Photo Question.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by GrayGhost

I know there have been MULTIPLE threads, but couldn't narrow after a search. My question:

If a photo has a later date stamp and an earlier one also, does that date it to the original date first, and then was re used later on? Would it be a Type one?

I know that may not be all the needed info, but I'm just wondering for a general answer. THANKS FOR ANY HELP

SCOTT

Yes, assuming the date stamp is real. With all the encapsulation, price rises, etc., I wouldn't be surprised if there have been a few simple date stamps added to newer photos;e.g-'Apr 15 1927'

Type one? Date stamps do not identify a photo as original - the photo identifies the photo as original. A photo could be created from an original negative outside of the 'Type one' range and still erroneously be identified as a 'type one' because it looks great and is printed with the same process and paper that a true original photograph would be...or inside the range but from another photo rather than a negative, and erroneously be slabbed as a 'type one' because of date stamps.

Look at the date stamps, the quality of the image and the paper.

[GrayGhost]

Thank you Scott sir.

Photo isn't really valuable, I just like it, so I won't get hurt either way if I get it.

[Runscott]

I used to ask a photo expert buddy of mine questions like that all the time, providing him with examples. He would often tell me that if you decide the photo is worth the price as a piece of art, then the rest doesn't really matter much.

Collectors have tended to get away from looking at photographic prints for what they are - captured images with characteristics such as composition, clarity etc.

Now they are simply names, dates and 'type' designations.

[GrayGhost]

Thats how I feel bout it.

[drc]

With multiple date stamps on a news photo, the earliest date is what you look at as far as determining the age of the photo. News photos sometimes had multiple dates stamped on them over time as they were re-used and re-catalogued. A date stamp was placed there on the date of the stamp. A 1927 date stamp is from 1927 and a 1955 date stamp is from 1955. If a photo has both that says it was stamped in 1927 then later in 1955.

A photo can be older than the earliest date stamp (the date is the date of the stamp). But if a 1927 image has a 1927 date stamp, that's perfect for the collector.

[71buc]

Although I am an avid collector of news photos I must admit that my knowledge of dating photos is much more limited than others that have responded before me. That being said I am uncertain exactly how reliable the use of news bureau stamping is to determine the age of a photo. I have doubts about the accuracy of using the two year printing window for original type one photos.

Below are two images of Hank Aaron I have in my collection. The first is from spring training 1954. The stamping on the back came into use after the 1958 merger of United Press and International News. Due to this the photo is considered to be a type 2 photo which is far less valuable than a type 1 version of the same image.

The second photo is of Aaron being carried off the field following his 1957 pennant clinching homer. The Wide World Photo stamping was used between the mid1940s through 1954. What is it doing on a 1957 image? I believe that this is evidence that out dated photo stamps were not always discarded when new versions came into use. Based on this I don't think that the use of News Bureau stamping to date a photo is exact which is concerning when considering the value of type 1 photos in comparison to type 2s.

If such a three year discrepancy in stamping can exist is it possible that the 1954 image was printed in 1954 and only marked with the pencil notation and the subsequently stamped four years later after the merger? I will never know with any certainty but the possibility certainly exists. Nonetheless, I paid little for it and really love it so it really doesn't matter. Until I can be more certain about the current system of photo classification my purchases will remain conservative.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by 71buc

Until I can be more certain about the current system of photo classification my purchases will remain conservative.

It sounds to me like you are saying that once you are "certain about the current system", you will be willing to pay a priced based on the slabbing tag. I would recommend paying what YOU think a photo is worth, regardless of the slab. From your post, it sounds to me that you already have more insight into vintage photos that many of those who are doing the slabbing.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by 71buc

Although I am an avid collector of news photos I must admit that my knowledge of dating photos is much more limited than others that have responded before me. That being said I am uncertain exactly how reliable the use of news bureau stamping is to determine the age of a photo. I have doubts about the accuracy of using the two year printing window for original type one photos.

Below are two images of Hank Aaron I have in my collection. The first is from spring training 1954. The stamping on the back came into use after the 1958 merger of United Press and International News. Due to this the photo is considered to be a type 2 photo which is far less valuable than a type 1 version of the same image.

The second photo is of Aaron being carried off the field following his 1957 pennant clinching homer. The Wide World Photo stamping was used between the mid1940s through 1954. What is it doing on a 1957 image? I believe that this is evidence that out dated photo stamps were not always discarded when new versions came into use. Based on this I don't think that the use of News Bureau stamping to date a photo is exact which is concerning when considering the value of type 1 photos in comparison to type 2s.

If such a three year discrepancy in stamping can exist is it possible that the 1954 image was printed in 1954 and only marked with the pencil notation and the subsequently stamped four years later after the merger? I will never know with any certainty but the possibility certainly exists. Nonetheless, I paid little for it and really love it so it really doesn't matter. Until I can be more certain about the current system of photo classification my purchases will remain conservative.

Mike,
I think the first scenario you presented (old stamp used for stamping the back of the photo) is much much more likely than the second scenario (photo print produced, some notation penciled on the back, filed away, pulled out 3 years later and THEN stamped). Keep in mind that the dates that various stampings were used that are shown in Yee/Fogel's book are based on empirical evidence, not a hardline ruling by the news agency.

In other words, in looking at lots and lots of photos issued by Wide World Photo, they noted which stamping style was used for each while also taking note of other hard dating elements (primarily the dates on the attached paper captions). Only after accumulating a lot of such information can you then look back and say, okay, we have evidence that this stamp style A was used on photos with dates ranging from the "mid-1940's to 1954," so that must be the date range that this stamp was employed. Another stamp B has mostly dates ranging from 1955 to 1957, so we can say that was the date range for that stamp.

This is all based on observations made years later though, not a documented unilateral decree by the head of Wide World Photos that on January 1, 1955, all stamps of style A were to be destroyed and only stamps of style B employed. There may be a few instances in which a news agency changed names or a new copyright policy caused an abrupt and immediate change in stamping styles, but in most cases, old stamp styles were more or less phased out gradually, which is why you will see many overlapping dates given for the various stamping styles.

What I'm getting at is that you should take the dates given by Yee/Fogel for stamping styles for what they are: a very useful compilation/distillation of thousands of observations of stamping styles and the dates of photos they were used on (those dates having been verified by other elements of the photo). Any collector with access to enough photos could compile similar information to corroborate or expand upon what is presented in their book. (For example, they identify 6 different stamping styles for Burke and Brace photos, where I have records of at least 17 variations). Their book is certainly a good starting point though that will save the average collector a lifetime of recording observations.

This information regarding the stamping dates is useful in determining a general date range for the photo, but the use of News Bureau stamping alone to date a photo is not an exact science, and as you say, can rarely be used to give a definitive "Type 1" determination in the same way that the presence of a paper caption or file date stamping can. Given the nature of the industry, you can expect there to be a number of outliers with regard to stamping styles, and other factors must often be evaluated to arrive at a more exact date for the print.

Edited to add: I agree with Scott: Buy the photo, not the slab. As with slabbing in other areas of the hobby, the photo slab is just a shortcut to an evaluation. All the information used to determine a slabbed photo is a Type 1 was present before the photo was slabbed, and any collector armed with a little knowledge should be able to arrive at the same determination.