Anyone win any photos in Legendary's Auction?

[MVSNYC]

i think i got a good deal on this Gehrig (c.1935)...it has some condition issues, but is a type 1 example.

p.s. i am told by Legendary that the white "streaks" are much more subtle in person.

[thekingofclout]

Very pleased to add three more TYPE I photographs to my collection.

A sweet image of Koufax from Sept. of '63.

koufax1963.jpg

Roger Maris gets his 61st Home Run Ball back from fan Sal Durante.

marisduranteBALL.jpg

marisduranteBALLverso.jpg

Willie Mays is greeted at home after hitting his 500th career home run by fellow HOF teammate (who later became a member of the 500 club), Willie McCovey.

mays500hr.jpg

mays500hrverso.jpg

[MVSNYC]

forgive me, because like i said in another thread, i am new to photos, but aren't these wire photos- thus not type 1?

[thekingofclout]

The photos I posted in this thread are not wire photos, these are news service photos.

A wire photo was created when someone would take a TYPE I photo and run it through a wire photo machine (which AP perfected in the late 1930's) which works pretty much like a like a fax machine and the wire photos would be received at the other end hundreds or thousands of miles away.

So a single TYPE I photo would generally send out 25-50 wire photos to their affiliate newspapers.

Here is an example of a wire photo, notice how the caption is embedded into the photo not typed on a thin piece of brown, green, yellow, etc. paper and pasted on the back. Wire photos are TYPE III photos.

Also, if you viewed this photo with a $15 pocket telescope that can go 100x you will easily see the line pattern produced by the wire photo machine on the receiving end.
DiMaggioMantle.jpg

Here is a TYPE I News Service Photo...and under 100x it would appear cloudy with no dot patterns or lines.

gehrigdugout.jpg

gehrigdugoutverso.jpg

[MVSNYC]

thanks! that helps alot...

here is a very quick summary from Mastro's book:

type 1- made from the original negative within 2 years of photo being taken
type 2- made from the original negative, years later
type 3- wire photos or photos made from photos within 2 years of being taken
type 4- wire photos or photos made from photos, printed years later

is this an accurate summary?

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by MVSNYC

thanks! that helps alot...

here is a very quick summary from Mastro's book:

type 1- made from the original negative within 2 years of photo being taken
type 2- made from the original negative, years later
type 3- wire photos or photos made from photos within 2 years of being taken
type 4- wire photos or photos made from photos, printed years later

is this an accurate summary?

Yep! But there are a lot of subtleties and nuances involved with determining what TYPE a photo is at times...

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by thekingofclout

Also, if you viewed this photo with a $15 pocket telescope that can go 100x you will easily see the line pattern produced by the wire photo machine on the receiving end.

A simple 10x loop will usually do the trick if you can't tell from your naked eye. If it's a really clean wire transfer I found the easiest way to find the wave pattern is around the outlines of the figures where the body blends into the background of the photo.

The edge of the brim of a baseball cap is usually a great spot to look for the wave lines.

The AP and other news agencies had lots of runners who ran original prints to as many newspapers in the immediate area as possible so they weren't totally reliant on wire transfers either.

Most Type 1's are not 1 of 1's but I imagine that they are a lot scarcer then most known baseball cards of any particular player/athlete.

A lot of wire photos (not all) will actually say "Wire Photo" somewhere on them. Anything with the caption printed into the front of the photo is generally a wire photo. A lot of times this front caption will be trimmed off but it's still fairly easy to tell the difference.

Most photos (not all) that come with the paper tag on the back are Type I press photos. Some are Type II's and are usually easy to tell though some can be a bit tricky.

Then there are also "Sound Photos" and "Radio Photos" which I imagine would be considered Type III. These usually gave poor results and were of less quality then the wire photos.

[nyyanksghr]

With all the talk of Type I and Type II...a few questions/comments. I would like to see a much broader definition of Type II. This Type I through IV is a recent concept developed by Marshall and Henry for the purpose of providing a grading scale for PSA. In the technical definition, a Joe Jackson photo, printed from the original negative, that was taken during the 1919 World Series but not published/printed until 1922 would be considered TYPE II, due to it being printed after 2 years of capture. By the same token, that same image of Jackson from the 1919 World Series, developed from the original negative, in 2009, would be technically a TYPE II. Both would be TYPE II with a drastically different monetary value. What are your opinions of such a broad definition?

A larger issue a see with TYP I and II desigantion is on original photos with no stamping. How would it be possible to know for certain, if a photo developed from the original negative of Jackson, in the 1919 WS, was developed in 1919, or 1929? An 80 year old photo from 1929 would appear no different than a 90 year old photo, from 1919. With no reverse stamping, which is frequent with early photography, you have a guessing game to determine an exact date, within 2 years of photo capture. Thoughts? John Rogers

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by nyyanksghr

With all the talk of Type I and Type II...a few questions/comments. I would like to see a much broader definition of Type II. This Type I through IV is a recent concept developed by Marshall and Henry for the purpose of providing a grading scale for PSA. In the technical definition, a Joe Jackson photo, printed from the original negative, that was taken during the 1919 World Series but not published/printed until 1922 would be considered TYPE II, due to it being printed after 2 years of capture. By the same token, that same image of Jackson from the 1919 World Series, developed from the original negative, in 2009, would be technically a TYPE II. Both would be TYPE II with a drastically different monetary value. What are your opinions of such a broad definition?

A larger issue a see with TYP I and II desigantion is on original photos with no stamping. How would it be possible to know for certain, if a photo developed from the original negative of Jackson, in the 1919 WS, was developed in 1919, or 1929? An 80 year old photo from 1929 would appear no different than a 90 year old photo, from 1919. With no reverse stamping, which is frequent with early photography, you have a guessing game to determine an exact date, within 2 years of photo capture. Thoughts? John Rogers

Very good points and a question I've always wondered. Press/Wire photos are fairly easy to tell.

Photos from freelance and studio photographers I think are strictly an educated guessing game based on paper type, wear, feeling and even smell. 2 years has to be more of a roundabout figure that maybe should be upgraded to 5 years or so to be more accurate. Who's really to tell if George Burke printed out a photo in 1936 or 1939?