Post Your Type 1 / Type 2 / Wire Photos / Etc

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Topnotchsy

1946/47 (it is described in different places as from either year) Cleveland Buckeyes photo.

I believe this is likely a Type I, and would welcome any perspectives on it. (My reasoning is that the image quality is very sharp, so I don't believe it could be a Type III, and the stamp on the back with just a two digit zip code indicates it was not a recent print, and I don't assume that they were reprinting Negro League photos much in the 50's and 60's though I could be wrong).

Originally Posted by Schlesinj

Posted this in the Memory Lane thread, but looks good in two. A bunch of George Burke autos some better than other from 1949 WS Team. I think they are type 1 but don’t want to open the back to find his address stamp.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Both of these are fantastic pieces! Thank you for sharing.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

[obcbeatle]

Hello, I hope it's ok to ask here about photo types as they might apply to vintage photos from Hollywood. If not I will desist. I am trying to understand Type 1's from Type 2's from Type 3's, etc. For instance, the first photo below came with documentation which clearly dates the photo (code #1198, Landis/Costello) as originally taken in 1928, and then re-published in this example in 1946. Would that make this 1946 photo then a Type 2? The next photo (Hedy Lamarr) came with no documentation and is dated at the bottom as 1946, the year the film was released. Would that make the Lamarr photo a Type 1? What is confusing to me in this example is that both these photo I believe were promos, perhaps sent to theaters and elsewhere, and mass produced. Thus they wouldn't qualify as Type 1 or Type 2, correct? I guess I'm confused about how the re-use of an original negative years later, particularly when re-producing photos en mass to the public or elsewhere, effects/determines the Type (1,2,3, etc.). All the photos are blank backed BTW. Thank you for any insights. PS: Just to keep this baseball related, the JJ repro is one of my favorite Jackson poses!

[todeen]

Originally Posted by obcbeatle

Hello, I hope it's ok to ask here about photo types as they might apply to vintage photos from Hollywood. If not I will desist. I am trying to understand Type 1's from Type 2's from Type 3's, etc. For instance, the first photo below came with documentation which clearly dates the photo (code #1198, Landis/Costello) as originally taken in 1928, and then re-published in this example in 1946. Would that make this 1946 photo then a Type 2? The next photo (Hedy Lamarr) came with no documentation and is dated at the bottom as 1946, the year the film was released. Would that make the Lamarr photo a Type 1? What is confusing to me in this example is that both these photo I believe were promos, perhaps sent to theaters and elsewhere, and mass produced. Thus they wouldn't qualify as Type 1 or Type 2, correct? I guess I'm confused about how the re-use of an original negative years later, particularly when re-producing photos en mass to the public or elsewhere, effects/determines the Type (1,2,3, etc.). All the photos are blank backed BTW. Thank you for any insights. PS: Just to keep this baseball related, the JJ repro is one of my favorite Jackson poses!

I stole this from another member: Lordstan.

"Type I - A 1st generation photograph, developed from the original negative, during the period (within approximately two years of when the picture was taken).

Type II - A photograph, developed from the original negative, during the period (more than approximately two years after the picture was taken).

Type III - A 2nd generation photograph, developed from a duplicate negative or wire transmission, during the period (within approximately two years of when the picture was taken).

Type IV - A 2nd generation photograph (or 3rd or later generation), developed from a duplicate negative or wire transmission, during a later period (more than approximately two years after the picture was taken)

Unfortunately many sellers misdescribe the photos they sell, some for nefarious reasons and some because they just don't know. The best advice is this. Buy the picture, not the authentication or seller description, whether they use the type description or not. Good pictures are good pictures regardless of how they are classified or described."

I don't know how to tell apart Type 1 & 2 because I'm not a photography expert. But Type 3 is easy, a photo of a photo (2nd generation) just isn't as clear, or its got hazy details. My 1940 Reds team photo I posted just a few posts back is Type 3. It's a wire photo, and the team logos on their chest have noticeable print lines. But it's dated on the back from 1940. It's still amazing.



Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

[obcbeatle]

Thank you, thank you. So perhaps it doesn't matter how many photos were produced off the original negative, just that for Type 1 not more than 2 years past, and for Type 2, 2+ years? So in my examples the Hedy Lamarr is likely a Type 1, and the 1928 Landis/Costello from 1946 likely a Type 2 (although that is almost 20 years past!). I also agree about the use/mis-use of the "Type" photo designations. It is more important to "buy the photo", just as it is more important to "buy the card" than go by a TPG grade, when collecting. Photos from the original negative clearly look better than photos not from the original negative. However, I'm not a photographer either so I don't know if copies of negatives are almost as clear as the originals. I suspect not. Thank you for the reply!

[todeen]

Originally Posted by obcbeatle

Thank you, thank you. So perhaps it doesn't matter how many photos were produced off the original negative, just that for Type 1 not more than 2 years past, and for Type 2, 2+ years? So in my examples the Hedy Lamarr is likely a Type 1, and the 1928 Landis/Costello from 1946 likely a Type 2 (although that is almost 20 years past!). I also agree about the use/mis-use of the "Type" photo designations. It is more important to "buy the photo", just as it is more important to "buy the card" than go by a TPG grade, when collecting. Photos from the original negative clearly look better than photos not from the original negative. However, I'm not a photographer either so I don't know if copies of negatives are almost as clear as the originals. I suspect not. Thank you for the reply!

Here's another example of a Type 3. It's pretty easy to tell in hand that it's a copy of an original. It's very grainy, even Lombardi's face is not clear. And I believe the crumpled top left corner has no texture when you run your finger over it. But I believe it's a news archive photo, with a description of the back. I would need to dig it out again to look.



Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

[obcbeatle]

Nice, a lot going on in that photo, thanks for sharing! Love seeing team/player collections! I too have some Type 3, 4's I believe, mostly Giants as I'm a Giants/Braves collector. I believe the Giants photo below is a Type 3 wire photo, but I'm not positive. Having grown up in SF in the 60's/70's it is a highly treasured photo to me regardless of Type designation I did a little more research yesterday and could not find anything that says the volume of photos created off an original negative effects the Type designation. So in my examples I'll assume the Hedy Lamarr is a Type 1, and the Landis/Costello a Type 2, regardless of the number of promo photos created off the negative. Does anybody know a good forum for non-sport photo collectors? Thank you for the replies!

[perezfan]

Here's a video we just released that features Original Type 1 Photos used to make Baseball Cards from the "Golden Era". It's interesting how much the original image can vary from the final production of the related card.

Hope you find this interesting, and thanks for watching!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndzzYAmCWLM