Type II photos?

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

I think the most important thing to do before diving into serious photo collecting is to learn what goes into the terminology used and the methodology used to determine a photo's "Type," whether you choose to use the term "Type" or not. In the same way that you don't learn algebra just by looking at the answer key, or learn history by staring at a list of events with dates beside them, it would be quite difficult to learn to accurately analyze a photo just by reading the seller's description.

For one thing, sellers' descriptions are often wrong, or misleading (or both), as the sellers' primary objective is not always to educate the buyer. In no way am I including Henry Yee in that group, as his descriptions are typically accurate to a fault. But there are plenty of sellers (including auction houses) that make liberal use of the terms "original," "Type 1," "wire photo," etc when a knowledgable buyer can look at the scans provided and arrive at a far more precise (and accurate) judgement of the photo without being able to physically examine it.

I would love to see a second edition of Fogel and Yee's book if for no other reason than to see more copies of it out there, available and being used. An expanded and refined catalog of stamping styles would also be helpful, but I wouldn't expect any radical changes to the "Type" classification system to be put forth.

WELL STATED LANCE. I have made many many errors over the years. I have learned to be aware and avoid those who try to create confusion, muddy the waters as they are not doing it for your best interest(believe me). It is definitely no laughing matter. Ask for scans and guarantees that it passes psa as a type 1(if that is what you are going for). If they do not provide either, it is up to you in taking the risk. Sometimes you might hit a home run and sometimes you will lose. I have definitely experienced both. I will tell you, any auction house that doesn't show the backs of any of their photos.. I tend to question as there is no way you can even form your own opinion. Perhaps they want it that way...

[Hankphenom]

So Henry's book is wrong on the second stamping, which is listed as 1955-57, is that the story here?

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

So Henry's book is wrong on the second stamping, which is listed as 1955-57, is that the story here?

The story is Henry's book is outdated as it relates to this particular stamp. More has been learned since the book was published.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Ask for scans and guarantees that it passes psa as a type 1(if that is what you are going for). If they do not provide either, it is up to you in taking the risk. Sometimes you might hit a home run and sometimes you will lose. I have definitely experienced both. I will tell you, any auction house that doesn't show the backs of any of their photos.. I tend to question as there is no way you can even form your own opinion. Perhaps they want it that way...

I would even take it one step further and instead of asking whether PSA would pass it as a Type 1, ask for details about the photo that you know would either confirm or deny it as such. Many of the same sellers who don't know how to use terminology correctly also won't have a clue as to what PSA would verify as a photo's Type, but can provide the necessary details if asked appropriate questions. If they're being intentionally deceitful, they will see that you are fishing for the same details that they are trying to hide and will usually give the same squirmy responses.

Above all, just posting a scan of the back will save everyone some headaches

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

I would even take it one step further and instead of asking whether PSA would pass it as a Type 1, ask for details about the photo that you know would either confirm or deny it as such. Many of the same sellers who don't know how to use terminology correctly also won't have a clue as to what PSA would verify as a photo's Type, but can provide the necessary details if asked appropriate questions. If they're being intentionally deceitful, they will see that you are fishing for the same details that they are trying to hide and will usually give the same squirmy responses.

Above all, just posting a scan of the back will save everyone some headaches

Yes..but those who don't know what questions to ask and/or new in photos might benefit from the simple psa question. Again, if that is what is important to them. Agree though.. many sellers would not have a clue especially on ebay(but major auctions houses would). Also, ebay sellers might not put the scans on the back simply because it costs more money and would be more than willing to provide a scan if requested. It is the ones that will not that you might want to stay away from These points are probably pretty obvious to the board members as most everyone here has been to the rodeo before.

[ukkilla05]

Hey Guys!! I am new to this forum and wanted to see what you thought about all these photos being sold recently. Since this industry is in its infancy, do you think these media photos will be extremely valuable in the future, like baseball cards? If so, do you think a "price guide" will be produced, eg by Henry Yee?

Also, have any of you every purchased any photos and negative off of EBAY?
As far as type of photos go, does it personally matter if an item is a type 1 or a type 3 (wire photo). And finally, how many type 3 (wire photos) of a specific shot/scene do you think exist, 5, 10, 25?

Hope to hear what you think!


Thanks,
D

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by ukkilla05

Hey Guys!! I am new to this forum and wanted to see what you thought about all these photos being sold recently. Since this industry is in its infancy, do you think these media photos will be extremely valuable in the future, like baseball cards? If so, do you think a "price guide" will be produced, eg by Henry Yee?

