been fake stamps applied(and believe me, there are more forgeries every day). You can imagine that it would be relatively easy for someone to make a rubber stamp to look like one in Henry's book, put the photo on ebay and prey on people who only look for that. It would be PARTICULARLY easy for a crook to simply put a fake date stamp on the back.
I also see a lot of TYPE 1 classifications being thrown around by sellers on ebay as well as other "major" authenticating companies that are just flat out wrong(NOT EVEN CLOSE).
As in...labeling a 1930s image that was produced on a dupe negative in the 70s a TYPE 1. I have one of those "expert's" slabs in hand.

Originally Posted by drc

Yours had the date printed on it, so you were safe with yours.

I would say Henry's is good if he says it is. I would take his word for it over a picture of a photo with a date stamp any day of the week. Besides, he said both were good.

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Correct... the only way that the approach exists is because of Henry's countless hours of research which is always growing(hence the need for a second volume). If fact, there are many so called experts that have adopted his work/classifications who rely on it too(and don't admit it).
The stamps are one variable like you said. Others include: Paper fibers, indicators under a black light, image under a loop, inks, knowledge of other type 1s/data base/exemplars(to name a few).
There are also ways to tell if there have been fake stamps applied(and believe me, there are more forgeries every day). You can imagine that it would be relatively easy for someone to make a rubber stamp to look like one in Henry's book, put the photo on ebay and prey on people who only look for that. It would be PARTICULARLY easy to put a fake date stamp.
I also see a lot of TYPE 1 classifications being thrown around by sellers on ebay as well as other "major" authenticating companies that are just flat out wrong(NOT EVEN CLOSE).
As in...labeling a 1930s image that was produced on a dupe negative in the 70s a TYPE 1. I have one of those "expert's" slabs in hand.



I would say Henry's is good if he says it is. I would take his word for it over a picture of a photo with a date stamp any day of the week.

Ben is absolutely correct. This is a constantly evolving segment of the hobby with new information being added virtually every week. Most of this new information regarding stamping varieties, agency variables, individual photographer vagaries and time windows, etc. comes largely from three sources.

First, is the enormous number of vintage photographs now reaching the market from the Roger's acquisitions. Second, the increased interest from collectors regarding this subject matter and their attempts to educate themselves about it. Third, the remarkable body of scientific scrutiny regarding all aspects of photo identification and classification over the last 20 years or so by Henry and his colleagues as well as his auctions which afford collectors the opportunity to see all of the important information that appears on the backs of photos.

As little as 15 years ago virtually every vintage photo was simply described (usually incorrectly) as a "wire" or "press" photo. We have come a long way and, in my opinion, have Henry (and some others) to thank for this new interest and appreciation of vintage sports photography.

Craig

[repsher]

I'm confused.. Are both photos Type 1's? I need that 2nd edition, I can't even find the 1st (for a reasonable price). I'd love to be able to get an electronic version.

Ryan

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by repsher

I'm confused.. Are both photos Type 1's? I need that 2nd edition, I can't even find the 1st (for a reasonable price). I'd love to be able to get an electronic version.

Ryan

Please see my response I posted below from Henry. Also, I agree.. an electronic version would rule but who then would pay for all the hours putting it together? You can find them on ebay every now and again relatively inexpensive. It is by far the best resource for baseball photography so I would pick one up if you are serious in collecting photos even if you have to pay a premium. I think I paid 30-40 bucks for the last one I bought(other rone was too worn).