Vintage Ruth Golf Photo...

[mybestbretts]

I think it is in the Jungle district of St. Petersburg.

[HRBAKER]

Is it the Don Cesar?
That was the Yankees Spring Training residence in the early 30's.

[yanksfan09]

Originally Posted by mybestbretts

I think it is in the Jungle district of St. Petersburg.

That would match up with the Corbis image caption. Sounds like the consensus is around 1925-30 roughly.



" The back stamping dates to the 1925-1930 period, according to what's presented in Yee/Fogel's book."

Does this make it a type 1 I'm assuming? I don't totally get how to differentiate between the generations of photos.



"The guy in the background of your photo looks like the same guy in the middle of the three in the background of the Corbis images photo you found in your images search.
Possibly he was Ruth's caddie that day, he appears to be next to a golf bag in your photo, and carrying one in the other."

I agree it looks like the same guy, but in one photo he has dark/black pants and the other one shows lighter pants (same suit top and hat though) However, Ruth appears to be in exact same outfit at same place. Possibly it was a different guy in the background or maybe multiple caddies/ crew were in background in similar attire that day. Or Ruth golfed there over the course of multiple days in that golf trip?

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by yanksfan09

" The back stamping dates to the 1925-1930 period, according to what's presented in Yee/Fogel's book."

Does this make it a type 1 I'm assuming? I don't totally get how to differentiate between the generations of photos.

Well, that's the thing, a photo's "Type" designation is assigned based on whether it is from the original negative AND when the print was produced in relation to when the photo was taken. Looking at the photos you posted, I would say that it very much appears to be Original (a print produced from the original negative) unless holding it in hand reveals something that I'm not seeing in the photos. Since there are no other dating elements that I can see on the print itself other than the news service stamping, whether it is a definitive Type 1 depends on when it was shot, as the Type 1 designation requires that the photo be printed from the original negative within 2 years of when it was shot. So if you are able to nail down the date to 1928 (for example only, as I have no idea when it was actually shot), then I think you could make a strong case for it being a Type 1 as that stamping still seems to have fallen into disuse after 1930. If it was shot in 1925, it could still be a Type 1, but you wouldn't know if the print was produced in 1925-1927 (making it a Type 1) or 1928-30 (making it a Type 2 on a technicality). That's why, in cases like this, I personally tend to just refer to it as "Original" and leave it at that unless I had a way to find out the date. That's the engineer in me not wanting to argue about gray areas and always erring on the side of caution. I would have made a terrible lawyer.

[yanksfan09]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Well, that's the thing, a photo's "Type" designation is assigned based on whether it is from the original negative AND when the print was produced in relation to when the photo was taken. Looking at the photos you posted, I would say that it very much appears to be Original (a print produced from the original negative) unless holding it in hand reveals something that I'm not seeing in the photos. Since there are no other dating elements that I can see on the print itself other than the news service stamping, whether it is a definitive Type 1 depends on when it was shot, as the Type 1 designation requires that the photo be printed from the original negative within 2 years of when it was shot. So if you are able to nail down the date to 1928 (for example only, as I have no idea when it was actually shot), then I think you could make a strong case for it being a Type 1 as that stamping still seems to have fallen into disuse after 1930. If it was shot in 1925, it could still be a Type 1, but you wouldn't know if the print was produced in 1925-1927 (making it a Type 1) or 1928-30 (making it a Type 2 on a technicality). That's why, in cases like this, I personally tend to just refer to it as "Original" and leave it at that unless I had a way to find out the date. That's the engineer in me not wanting to argue about gray areas and always erring on the side of caution. I would have made a terrible lawyer.

Thanks a lot. Very helpful information there. I was mainly just wondering approximate date of printing and it being that old is great to me whether a type 1 or 2. I have a lot to learn when it comes to vintage photos. I'm definitely way more of a card guy but can see myself buying the occasional original vintage photo for display pieces in the future.

[GrayGhost]

Ty Warming up for once of his matches w the Bambinooooo

[yanksfan09]

nice Cobb photo

[aelefson]

I would agree on the 1920s just based on Ruth's body. Below is a 1931 image (he has definitely added some padding), also of him golfing.

Alan