Opinion on this Jimmy Foxx photo

[thekingofclout]

Sent you a PM. Regards, Jimmy

[GKreindler]

KILLER shot Phil. Man, Jimmie looks like such a bad@$$ with his sleeves cut like that.

[jeffmohler]

Did you pick this up from historicimages01? If so, they have a mixed bag of Type 1, 2 and 3 photos. I am no expert on Photos, but I believe Type 1 photos are printed from the original negative no later than 2 years after the photo was taken. Type 2 photos are developed from the original negative more than 2 years later. Type 3 are a copy of a Type 1 (often transmitted over the wire).

I have noticed that it is often difficult to distinguish between Type 1 and Type 3 photos on Ebay.

To me, yours looks like a Type 3 photo, but I don't think I can be positive without seeing the photo in person.

Jeff

[D. Bergin]

From the UPI stamp I would guess it's a Type II. Probaby from the 1950's-60's.

[Big Red Machine]

Thanks for the information. I appreciate it.

[prewarsports]

Who came up with the arbitrary (2-3 years after the photo was first taken) rule to be a Type 1? I have some really nice Ruth images with 1923-24 stamps on the back and are they REALLY considered Type II because the original photo was taken by the photographer in 1920 and this one has a date stamp of 1923 on the back? It makes sense for Post WWII images, but in the infancy of News Service photographs right around WWI, this seems like a needlessly harsh rule. Just my 2 cents.

Rhys

[jeffmohler]

Hi Rhys

I was just quoting from A Portrait of Baseball Photography by Fogel, Oser and Yee for my definition of the difference between Type 1 and 2 photos. I just started buying some photos and I have some of the same frustrations as the poster differentiating between the different types of photos.

Jeff

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

Who came up with the arbitrary (2-3 years after the photo was first taken) rule to be a Type 1? I have some really nice Ruth images with 1923-24 stamps on the back and are they REALLY considered Type II because the original photo was taken by the photographer in 1920 and this one has a date stamp of 1923 on the back? It makes sense for Post WWII images, but in the infancy of News Service photographs right around WWI, this seems like a needlessly harsh rule. Just my 2 cents.

Rhys

I have a lot of the same concerns. Seems a bit arbitrary to me. Vintage photos do not fit the same strict classifications as cards.

Keep in mind these are simply the guidelines Mastro/Legendary/Yee use for their own photos. Sometimes I wonder how accurately they are using their own guidelines when I look through their catalogs. Actually looking through the last Legendary catalog they don't mention "Type's" in their descriptions at all.................although they attribute the book from which all these definitions apparently originated from in the foreward.

Unless the images are "Radio or Sound" photos, I don't think the value of yours is affected very much if at all by these definitions if they were direct from the negative. The dates on yours may simply specify when the photos were re-used..........or developed, set aside, and used at a later date.

That said, I thinks it's more of a feel then anything with photos.

The photo market is much harder to gauge then cards are. A lot of different factors are involved. Clarity, age, subject, aesthetics, Wire or Press, later generation, etc., etc., Most "vintage" photos are equally "rare". It's mainly what people like at that particular point in time.

As I've said before, I've had what would be considered Type III Wire photos sell for much more then other, what I would consider superior Type I Press photos of more interesting subjects, and I just scratch my head sometimes.

There's no VCP for photos..........and I don't think that would ever be any kind of a realistic undertaking.

As far as the Grading companies handling photos. I'm fine with it as long as they stick to "Authentic", "Non-Authentic", or deciphering the actual age of the photo. If they start slapping numeric grades on photos, I think I might have a heart attack. These are not cards and never will be.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

Who came up with the arbitrary (2-3 years after the photo was first taken) rule to be a Type 1? I have some really nice Ruth images with 1923-24 stamps on the back and are they REALLY considered Type II because the original photo was taken by the photographer in 1920 and this one has a date stamp of 1923 on the back? It makes sense for Post WWII images, but in the infancy of News Service photographs right around WWI, this seems like a needlessly harsh rule. Just my 2 cents.

Rhys

Hey Rhys,
I know that the 2 years in not completely arbitrary. I think we all agree there has to be a line drawn somewhere. If a photo is developed from the original negative 10 years later or more, there would/should be a difference in price from one at the time on original period paper for example.
More so, as photo collecting evolves and more collectors get into it, I am sure there we be rookie photo collectors(I like rookie photos).
Let's say a rookie photo was taken of Clemente in 1955 or Maris in 1957… the star then becomes they become huge stars 4-5 years later and the original negatives are then being printed like crazy; originals developed at the time(true rookie images) and then some done 5 years later that might be on diff paper(or not necessarily but we know later because of the stamp) and not done as rookies. Then what?
OR..lets say Ty Cobb breaks the stolen base record in 1915 and they restrike the 1909 Conlon image to promote it(publish it). That would be worth less to a collector as well(at least me).
I am not smart enough nor was I part of the process of the PSA team coming up with the two years obviously but I am sure there are more reasons/examples than these.
I definitely see your point though….just think there are SO many variables in the printing/news process that guidelines were needed/formed.
I also have a few examples of period photos that do not make the 2 year cut. It is frustrating but all in all I think that the type distinctions are great for the photo collecting hobby. If nothing else, stirs conversation and critical thinking/interest of the photo process. It has also improved the value of these high end photos by providing direction for new collectors(higher demand) and also protect them form over paying(not falling for the blanket wire/press/vintage” distinction for a photo 10-15 years old but developed 10+ years after the photo was taken..etc..). I will take the good and take the bad…take the both and there I’ll deal with the facts of types.
Just my 1 cent
Any other thoughts on the type distictions?
Ben