Photograph Authentication: Am I right or Wrong?

[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.

[Johnphotoman]

Originally Posted by Michael B

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.

Football players, yes I think I have 4 football players in the collection, and they are the same as the baseball cards. I did not think to add them here, because this is about baseball. I will try and post them. I am new to all this, so still getting the hang of how it all works. This is the second time someone has said, Type 3 period pieces, what does this term mean? I am guessing a Type 3 photo, produced in the year or period they were taken. Thanks for all the great info.

[Johnphotoman]

Old Judges, Gypsie Queens, T200 Fatimas, are these photos or printed items? Because printed items use a totally different way to produce the item, viva...halftone printing and not right from the negative. Photos like the ones I have were made from a negative. So it makes sense to me the above, would be Type 3. But then if they are printed items, they would not be called a Type, type classifications are for photos. So the above must be made from a negative, thereby it becomes a photo. Is this right.? And they would be Type 3 because a second negative was used to make them? Thanks, John.

[Johnphotoman]

: I have nailed it down to two possibilities as to the mystery baseball photos. One is, team issue/Player Picture Pack Photo issued through Stadiums. These would be Type 1, made right from the original negative. And people have said they or someone in their family had acquired theirs right from the stadium or bought them from a dealer who said that’s what they were, all around the time period of the 1940s-1950. And they match the ones in the collection to the “T”, same style text, name on photos. I will say this qualifies as an eyewitness, who has firsthand knowledge of the photos.

The second one is commercial photos, viva magazines like sporting News, etc. And again all around the time period 1940s/1950s. These would be Type 3 period pieces, meaning-photo was made the year it was taken, only from a second negative. Not first-hand knowledge, only people who have said-I have seen ones as you have in these magazines. No one has said, yes I have seen the exact one in these magazines. I call this hearsay, not to say it is not very good info, but just not an eyewitness. The hunt continues to find out, once- and- for- all, which one is right. And then maybe I can find out who the photographer was. Thanks for all the great info, John.

[T206Jim]

The simplest way to think about it is as follows:

The original photo taken at the scene of the image is a Type I of the scene depicted.

Your photo is a Type III of the scene depicted, as it is a photo of the original photo. Your photo is however a Type I photo of the original photo, just not the scene depicted.

As collectors are interested mainly in type 1s of the scene depicted and not type 1s of of photos of that scene, the market, rightly or wrongly, will always value yours at a lesser value.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by Johnphotoman

Old Judges, Gypsie Queens, T200 Fatimas, are these photos or printed items? Because printed items use a totally different way to produce the item, viva...halftone printing and not right from the negative. Photos like the ones I have were made from a negative. So it makes sense to me the above, would be Type 3. But then if they are printed items, they would not be called a Type, type classifications are for photos. So the above must be made from a negative, thereby it becomes a photo. Is this right.? And they would be Type 3 because a second negative was used to make them? Thanks, John.

Old Judges, Gypsie Queens, T200 Fatimas are actual photographs. Many 1800s trading cards were actual photographs. Most other baseball cards through the years are ink-and-printing-press lithographs.

[drcy]

To be honest, I think the OP may be overthinking this. These are old collectible commercially sold photos of baseball players. I don't think you should be putting too much time and frustration into what type they are.

They're vintage collectible photos.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Michael B

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.

Yup, Boxers, wrestlers, etc...also.