A Portrait of Baseball Photography - Additions/Corrections?

[prewarsports]

Almost all the issues you are going to find stem at least partially from the type system. I really cant think of a single "mistake" or "error" with the book otherwise. It is a wonderful resource and like all ventures int unchartered territory, it has its flaws. However, the hobby is better for it, even if a new system for classifying photos is necessary at this point!

Rhys

[thecatspajamas]

Whoops, got called to dinner immediately after that last post, then baths and bedtime for the boys, and now I'm finally back.

Rhys, I agree with you completely that even if the "Type" system were to be scrapped completely, the other information in the book remains a wonderful resource. I hope it didn't sound like I was coming down on it. As Craig alluded though, there are a few minor details that could use some tweaking as more (much more) material has hit the market since the book was written and we can cast our collective gaze over many many more examples than were available to the writers at the time.

Okay, so here is an example of a little tweak like I was envisioning for this thread. On page 175, at the bottom left of the page, there is an example of a Wide World Photo stamping style which gives a date range of "Mid-1940's - 1954".



While working with a collection that had a lot of WWP examples in it recently, I came across several examples with that stamp style that dated as late as 1959. So I made a note in my copy of the book for future reference.

Examples:

[Lordstan]

Lance,
The book and system have been debated ad nauseam, but I think your question is awesome.

Like Craig, I think the Type 1 category should be expanded to 5yrs as well. I also think a Type 5 category for unclassifiable should be added. It would have subcategories of original neg or copy, so Type Va and Vb. This would allow pictures that appear to be printed from the original negative, but have not other time defining marks to be placed reasonably well.

Considering the volume of photos you and Rhys handle, I'll let you two add to the knowledge base regarding the specific stamps.

[r2678]

Lance - I don't have either of the books mentioned nor have I studied news service photographs. With that said, and strictly from the photos you show, while the WWP styles my be the same or similar, they are different. Take a look at the example from page 175 and the three later photos you posted. Look at where the word NOTICE is positioned in relation to the words below it, most noticeable the N in NOTICE to "is" in the sentence below. Also look at the ending of the last word in the copy, pictures, and how it is positioned to the D in WORLD. The stamp used in the three examples you use are different than the "mid 1940-s - 1954" stamp. I don't know if this means you have discovered a new stamp, a variety of an older stamp, or...?

[thecatspajamas]

John,
Huh. What do you know. Clearly, you're right, and this is going to be a little tougher than I originally thought. I guess this is one of the slight variations like Craig was referring to that is similar to the one in the book, but just different enough to refine the date range. So I wonder if this was perhaps 1955-1959? I'll have to look for more exemplars to test...

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by r2678

Lance - I don't have either of the books mentioned nor have I studied news service photographs. With that said, and strictly from the photos you show, while the WWP styles my be the same or similar, they are different. Take a look at the example from page 175 and the three later photos you posted. Look at where the word NOTICE is positioned in relation to the words below it, most noticeable the N in NOTICE to "is" in the sentence below. Also look at the ending of the last word in the copy, pictures, and how it is positioned to the D in WORLD. The stamp used in the three examples you use are different than the "mid 1940-s - 1954" stamp. I don't know if this means you have discovered a new stamp, a variety of an older stamp, or...?

Sorry, John beat me to it. I should have read further.

[bmarlowe1]

Here's a correction. This portrait of Matty claimed to be taken in 1910 (see page 90). He is wearing a unique to 1916 Giants uni.

[thecatspajamas]

Ha! Not quite what I was expecting, but good catch Mark. Duly noted.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Whoops, got called to dinner immediately after that last post, then baths and bedtime for the boys, and now I'm finally back.

Rhys, I agree with you completely that even if the "Type" system were to be scrapped completely, the other information in the book remains a wonderful resource. I hope it didn't sound like I was coming down on it. As Craig alluded though, there are a few minor details that could use some tweaking as more (much more) material has hit the market since the book was written and we can cast our collective gaze over many many more examples than were available to the writers at the time.

Okay, so here is an example of a little tweak like I was envisioning for this thread. On page 175, at the bottom left of the page, there is an example of a Wide World Photo stamping style which gives a date range of "Mid-1940's - 1954".



While working with a collection that had a lot of WWP examples in it recently, I came across several examples with that stamp style that dated as late as 1959. So I made a note in my copy of the book for future reference.

Examples:

The font on the newer ones you showed seems different. Check the design of the "W's".