Also, have any of you every purchased any photos and negative off of EBAY?
As far as type of photos go, does it personally matter if an item is a type 1 or a type 3 (wire photo). And finally, how many type 3 (wire photos) of a specific shot/scene do you think exist, 5, 10, 25?

Hope to hear what you think!


Thanks,
D

Welcome to the forum!

Although a price guide for vintage photos and perhaps negatives is always a possibility sometime down the road, the extraordinary number of different images would, I think, make such an undertaking a daunting task, even for Henry!

In terms of whether it personally matters whether a photo is a Type 1 or a Type 3, the answer is obviously dependent on each individual's tastes. Many collectors are solely attracted to the image and don't really care what classification the photo falls into.

On the other hand, several advanced collectors actively seek out Type 1 photos because of the improved quality of the print image and their rarity. Neither form of collecting is better or worse than the other - the bottom line is if you collect what you are passionate about and don't concern yourself about things like future value, you will always be a happy camper.

Most Type 1 photos were taken by staff or associated photographers for the major News Agencies (Acme, INP, AP, United Press and UPI, etc.). When newspapers across America and in other countries wanted a particular image for a story they received a somewhat degraded copy of the original Type 1 transmitted over the phone lines. The same often occurred in other publications such as magazines, etc. where images from duplicate negatives were sometimes used.

In terms of corresponding numbers. Type 1 prints almost always exist in much smaller numbers compared to Type 3 or 4 and will usually cost much more. The precise ratio depends on the image and how many have survived. There are many images where no Type 1 prints have surfaced (in these cases a Type 3 print would be highly desirable and probably quite expensive). I would say for more common images something like one Type 1 and 10-15 Type 3 for the same image is probably not unreasonable.

Having said all this, you should also be aware that there are a number of really passionate (bordering on insane) collectors of vintage photos (many are members of this forum, unfortunately, myself included) - who literally will go to any extreme in their pursuit of a quality vintage print. As crazy as it sounds ,from all of my correspondence with fellow photo collectors , we would not have it any other way.

Hope some of this has been helpful.

Craig

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by Frozen in Time

Welcome to the forum!

Although a price guide for vintage photos and perhaps negatives is always a possibility sometime down the road, the extraordinary number of different images would, I think, make such an undertaking a daunting task, even for Henry!

In terms of whether it personally matters whether a photo is a Type 1 or a Type 3, the answer is obviously dependent on each individual's tastes. Many collectors are solely attracted to the image and don't really care what classification the photo falls into.

On the other hand, several advanced collectors actively seek out Type 1 photos because of the improved quality of the print image and their rarity. Neither form of collecting is better or worse than the other - the bottom line is if you collect what you are passionate about and don't concern yourself about things like future value, you will always be a happy camper.

Most Type 1 photos were taken by staff or associated photographers for the major News Agencies (Acme, INP, AP, United Press and UPI, etc.). When newspapers across America and in other countries wanted a particular image for a story they received a somewhat degraded copy of the original Type 1 transmitted over the phone lines. The same often occurred in other publications such as magazines, etc. where images from duplicate negatives were sometimes used.

In terms of corresponding numbers. Type 1 prints almost always exist in much smaller numbers compared to Type 3 or 4 and will usually cost much more. The precise ratio depends on the image and how many have survived. There are many images where no Type 1 prints have surfaced (in these cases a Type 3 print would be highly desirable and probably quite expensive). I would say for more common images something like one Type 1 and 10-15 Type 3 for the same image is probably not unreasonable.

Having said all this, you should also be aware that there are a number of really passionate (bordering on insane) collectors of vintage photos (many are members of this forum, unfortunately, myself included) - who literally will go to any extreme in their pursuit of a quality vintage print. As crazy as it sounds ,from all of my correspondence with fellow photo collectors , we would not have it any other way.

Hope some of this has been helpful.

Craig

Well said Craig.
It's too bad I am in the fraternity as well.

[71buc]

Originally Posted by ukkilla05

Hey Guys!! I am new to this forum and wanted to see what you thought about all these photos being sold recently. Since this industry is in its infancy, do you think these media photos will be extremely valuable in the future, like baseball cards? If so, do you think a "price guide" will be produced, eg by Henry Yee?

