1927 or far later photograph of the WANER BROTHERS?

[sporteq]

This is an actual sample I handled. It was sold as, "Vintage Original." The paper weight is slightly more thicker and more rigid. Also, the color scale is black to white. Normally, not always, you see other color hues in vintage original photographs.

Sorry about the washed out image.

Albert

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by sporteq

This is an actual sample I handled. It was sold as, "Vintage Original." The paper weight is slightly more thicker and more rigid. Also, the color scale is black to white. Normally, not always, you see other color hues in vintage original photographs.

Sorry about the washed out image.

Albert

Wow.

As I originally surmised, it's now even more obvious that you made your assessment of a photo based on the backstamp, and assumed that because your photo had the physical characteristics of a modern reprint, then the 'Waner brothers' one did as well, which was a mistake on your part and was incorrect.

I'm closing the books on this one.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by sporteq

This is an actual sample I handled. It was sold as, "Vintage Original." The paper weight is slightly more thicker and more rigid. Also, the color scale is black to white. Normally, not always, you see other color hues in vintage original photographs.

Sorry about the washed out image.

Albert

World Wide Photos era backslug on this one. What looks like a 1920's era backslug to me, on the Waner photo. Tones are also completely different.

Apples to Oranges here.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

World Wide Photos era backslug on this one. What looks like a 1920's era backslug to me, on the Waner photo. Tones are also completely different.

Apples to Oranges here.

Albert's photo might explain this situation a bit better, but without additional information, it's still just theory. I'm going to guess that someone (Sport Magazine?) acquired an archive that included both prints and negatives, created reprints from some of the negatives and added slugs, then those ended up with WWP who in turn added their stamp to all of them. If that's the case, I can certainly see how someone who had handled only examples like Albert's, would assume that all examples were modern.

I apologize for calling Albert out on this in the other thread, but it is at least giving some of us an additional education on these prints.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Albert's photo might explain this situation a bit better, but without additional information, it's still just theory. I'm going to guess that someone (Sport Magazine?) acquired an archive that included both prints and negatives, created reprints from some of the negatives and added slugs, then those ended up with WWP who in turn added their stamp to all of them. If that's the case, I can certainly see how someone who had handled only examples like Albert's, would assume that all examples were modern.

If anything, since all of these types of photos that I have handled actually came from Sport Magazine's archives, I would think that it would be WWP that created reprints in the 1950's, added the slugs, then sent them off to Sport who added their stamp and eventually filed them in Sport's archives. For any reprints to have originated with Sport and wound up with WWP seems backward to me, given where they wound up.

Edited to add: If I'm going to reference photos I've handled, I guess I should show them Here are a few that I was able to locate quickly. I'm sure there are more, but would require more digging than I have time for at the moment.

First one of Schoendienst is Type 1 from the period for comparison's sake. Last one is obviously a 2nd generation print, shown for its similarity of caption type.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

If anything, since all of these types of photos that I have handled actually came from Sport Magazine's archives, I would think that it would be WWP that created reprints in the 1950's, added the slugs, then sent them off to Sport who added their stamp and eventually filed them in Sport's archives. For any reprints to have originated with Sport and wound up with WWP seems backward to me, given where they wound up.

Okay, I didn't realize that Sport was their final resting place.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

If anything, since all of these types of photos that I have handled actually came from Sport Magazine's archives, I would think that it would be WWP that created reprints in the 1950's, added the slugs, then sent them off to Sport who added their stamp and eventually filed them in Sport's archives. For any reprints to have originated with Sport and wound up with WWP seems backward to me, given where they wound up.

Yup, that is what I was going to assume myself. SPORT magazine stamps were added OVER the WWP stamps.

It's also not out of the realm to assume that WWP had acquired both original prints AND negatives during their reign. I've seen too many originals passed down and stamped by various news archives through the years, to think otherwise. Sometimes 3-4 different organizations on popular shots.

[sporteq]

Scott- I do believe your correct. The rights to these images were purchased.. then reproduced. I don't know when they were produced, maybe in the 50's but they're certainly not period photograph as advertised by top auction houses.


Albert

[thecatspajamas]

Okay, so after much speculation (including my own), here's the inside scoop from Henry:

These photos are simply 1950's restrikes off of Associated Press original negatives. AP and Wide World Photos were 1 and the same company by then (operated as separate arms, but were the same company, as AP had purchased WWP from The New York Times in 1941). The captions look old, but are consistent with what they used in the 1950's. They are backdated, as the clerk simply typed the info that was on the original negative's sleeve onto a then-new caption slip, including date of the original shot (NOT the issuing date), and affixed that to the back of the photo. They are Type II 1950's-60's restrikes, and the ones that are post-1955 will fluoresce under a black light.

The biggest kicker for me ["me" being Lance] is that the big, fat, red SPORT stamps on the backs were placed there later, when the archives were sold, to identify the photos as once being the property of Sport, NOT something applied earlier to indicate Sport had issued the photo. This is not speculation, and he has seen the actual SPORT stamp used.

In summary, though there is clearly a lot of confusion out there regarding these, they are definitely Type II restrikes produced years later, and are worth a fraction of what their Type I counterparts would be (if you could find a Type I counterpart for a given image, that is, though there are surely instances where no Type I's are known and the Type II is all that remains today, as seems to be the case with the Waners photo that started this whole discussion).

I personally doubt that most auction houses representing them as Original/Type I's are doing so maliciously, but would have to take that on a case-by-case basis, knowing that not everyone comes to the auction block armed with the same information.