Photos Question - Type 1, Type 2, Type 3, etc.

[Lucas00]

This is absolutely a type 1.

Wire photos
Are very easy to identify as they usually always have an article on the front describing the photo. They weren't really implemented until the mid 30s by the associated press for sporting use. They also are significantly lesser quality than a news/press photo. If this was a wirephoto I would expect it to be about half the quality of yours.

Good article.
https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.co...de-wirephotos/

You have a "News" or "Press" photo. With an original period news clipping and original pencil dating. Which are almost always sure fire signs of a type 1. These are second only to original photographer shots in terms of desirability.

Type 2s are pretty easy to identify as well. They will generally be very high quality with a single stamp or two or maybe a newspaper clipping that is out of the range for a type 1 date to make sense, (say a babe Ruth photo in uniform used for a 1950s article).
But they can be tricky. And sometimes it's frankly impossible to tell them apart from a type 1. Maybe George Brace waited 3 years after taking a photo to get it developed. Would anybody know the difference? No.

Once you go beyond type 2 it gets more and more obvious. Cream white borders. Bright white backs. Image quality that is severely lacking. No stamps at all. I would 99% of the time stay away from these.

[jjbond]

Oh thanks. I was fairly sure, but also read that sometimes you have to see it in person (feel the paper weight, etc.) to be sure. (and I was unsure of those white markings near the edges - again, I'm a novice to photography)

So there's Type 1, but two sub-types of Type 1? How does one distinguish a "Press Photo" from an "original photographer shot" (is it just that the first is staged?)

The photos I'm looking at are from 1913-1915, so I guess that makes it easier for me? And I assume it's better to have the original news clipping *attached* to the back of the photo, as opposed to tracking its use down in archives?
Thanks again!

[jjbond]

And doing a deep-dive on the internet, I found another version in a Leland's auction, listed as a wire photo. Would this be a "Type 3" of this photo, based upon the description and the lower quality of the image? I don't see a image of the back, but it has a caption on that side.

[Lucas00]

Originally Posted by jjbond

And doing a deep-dive on the internet, would this be a "Type 3" of this photo, based upon the lower quality of the image?

I can't tell, the scan could be bad. And there's no picture of the back.

[jjbond]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

I can't tell, the scan could be bad. And there's no picture of the back.

I updated my post - this rougher image came from Lelands Auction , so I assume the scan is accurate/fine, and they described it as a "wire photograph". (though not sure if that's a generic term, or if it is actually a Type 4, since it sounds like wire photos wouldn't exist until many years afterwards??)

Has someone posted the same image being used over the years as Types 1-4? Would be curious to see the comparisons....

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by jjbond

Oh thanks. I was fairly sure, but also read that sometimes you have to see it in person (feel the paper weight, etc.) to be sure. (and I was unsure of those white markings near the edges - again, I'm a novice to photography)

This particular photo is a contact print. The glass plate negative was put directly onto the photographic paper, it was exposed and then printed. Those white marks are the clips used to hold the negative tight against the paper. that helps improve the sharpness of the print.

[jjbond]

Originally Posted by Michael B

This particular photo is a contact print. The glass plate negative was put directly onto the photographic paper, it was exposed and then printed. Those white marks are the clips used to hold the negative tight against the paper. that helps improve the sharpness of the print.

Ok great! And still a Type 1? It's just how the Type 1 photo was developed back in 1913?

I never expected I'd be learning the ins-and-outs of how photos are made. Fun stuff!

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by jjbond

Ok great! And still a Type 1? It's just how the Type 1 photo was developed back in 1913?

I never expected I'd be learning the ins-and-outs of how photos are made. Fun stuff!

They had enlargers that could hold the glass plates to make larger prints. It was not as practical if they were doing it for a newspaper. They did not need large images. The glass plate negatives were usually 4x5 or 5x7. Contact prints were the quickest and most efficient way to print. You did not need to move the bellows of the enlarger up and down or focus the lens. If the negative had good emulsion and was sharp it was fairly easy to get contact prints that were properly exposed. I have done it with some in my archives. I will try to dig them out over the weekend. I actually enjoy working in a darkroom though I do not get the chance that often. It is fun to see the image appear before your eyes as you are swishing the developer back and forth over the paper.

[jjbond]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

This is absolutely a type 1.

And after all that, the seller told me it's a T3, because it was made off a duplicate negative.

I now have no clue as to how to identify, let alone buy these items.
Sigh.

[EddieP]

Originally Posted by jjbond

And after all that, the seller told me it's a T3, because it was made off a duplicate negative.

I now have no clue as to how to identify, let alone buy these items.
Sigh.

Tell-tale signs that yours is a type 3 are: editing notation and marks in the back. Part of the actual newspaper clipping is glued to the photo. International News Services is handwritten. Though not an original photo, it has value because it is contemporary to the time when the photo was taken.

Type 1 photos usually have : 1) a stamp of name of the Photographer/ News Agency in the back, 2) the date when the photo was received. This is usually, but not always, stamped, 3)A stamp of the name of Newspaper/ Library that owned the photo, 4) if from a newspaper, there may be a “slug” which was caption used under the photo by the paper.