Recent Henry Yee eBay auction questions

[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).

[obcbeatle]

Originally Posted by 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).

Great film ... thanks for sharing ... I now understand the wire process much better! I'm seeing some interesting wire photo's on eBay and although they may not be as good as an investment as Type 1's (I'm using that term liberally since I'm new to all this), the wire photo's seem affordable (I also may still be a bit naive about pricing too) so maybe the wire photo's that are not originals may be a good way to get some photo's of some players from the 1940's-1950's that are otherwise tough (expensive) to get as a Topps or Bowman baseball cards. Just sort of spitting out some thoughts I guess :-) Anyway ... I wish Henry Yee or others like him had some auctions going right now so I could see more great original photo's!

[billyb]

Lance,
I have a photo, nothing on the back except dried glue, no backing. I am guessing the photo was to be used with a front caption, but they changed their minds. It is the only reason I can think of why the cut out portion with no cardboard type backing at all.

I sent you a PM about another photo. Attachment 101452

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by billyb

Lance,
I have a photo, nothing on the back except dried glue, no backing. I am guessing the photo was to be used with a front caption, but they changed their minds. It is the only reason I can think of why the cut out portion with no cardboard type backing at all.

I sent you a PM about another photo. Attachment 101452

Is the entire back covered with dried glue? If so, it looks to me like it was at one time glued to board, presumably with a caption or other text at the upper left where the cut-out is now. I've had photos in this condition before, with the remnants of an orangish-colored glue dried to the back, but no longer affixed to the board. And have on a couple of occasions had a photo affixed to a board but the glue was coming loose so that you could easily grasp one corner and pull the photo free from the board. Apparently the glue doesn't hold forever.

[billyb]

Lance,
Exactly, orange in color, but no evidence that a board was ever attached. Even though the photo was cut, I really like the photo because it is so vivid. It really stands out. This particular copy, I believe is a recopy, from my cousin's original. I was practicing my editing skills with this one and I did not do too well. So this copy does not do the photo justice, but only scan I have left of this particular photo.

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by 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).

Lance,

That "Spot News" film is just super!!! I always thought the "machine" was much larger and did not realize it also was used in a self-contained vehicle for transmission from the field. A pretty sophisticated design for the time period and the video was absolutely complete showing the entire process from start to finish. Thanks again for posting it - I really learned a lot!!!

Craig

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Frozen in Time

Lance,

That "Spot News" film is just super!!! I always thought the "machine" was much larger and did not realize it also was used in a self-contained vehicle for transmission from the field. A pretty sophisticated design for the time period and the video was absolutely complete showing the entire process from start to finish. Thanks again for posting it - I really learned a lot!!!

Craig

I can't remember how it was that I stumbled across that film in the first place, but it connected so many dots for me in understanding the whole wire photo process that I feel I have to share it whenever possible. If only there were old informational films dealing with every question I have about the "good ol' days" and exactly how things worked! I still find the whole system pretty amazing, especially considering when it was implemented.

But yeah, I'm glad everyone appreciated it, and I'm sure I'll trot it out again next time a question is asked about wire photos

[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).