Photograph Authentication: Am I right or Wrong?

[bn2cardz]

Just because there is text on the image, it doesn't necessarily mean it was from a duplicate negative. The text could be written directly to a glass negative during the processing of the image.

[Johnphotoman]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

Just because there is text on the image, it doesn't necessarily mean it was from a duplicate negative. The text could be written directly to a glass negative during the processing of the image.

Exactly, but all the so could experts I have talked to want to say they are Type 3 because of the text on the photos... please look at my post about this and tell me what you think, i could use all the help I could get. Thanks, John.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by Johnphotoman

Exactly, but all the so could experts I have talked to want to say they are Type 3 because of the text on the photos... please look at my post about this and tell me what you think, i could use all the help I could get. Thanks, John.

Just because a duplicate negative was used to print a photo within the (arbitrary) 2 years does not erase the fact that it was a duplicate negative.
There is no way that a photographer (or his boss) would alter an original negative and risk losing it by screwing up while adding text.
It sounds like you are not satisfied with expert information and just you want someone to tell you that they are Type 1 photos.

They are all Type 1 photos. Happy now?

[prewarsports]

Sometimes photos with text can be Type 1 by the PSA standard, it has to be evaluated on a photo by photo basis. There were techniques that could be done to negatives to create a finished product that looks like it "should" be a Type 3, but it is still off the original negative. Same with composites. Underwood and Underwood used trays for 4x5 inch negatives that could lay two of them side by side and crease a two-part composite photograph each of which is a Type 1 photo, Bain had a similar device. Saying everything with text or writing on the front is a Type 3 is generally safe, but there are exceptions to the rule.

Modern photography (when you start to get into digital and color technologies of the 1990's and early 2000's) make the debate between Type 1-2-3-4 of the vintage era look like a cake walk!

[Johnphotoman]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

Sometimes photos with text can be Type 1 by the PSA standard, it has to be evaluated on a photo by photo basis. There were techniques that could be done to negatives to create a finished product that looks like it "should" be a Type 3, but it is still off the original negative. Same with composites. Underwood and Underwood used trays for 4x5 inch negatives that could lay two of them side by side and crease a two-part composite photograph each of which is a Type 1 photo, Bain had a similar device. Saying everything with text or writing on the front is a Type 3 is generally safe, but there are exceptions to the rule.

Modern photography (when you start to get into digital and color technologies of the 1990's and early 2000's) make the debate between Type 1-2-3-4 of the vintage era look like a cake walk!

I could not agree more. This is some of the proof I have, in the production of the print. In my opinion, they are not type 3 because of the text on photos. But I spoke to quite a few that just dump what I have into type 3 just because they have text on photos. This is bad for collecting. I must also apologize I did not mean to make this about how I want them to be Type 1. If anyone will go back and see my other post they would see where I was going with all this. I am sorry. Thanks to all John.

[Johnphotoman]

No. Not happy at all, it never was about what Type of photos 1,2 3,... I have,! But what kind of photos do I have. Where did they come from, who was the photographer, and more? This is all about the hunt, but I was trying to make a point...every expert I talked to, would say they are Type 3 and just blow me off.
It is like if they are not Type 1, they did not want to talk. Ok, all but one. But I have to say, he finally went there. If I ever do decide to sell, I want as much money as I can get. And that would mean Type 1. I would like to know what I have over if they are Type 1 or not. Yes, I have a very good idea, but I do not want to say on account I do not want to taint what others think, or even know. I believe it's what you like over Type 1,2 or 3.
But every conversation just pulls in what type there are, and not what they are. I would bet if I could prove to the experts that I have spoken to, that my collection is all Type 1...they would take more interest in them.
I started this research back in 1976/77...I want to tell you people were rude back then, many wouldn't even give you the time of day..Today there are many people who are willing to share their knowledge and be very happy to doing so. Thanks to all, John, Oh, and yes just for the record they are Type 1. At least what I know about them.

[rand1com]

Originally Posted by Johnphotoman

No. Not happy at all, it never was about what Type of photos 1,2 3,... I have,! But what kind of photos do I have. Where did they come from, who was the photographer, and more? This is all about the hunt, but I was trying to make a point...every expert I talked to, would say they are Type 3 and just blow me off.
It is like if they are not Type 1, they did not want to talk. Ok, all but one. But I have to say, he finally went there. If I ever do decide to sell, I want as much money as I can get. And that would mean Type 1. I would like to know what I have over if they are Type 1 or not. Yes, I have a very good idea, but I do not want to say on account I do not want to taint what others think, or even know. I believe it's what you like over Type 1,2 or 3.
But every conversation just pulls in what type there are, and not what they are. I would bet if I could prove to the experts that I have spoken to, that my collection is all Type 1...they would take more interest in them.
I started this research back in 1976/77...I want to tell you people were rude back then, many wouldn't even give you the time of day..Today there are many people who are willing to share their knowledge and be very happy to doing so. Thanks to all, John, Oh, and yes just for the record they are Type 1. At least what I know about them.

If you can't get any accepted photo expert to say they are Type 1 you will never be able to sell them as Type 1. Sounds like you have been trying for 40+ years to prove they are Type 1 with zero success. There is likely a reason for that.

