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

[Lucas00]

This is not a type 3 🤦.

How in any world would the seller know it was made from a duplicate negative unless he faked every marking and has a period newspaper clipping. And pulled out his typewriter to mark the corner.

The international news service didn't even exist past 1958. When it merged with a rival.

So automatically the seller has no idea if this was made off of a duplicate negative.

There is a clear indication this is an international news service photo. A service that began in 1909. With a period news clipping that talks in present tone of the signing.

Oh and also there is no such thing as a "Duplicate Negative" the only way to "duplicate" a negative is to take a very high quality photo of the original negative.

And that one is way too nice to be a type 3 from a duplicate negative such as a wire photo.

Maybe you could make a case for this being a type 2. But even then I don't think it is.


Maybe Ben Weingarten or David Cycleback can chime in with more details.

[jjbond]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

Maybe you could make a case for this being a type 2. But even then I don't think it is.

Well, the original photograph was taken on 12/27/1913. And while I haven't found the exact newspaper article that is glued on the back (especially where it says it says "This photograph, the first to be published in the East"), I did find an Indiana newspaper from 1/2/1914. So I'm fairly confident this photo was made and used within weeks (days?) of the actual event. So not a T2, right? (unless "East" means further east than America. Is that what "International News Service" dealt with?...but regardless, it'd be within a month I'd imagine, and in some English-speaking area)

[Lucas00]

Originally Posted by jjbond

Well, the original photograph was taken on 12/27/1913. And while I haven't found the exact newspaper article that is glued on the back (especially where it says it says "This photograph, the first to be published in the East"), I did find an Indiana newspaper from 1/2/1914. So I'm fairly confident this photo was made and used within weeks (days?) of the actual event. So not a T2, right? (unless "East" means further east than America. Is that what "International News Service" dealt with?...but regardless, it'd be within a month I'd imagine, and in some English-speaking area)

Yes the time frames are likely similar to that.

The news service was U.S based.

Also notice how the original photo denotes the removal of the man on the left? And as you can see he was indeed removed for the final publications to the public. I really like that detail.

[jjbond]

Ah yes, US-based. I over thought that, and found similar newspapers carrying basically the same text description, and even attributing it to the International News Service.


And yeah, I like how they followed through with the cropping (it was not a very well-framed shot to begin with - the guys look very un-photogenic). But I have also seen the full version published that month.

[Lucas00]

Originally Posted by jjbond

Ah yes, US-based. I over thought that, and found similar newspapers carrying basically the same text description, and even attributing it to the International News Service.


And yeah, I like how they followed through with the cropping (it was not a very well-framed shot to begin with - the guys look very un-photogenic). But I have also seen the full version published that month.

That third guy is Charles Weeghman, owner of the Chicago Whales.

He also built Wrigley Field and owned the Cubs.

[jjbond]

Ok, after *another* deep dive on the internet, I found another version of this picture. It has greater clarity, the pencil notation of the date, and a few other details that seem to indicate that this *new* one is the original T1. Please see the comparison - the new find is on top. The one I purchased is below.

[jjbond]

Again, without having the two to compare to each other, I have difficulty in identifying if a single photo *should* be clearer or not. But it does appear that both generations of photos were printed just days apart from each other, and both date back to Dec 1913/Jan 1914. And clearly my physical copy was used in at least some of the newspaper accounts.

I wish I understood the process more of how the original photo/negative gets from the photographer's camera to the newspaper, but I feel that perhaps this process is more nuanced than just flatly declaring it a Type 1 vs. Type 3.

Perhaps more important to call it a *1913* T1 vs. a *1913* T3?