Charles Conlon photos with Underwood & Underwood stamp

[drc]

The big news services got their photos from many places. They had their own photographers but also bought and distributed others.

[repsher]

So would you say these photos would be classified as Type 1 Conlon photos or Type 1 U&U photos that just happen to have Conlon images? Or something else?

[drc]

You could call it a U&U photo shot by Conlon.

[repsher]

I just had another thought about these photos. I now believe that U&U had Conlon photos that they then took a picture of, creating a copy negative. Then they could make as many copies as they want to distribute.

I came up with this because you can see a serial number in the U&U photos, when in fact the image on the Conlon negatives would be much larger.

So this would make these photos Type IV even though they are of the era? And this now makes me question a lot of the photos in my collection.

[Hankphenom]

That would make them Type III, contemporary but not from the original negative. I would guess you're right about that, but its also possible that U&U bought the original negatives and scratched the serial numbers in them, which would make those prints Type I. Probably not though, as they look to have slightly diminished resolution. More likely they made a negative from their Type I original, then scratched the number in that to make prints from. Type IIIs are much more collectible than IIs, in my experience, and Henry agreed that with hindsight he would have switched II and III to better reflect the vintage characteristic and more desirability as collectibles of the IIIs.

[drc]

At sale, you can call something a vintage 1920 (example year) photo without commenting on its originality. If you aren't sure, you aren't sure.

Btw, the resolution on the old photo looks pretty good.

[horzverti]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

That would make them Type III, contemporary but not from the original negative. I would guess you're right about that, but its also possible that U&U bought the original negatives and scratched the serial numbers in them, which would make those prints Type I. Probably not though, as they look to have slightly diminished resolution. More likely they made a negative from their Type I original, then scratched the number in that to make prints from. Type IIIs are much more collectible than IIs, in my experience, and Henry agreed that with hindsight he would have switched II and III to better reflect the vintage characteristic and more desirability as collectibles of the IIIs.

Repsher offered up a positive image of the original Conlon negative (courtesy of John Rogers' archive) to compare to the photo he purchased. Rogers' original neg was used to create the positive image that was posted for comparison to Repsher's piece. So the U & U serial number or id data is not on the original neg. Conlon distributed his photos, not his negatives. If a news service received an original Conlon photo and wanted to add their own serial number onto the original...then they would have to create their own neg by taking a photo of the original photo. This would embed their written data onto their newly created copy neg. If you were to come across a Conlon image with the info actually written on the front and not embedded into the image, then you may have an original Conlon photo created from the original neg...and it would most likely have Conlon's stamp and/or writing on the back.

So, what you have here are photos created from a copy neg. Nice, crisp images, but not original Conlons.

By the way, good eye friend!

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by horzverti

Repsher offered up a positive image of the original Conlon negative. The original neg was used to create the positive image that Repsher posted. So the U & U serial number or id data is not on the original neg. Conlon distributed his photos, not his negatives. If a news service received an original Conlon photo, they would have to write their own serial number onto the original...then they would have to create their own neg by taking a photo of the original photo. This would embed their written data onto their newly created copy neg. If you were to come across a Conlon image with the info actually written on the front and not embedded into the image, then you may have an original Conlon photo created from the original neg...and it would most likely have Conlon's stamp and/or writing on the back.

So, what you have here are photos created from a copy neg. Nice, crisp images, but not original Conlons.

By the way, good eye friend!

Actually, I do not believe this to be entirely true. Conlon DID lend out original photos and negatives to Underwood and Underwood. He had a working relationship with U AND U and was a freelance photographer as mentioned below by Hank.
Now... because of this, U AND U could certainly have printed off the original neg, then returned neg, and produced another neg later because they wanted additional/differnt images(which I have seen and have given an example below). BUT.. just because it has U AND U stamps does not mean it is not a TYPE 1 PHOTO off the orig Conlon neg (cuz of the numbers). In fact, numbers inside of a box suggests the exact opposite. Also, Conlon could have sent them originals unstamped and then UandU used their stamps.

1) Curt is right in that U and U would probably not have etched their numbers in Conlon original negs. BUT, I disagree with him in that all U and U photos with numbers are from DUPE negs. U and U would have created "catalogue plates" or simply another piece of glass with their number on it, put it on top of original neg and there you go... SEE MY CONLON OFF THE ORGINAL NEG BELOW. The number inside square imprint is actually from a piece of rectangular glass cut out with their numbers etched in and placed on top of the neg so it would not damage Conlon’s work.
THIS IS CRYSTAL CLEAR AND OFF THE ORIGINAL CONLON NEGATIVE.


2) EXAMPLE NUMBER TWO IS WHAT I SPOKE ABOUT ABOVE; U AND U CREATED A DUPE NEG(PROBABLY RARE BUT DOES HAPPEN).
It is of the famous Conlon 1927 "eyes" of both Ruth and Gehrig stacked on top of one another. Actually, the known examples of this zoomed in format as "TYPE 1 " images are from U AND U archives. This stacked example was done in house and most likely used for publication by U and U after negs were returned to Conlon. OR.. Conlon sent them original photos and that is all they had to work with to create this. This is clearly done by stacking them on top of one another and creating a DUPE NEG even though there are no cat numbers. The images are not crystal clear like the originals, the boarders are not crisp and there are white spots all over it(suggesting dust ect. on originals when done).



I am sure this will spawn a flurry of additional questions but I hope it clears up the fact that if you have a Conlon image that is stamped UandU amd/or has numbers on the front, it doesn't mean it is some type other than a type 1. In fact, it probably ups the chances if you are going strictly by the stamps

PS: If anyone has any Ruth/Gehrig UandU photos that are Conlon images, I would be glad to purchase them from you numbers or not