Recent Henry Yee eBay auction questions

[obcbeatle]

OK ... I do have a new question about old sports photographs from newspapers. Perhaps I should start a new thread but will ask here for now. I am seeing many sports photo's being sold on eBay that include typed editorial comments on the front side of the photo. They are usually action photo's but not always. Would I expect to pay less for these photo's (perhaps excepting photo's of HOFER's ...) since there are markings on the front side of the photo? As opposed to photo's with editorial comments only on the back? I can understand that having the provenance of the photo being of value, but wondered that in general if the provenance were just on the back I would expect to pay more for a photo, than if the provenance were on the front/side of the photo or on the back AND front of the photo. Hope that made sense :-)

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by obcbeatle

OK ... I do have a new question about old sports photographs from newspapers. Perhaps I should start a new thread but will ask here for now. I am seeing many sports photo's being sold on eBay that include typed editorial comments on the front side of the photo. They are usually action photo's but not always. Would I expect to pay less for these photo's (perhaps excepting photo's of HOFER's ...) since there are markings on the front side of the photo? As opposed to photo's with editorial comments only on the back? I can understand that having the provenance of the photo being of value, but wondered that in general if the provenance were just on the back I would expect to pay more for a photo, than if the provenance were on the front/side of the photo or on the back AND front of the photo. Hope that made sense :-)

In most cases, when the typed comments are on the front, it's generally an indication that the photo has been through the wire, sound, tele or radio photo process. Generally considered a Type III, although I'm not a big fan of the classification system.

Not as desirable as a photo from the original neg or contact neg because you can usually see the process in the photos, as it robs it of much of it's clarity.

Still, they are usually of the period and can have plenty of value themselves, especially if it is of a popular shot that is tough to find in 1st generation form, like Ali standing over Liston with his arm flexed, that I believe went for over 300 bucks in the Yee auction.

Not to say, some wire, sound, etc., type photos can be found with back type slugs instead of front captions, but it is not typical, and sometimes collectors will trim off the front wire tag to make a wire photo more aesthetically pleasing to them.

Easiest way to tell a wire photo, is to put a light and lower power magnifying glass over it, and you will see the wavy lines in the wire process.

Ironically, the highest quality wire photos seem to be from the mid-30's, when the process first became widely used, and if the front tag is trimmed off, you may need to put it under magnification to be sure it's a wire process shot.

As the years went on, the process became cheaper, but lower quality, and 60's-70's era's wire shots are usually very easy to spot with just the naked eye.

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

In most cases, when the typed comments are on the front, it's generally an indication that the photo has been through the wire, sound, tele or radio photo process. Generally considered a Type III, although I'm not a big fan of the classification system.

Not as desirable as a photo from the original neg or contact neg because you can usually see the process in the photos, as it robs it of much of it's clarity.

Still, they are usually of the period and can have plenty of value themselves, especially if it is of a popular shot that is tough to find in 1st generation form, like Ali standing over Liston with his arm flexed, that I believe went for over 300 bucks in the Yee auction.

Not to say, some wire, sound, etc., type photos can be found with back type slugs instead of front captions, but it is not typical, and sometimes collectors will trim off the front wire tag to make a wire photo more aesthetically pleasing to them.

Easiest way to tell a wire photo, is to put a light and lower power magnifying glass over it, and you will see the wavy lines in the wire process.

Ironically, the highest quality wire photos seem to be from the mid-30's, when the process first became widely used, and if the front tag is trimmed off, you may need to put it under magnification to be sure it's a wire process shot.

As the years went on, the process became cheaper, but lower quality, and 60's-70's era's wire shots are usually very easy to spot with just the naked eye.

Just to add a few additional comments to the excellent points Dave has already made. Most "wire photos" are typically second generation images where a first generation photo with the written caption physically attached to the front was placed on a wire photo machine at one agency, "scanned" and transmitted over the phone lines and received at a second news agency and the image printed (line by line) on a second wire photo machine. The resultant wire photo now has the written caption as part of the photo the image of which has been degraded by the process.

AP invented the wire photo process and in general their wire photo images are usually far superior (the scanning lines are much closer together ) than the corresponding wire photos of United Press (Telephoto) or INS (Sound Photo), especially those from the early '50's. Occasionally, you can find the original Type 1 photo with the caption physically attached to the front as well as Type 1 original, first generation photos with a paper caption containing "Telephoto or Sound Photo" at the bottom. Both are Type 1 photos. If you are unsure, just check the image with a 10X loop, even the best wire photos will be comprised of parallel scan lines.

[D. Bergin]

Not to forget, even before the wire process, there was a radiophoto transfer process. Slugs or notations were on the back. I believe it was very expensive at the time, but the quality was pretty primitive looking.

[obcbeatle]

Originally Posted by Frozen in Time

Just to add a few additional comments to the excellent points Dave has already made. Most "wire photos" are typically second generation images where a first generation photo with the written caption physically attached to the front was placed on a wire photo machine at one agency, "scanned" and transmitted over the phone lines and received at a second news agency and the image printed (line by line) on a second wire photo machine. The resultant wire photo now has the written caption as part of the photo the image of which has been degraded by the process.

AP invented the wire photo process and in general their wire photo images are usually far superior (the scanning lines are much closer together ) than the corresponding wire photos of United Press (Telephoto) or INS (Sound Photo), especially those from the early '50's. Occasionally, you can find the original Type 1 photo with the caption physically attached to the front as well as Type 1 original, first generation photos with a paper caption containing "Telephoto or Sound Photo" at the bottom. Both are Type 1 photos. If you are unsure, just check the image with a 10X loop, even the best wire photos will be comprised of parallel scan lines.