Just like if I get an autograph in person and know it is authentic but the autograph experts will not authenticate it, I cannot hope to sell it for its real value.

[Johnphotoman]

It is not about type 1 photos, it is about how when I do talk to some people who say they are experts in the field say- they are Type 3, and right away the conversation stops. And I do not mean to say everyone over the years has said they are type 3.

I was just pointing out and this is for all those who have said they are Type 3, have said when you have text on the photo it becomes a Type 3 because they had to use a second negative to make the photo print, all because of the name on the photo.

I did miss speak on this, there are a hand full who have said they just do not know, but think they could go as type 1. And point out that the text on the photos does not automatically make them Type 3. I just was trying to say when I talked to some experts, they were not too happy to talk about them unless they themselves thought they were Type 1.

I believe what I have are team issue promotional photos, made from an original photo. Which used a different way to make a photo print than what so many experts have said.

It's about how people lump everything that looks alike into one category. And why we should also investigate on our own. Because sometimes even the experts are wrong. I went about the question all wrong. Thanks to all, John.

[Scott Garner]

Hi John,
The photos are cool and collectible regardless of what "Type".
The real question that you need to ask yourself is:
What do I want to do with them?
If your goal is to sell them, do so without losing your focus on the fact that they are collectible and cool!
Good luck as you determine your next steps.
Scott

[drcy]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

Just because there is text on the image, it doesn't necessarily mean it was from a duplicate negative. The text could be written directly to a glass negative during the processing of the image.

Correct. I was going to say that. The OP should post some images.

Also, age is also important to value. And old second-generation photo can have vale.

[drcy]

I just looked at the other thread. They are likely type III. It's a nice collection, and photos with images used on the cards should bring a premium.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by drcy

I just looked at the other thread. They are likely type III. It's a nice collection, and photos with images used on the cards should bring a premium.

John,
I know you are new to net54...
David's expertise when it comes to photos is certainly one of the most educated on net54.
If it were me looking for answers, David is the Answer Man!

[Johnphotoman]

Thanks to all, I am not selling now, but someday. Right now I am putting together photos with the bb cards that match. It is a lot of fun. I just think they are cool. All I wanted from the people I talked to was...what were they, who took them, and in what year, not what type of value they have.

Yes, value always comes into play, but it is about the fun of the hunt. That being said, I have people who have first knowledge about collection these..
and said they are, either Premium Press Photos, Team Issue Photo, Player Picture Pack Photo issued sold at Stadium. I Was told that they were not mass-produced. And that not many were produced, a limited number making them rare.

The years were most likely the 1940s and 1950s because of the style. I have even purchased some more photos like the ones I have that are not in my collection. They are hard to find. I can find baseball cards that match the photos much easier. Thanks John.

[Johnphotoman]

Originally Posted by drcy

I just looked at the other thread. They are likely type III. It's a nice collection, and photos with images used on the cards should bring a premium.

Thanks for all the info, but I still do not understand what makes them type 3. I just want to understand the types of photos at this point. Because if it is the text on them, who am I to believe, the one who says the text on photos makes them a type 3. Or the one who says just because there is text on photos does not make them type 3.

If it is age, well they have been in my family since 1965. And I have had people tell me some of the photos- are definitely from the 1940s because they have collected them first hand, around that time, or someone in their family did pick them up in the 1940s. So what makes them type 3? Thanks John.

[drcy]

I don't doubt their age, and assumed they were vintage. Type III means they're period.

As I've seen these types of photos before, I assumed they were the type where you bought them or the negatives from a catalog, and the negatives were likey copy negatives.

I actually don't know, and was just glancing at the photos. Is it possible they or some of them are Type 1. Yes, that's possible.

[drcy]

Also realize that your photos appear to be commercial items-- via catalog or whatever. Most commercial baseball photos are type III. N172 Old Judges, Gypsie Queens, T200 Fatimas, etc.

So for commercial items, advertising baseball photo postcards, and photographic trading cards and premiums, being type III is the norm. By the same token that Topps cards are lithographic copies of photos, and the 1952 and 53 Topps aren't original paintings but litho copies of paintings

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by drcy

Also realize that your photos appear to be commercial items-- via catalog or whatever. Most commercial baseball photos are type III. N172 Old Judges, Gypsie Queens, T200 Fatimas, etc.

So for commercial items, advertising baseball photo postcards, and photographic trading cards and premiums, being type III is the norm. By the same token that Topps cards are lithographic copies of photos, and the 1952 and 53 Topps aren't original paintings but litho copies of paintings

David,

My response in the other thread.

These were not limited to baseball. There were also Olympians - Bob Mathias and Barney Ewell come to mind. I believe there were also some made for football players. You are incorrect in calling them autographs. It is the athletes name printed in a readable cursive/script style. Most of them were mass produced photos for sale to the public. I believe you could purchase them from the back of Sporting News and other publications. Yes, they were originally printed around the period that the photos were taken however, I have seen newer versions of these probably/possibly printed in the 1970's or 1980's. Without feeling the paper it is impossible to tell. I had, at one time, a copy of the Ewell photo autographed by him. It was this style but probably a later reprint.