Also, have any of you every purchased any photos and negative off of EBAY?
As far as type of photos go, does it personally matter if an item is a type 1 or a type 3 (wire photo). And finally, how many type 3 (wire photos) of a specific shot/scene do you think exist, 5, 10, 25?

Hope to hear what you think!


Thanks,
D

I am relatively new to this section of the hobby. I collect all things pertaining to members of the MLB HOF. That being said I must admit that for the past year 80% of my purchases have been photos. I believe you will find that photo collecting shares many of the same elements as other baseball collectibles. Players such as Cobb, Ruth, Gehrig, Mantle, Williams and DiMaggio command top dollar. Works by the major photographers Conlon, Bain, Thompson and their ilk are highly sought after and out of my fiscal reach.

That being said what I enjoy the most is the hunt. I have found that if you are diligent you can build a nice collection without a second mortgage. Due to the sheer volume of vintage News Service photos coupled with the lack of knowledge by some sellers you can find some nice examples very cheaply. As an example, I have been looking to buy a nice Mickey Mantle photo for my collection but did not want to pay a fortune. To accomplish this I looked up the opening day match ups between all teams and the Yankees for each season that Mantle played. I used phrases such as Yankees Senators 1955 photo. My rationale was that opening day is highly photographed and occasionally there are sellers who don't recognize the players depicted if the photo does not have a caption attached to the back. This was a lot of work but fun nonetheless. Last week the words "Yankees vs Orioles 1959 photo" yielded a very attractive 8x10 picture of Mantle sliding into third base taken from an unusual angle. The seller did not include his name in the description as a result I paid $14.99.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/BS-PHOTO-aev...item3cc74a6301

I too don't believe that there will ever be a price guide or catalog of photos for the same reasons addressed by Craig. I am also very pleased by that. Like other collectors I prefer Type 1 vintage originals but learning to consistently identify them has been confusing. The book A Portrait of Baseball Photography was essential but apparently is now out dated. I hope that Mr. Yee is able to publish his recent findings soon. In the meantime you will find many advanced and knowledgeable friendly collectors here who are more than willing to share their insight.

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by 71buc

I am relatively new to this section of the hobby. I collect all things pertaining to members of the MLB HOF. That being said I must admit that for the past year 80% of my purchases have been photos. I believe you will find that photo collecting shares many of the same elements as other baseball collectibles. Players such as Cobb, Ruth, Gehrig, Mantle, Williams and DiMaggio command top dollar. Works by the major photographers Conlon, Bain, Thompson and their ilk are highly sought after and out of my fiscal reach.

That being said what I enjoy the most is the hunt. I have found that if you are diligent you can build a nice collection without a second mortgage. Due to the sheer volume of vintage News Service photos coupled with the lack of knowledge by some sellers you can find some nice examples very cheaply. As an example, I have been looking to buy a nice Mickey Mantle photo for my collection but did not want to pay a fortune. To accomplish this I looked up the opening day match ups between all teams and the Yankees for each season that Mantle played. I used phrases such as Yankees Senators 1955 photo. My rationale was that opening day is highly photographed and occasionally there are sellers who don't recognize the players depicted if the photo does not have a caption attached to the back. This was a lot of work but fun nonetheless. Last week the words "Yankees vs Orioles 1959 photo" yielded a very attractive 8x10 picture of Mantle sliding into third base taken from an unusual angle. The seller did not include his name in the description as a result I paid $14.99.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/BS-PHOTO-aev...item3cc74a6301

I too don't believe that there will ever be a price guide or catalog of photos for the same reasons addressed by Craig. I am also very pleased by that. Like other collectors I prefer Type 1 vintage originals but learning to consistently identify them has been confusing. The book A Portrait of Baseball Photography was essential but apparently is now out dated. I hope that Mr. Yee is able to publish his recent findings soon. In the meantime you will find many advanced and knowledgeable friendly collectors here who are more than willing to share their insight.

I fully agree Mike, often the most rewarding finds are those that bear the fruit of hard work and, in this particular case, rather ingenious criteria for the search.

20 or 25 years ago there were only a handful of collectors who even found vintage photos to be interesting. Whereas that number has expanded significantly in recent years, even more surprising has been the inclusion of collectors such as yourself whose primary interests appear to lie in other segments of the hobby but now (because of the increased exposure?) have also been captured by these remarkable vintage images frozen in time.

I just think its great!!!

By the way, the Mantle photo is super and highlighted by both the unusual angle from which it was taken as well as the relatively large image of Mickey,especially for an action shot. Well done!!!!!

Craig