OK ... I think I understand. So the following photo that includes Ernie Banks looks like a second generation wire photo since the editorial info doesn't look attached, but looks as part of the picture (hope this link of an active eBay auction works):

http://www.ebay.com/itm/390602203122...84.m1423.l2649

I have seen a couple wire photo's that look like the editorial info is attached to the front side of the photo, but can't find one now. This seller appears to have a bunch of second generation wire photo's up today. The watermark makes it hard to see the quality of the photo as well. I still haven't found an eBay seller similar to Henry Yee selling photo's right now. But I'll keep looking. Thanks again for all the great feedback!

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by obcbeatle

OK ... I think I understand. So the following photo that includes Ernie Banks looks like a second generation wire photo since the editorial info doesn't look attached, but looks as part of the picture (hope this link of an active eBay auction works):

http://www.ebay.com/itm/390602203122...84.m1423.l2649

I have seen a couple wire photo's that look like the editorial info is attached to the front side of the photo, but can't find one now. This seller appears to have a bunch of second generation wire photo's up today. The watermark makes it hard to see the quality of the photo as well. I still haven't found an eBay seller similar to Henry Yee selling photo's right now. But I'll keep looking. Thanks again for all the great feedback!

Yes, but it is vintage and of the era. I don't really like attaching the term, 2nd generation to of the era wire photos, even if that's technically what they are.

I usually save that term for photos printed at somewhat later point, then the original image was taken.

Most Baseball cards are also considered some form of a later generation print, when it comes right down to it.

[billyb]

Conlon's famous photo of Ruth's eyes, is it not a second generation photo??

[thecatspajamas]

Watch this 1937 short film, "Spot News," which should shed some light on exactly what a "wire photo" is and the process by which they were produced:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRTlm_cKZ8Y

The photo you see them attaching to the cylindar on the sending end is the Type 1, Original, 1st Generation print made from the original negative. It would have a paper caption affixed to the front of the photo so that, when the photo was developed on the receiving end, that same caption text would be embedded in the image, actually part of the photo produced on the receiving end. The photo produced on the receiving end would be the Type 3, Second Generation, Duplicate, Wire Photo. Either the Type 1 or the Type 3 may have additional editorial comments, markings or stamps on the back, though it is very common for a Wire Photo to have no markings or only a stamped file date on the back since most of the necessary information is contained in the embedded caption text on the front. Also, both Type 1 and Type 3 photos may have crop marks, touch-up/masking paint, or other editorial markings on the front, depending on their use and the whims of the editor.

Also keep in mind that MANY sellers, collectors, and auction houses will mistakenly refer to ALL news/press photos as "wire photos" (which is especially humorous for those early photographs produced before the wire photo process was invented).

P.S. The Bobby Richardson photo that I posted earlier is a Type 3 "Wire Photo." Technically a second generation image, since it was produced by duplicating a print via the wire photo process rather than developed from the original negative.

P.P.S. The sellers like Henry Yee, who deal primarily in vintage sports photography AND who are knowledgable about both the photographs themselves and the subjects they depict, are few and far between. There are several who are members here though. There are also a number of sellers on eBay who are, shall I say, efficient at selling large numbers of news photos on eBay, yet apparently know little or nothing about what they are selling. Players' names are misspelled, obviously incorrect dates for depicted events are given, terms are misused, etc. Thankfully, most of these sellers also post large and clear enough scans of the front and back that, if YOU know what to look for, you can disregard most of what they have written and decide for yourself whether to go after the photo or not (and as others have pointed out, may wind up getting a bargain because of the seller's mistakes).

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by billyb

Conlon's famous photo of Ruth's eyes, is it not a second generation photo??

That depends on which print of the photo you are referring to.

1st Generation = a print produced directly from the original negative
2nd Generation = a print produced from a duplicate negative

Both 1st and 2nd generation prints may exist for any given image, the "Ruth's eyes" photo included.

Technically, you could produce a "1st Generation" print of the "Ruth's eyes" photo today if you had the original negative to work with (presumably the original negative is in the Conlon Collection presently owned by John Rogers, though I haven't checked to confirm).

[billyb]

OBC,
I believe they started to put the comments on the front in the 40s, if I am wrong, please someone correct me.
I would think that the value is what the photo is about. The photos with comments on the back, would be worth more only because they would be older and possibly more rare. But there are more modern photos that are worth more that the vintage ones.
So, subject, story, condition and clarity, is what we are to look for, whether comments are on front or back, it should not matter.
Myself, if photo is not of any significance, I prefer comments on back.

Dave,
I just read your post, I stand corrected, comments on front in the 30s.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by billyb

OBC,
I believe they started to put the provenance on the front in the 40s, if I am wrong, please someone correct me.
I would think that the value is what the photo is about. The photos with the provenance on the back, would be worth more only because they would be older and possibly more rare. But there are more modern photos that are worth more that the vintage ones.
So, subject, story, condition and clarity, is what we are to look for, whether provenance is on front or back, it should not matter.
Now to me, if the photo is not of any significance, I would rather the provenance be on the back.

It was around 1935 or so, they started using front style captions for wire photos.

Like I said, some of these are very high quality, compared to later wire process shots from the 60's and 70's.