Type II photos?

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Craig, my education on photos also began with David's books, followed by asking LOTS of questions - I was quite a pest. I followed this up by grabbing inexpensive photos regularly, over a 10+ year period. Nothing beats personally examining many examples of photos, then asking pertinent questions. I have generally purchased photos based on whether or not they would be worth that much as a piece of art, hanging on my wall. With that in mind, the 'Type' classification system didn't mean much. I still generally go for famous photographers (with stamps or signatures), so pricing them is not difficult. Outside of Bain, most such photos are Type I's, so again, it just doesn't matter.

I used to also be able to pick up Type I's of famous players, but with non-famous-photographer stamps. Such photos were cheap ten years ago, but now the 'Type I' thing has caused them to go up in price. For instance, a nice original Babe Ruth (or any famous player for that matter), that was not taken by Thompson, Conlon, Frances Burke, Van Oeyen, etc., could be had for nothing. Not so anymore. Wish I had saved all of mine.

Scott, I think we are more or less on the same page and I completely understand your position with regard to Type classifications. I'm certain that from the perspective of many dealers, I too was a "pest" trying to understand as much as I could about individual photos - often to the point that some of them, in an attempt to get rid of me and service other customers, would finally say "I think so and so has some nice photos in that booth across the room". And I could not agree more about holding a photo in your hand - the feel, texture, smell, condition of the surface emulsion and all the info on the back -- just an invaluable experience.

I do remember early on, and before I truly understood their significance, that I did (luckily) gravitate towards images that were very clear and backs that had a brown paper caption and/or a date stamp. In addition, compared to yourself and several others on this forum, I probably also suffered to some degree by the narrow focus of my collecting interests. Rather than the broad array of subject matter (and photographers) that you have mentioned I only focused on Mantle - and in more recent years only on vintage, first generation photos of the Mick from 1949-1951

Nonetheless, I continue to find the search and occasional find of such images a rewarding experience. Even in this rather limited area I have been fortunate to acquire some fantastic images of Mickey taken by some pretty good post-war photographers, including: Wm. Greene, George Dorill, Mastro, E. Sisto, Anthony Bernato, Emmons, Scharfman, Olen, Wingfield, Osvaldo Salas, Bill Jacobellis, Barney Stein, Wingfield and Ossie Sweet.

The gist of all my posting on this forum is certainly not to criticize or diminish in any way others perspectives or views but rather to try to share some of my own limited experiences in this area of the hobby that I am so passionate about.

The ability to view so many of the photos posted from other established collectors and hear their comments and views is the primary reason that I joined this forum and why I enjoy it so much.

Craig