Henry Yee Photos and Photos in General - Skeptical

[Hankphenom]

As dealer (small-time, compared to Henry and others) in old photos the past ten years, here's the math I've done in my head to try and figure out the answer to this question. There were between one and several hundred copies of a given photo printed at the time (type 1), depending on whether it was made for a specific publication for exclusive use or sent to multiple publications belonging to a syndicate for whom the photographer did work. In the case of syndicated photos, editors had to decide whether to keep the photo as a file copy, or throw it away after its original ephemeral use. In the case of a great photographers taking a classic shot of a renowned subject, one can assume the instance of keeping a file copy was higher than for an obscure player in an ordinary shot from a meaningless game. But then even the classic photos would have been subject to the ravages of time, including purging files for lack of storage space, or disposal upon the demise of the publication. So that leaves the remaining file copies in newspaper and magazine archives that have survived the years. How many of those archives are there? We'll find out in the next few years as they are sold off one after another for cash in the probably futile attempt of print publications to stay alive. We've seen several archives come to market recently, and I'm sure there will be at least several more. So what's the bottom line on all this? I'm guessing that there are no more than a handful of original Type 1 copies in existence of all but a few images, and that many really are one or two or three of a kind. I've seen a lot of photos over the years, either in person or in auction catalogs, and I don't remember a lot of redundancies. The only ones that come to mind are Brooklyn and Yankee team pictures from the 50s, and it's understandable that those would have been saved by most photo editors. Having said all this, it occurs to me that John Rogers would probably be the best person in the world to answer the question. John?
Hank Thomas

[HRBAKER]

Hank,
Thanks for the perspective.
Jeff

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

As dealer (small-time, compared to Henry and others) in old photos the past ten years, here's the math I've done in my head to try and figure out the answer to this question. There were between one and several hundred copies of a given photo printed at the time (type 1), depending on whether it was made for a specific publication for exclusive use or sent to multiple publications belonging to a syndicate for whom the photographer did work. In the case of syndicated photos, editors had to decide whether to keep the photo as a file copy, or throw it away after its original ephemeral use. In the case of a great photographers taking a classic shot of a renowned subject, one can assume the instance of keeping a file copy was higher than for an obscure player in an ordinary shot from a meaningless game. But then even the classic photos would have been subject to the ravages of time, including purging files for lack of storage space, or disposal upon the demise of the publication. So that leaves the remaining file copies in newspaper and magazine archives that have survived the years. How many of those archives are there? We'll find out in the next few years as they are sold off one after another for cash in the probably futile attempt of print publications to stay alive. We've seen several archives come to market recently, and I'm sure there will be at least several more. So what's the bottom line on all this? I'm guessing that there are no more than a handful of original Type 1 copies in existence of all but a few images, and that many really are one or two or three of a kind. I've seen a lot of photos over the years, either in person or in auction catalogs, and I don't remember a lot of redundancies. The only ones that come to mind are Brooklyn and Yankee team pictures from the 50s, and it's understandable that those would have been saved by most photo editors. Having said all this, it occurs to me that John Rogers would probably be the best person in the world to answer the question. John?
Hank Thomas

Well put Hank.

[Exhibitman]

One of the issues I have with the classification of photographs is that they were often made from "negatives" that were not necessarily originals and that existed in multiples. When we used to get a roll of film developed and get prints, we were given original negatives and they were run through the machinery to produce the prints. However, in commercial contexts, as I understand things, that would not happen because it tended to degrade the (valuable) original negative through handling. Instead, to make contact prints (photographs) the actual film itself, the original negative, was used to generate (via a process that I can't fully explain) contact negatives in the size of the intended prints. These contact negatives were often distributed to customers and others who would need to have prints made. I used to deal in Academy Awards materials and I often came across contact negatives in 8 x 10 format that could be used to make "original" photographic prints of classic Oscars moments. They were not the original photographers' negatives but were contact negatives and prints generated from them would be "original" prints but not by the original photographer. Hence the value of stamps, signatures, cartouches, etc. Now, obviously, the paper used to make the prints and the processes used could date some of them to an era after the photo was taken but to the extent that there is old paper stock available (and there is), and someone capable of handling the old processes (and there are some artists who prefer the old forms of photographic printmaking) one could counterfeit original prints from a contact negative.

[thegashousegang]

Thanks to everyone who has contributed so far. I'm fairly new to the world of Photos, so all the info is much appreciated.

[GrayGhost]

Very informative thread.

[BBSD]

Interesting- have been wondering how you can tell an original negative, any insights much appreciated?

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by BBSD

Interesting- have been wondering how you can tell an original negative, any insights much appreciated?

Good question! However, I do not have much expertise in negatives and would not buy one without getting an opinion.

There are a LOT of duplicate negatives out there. Far more than originals. Also, they were not made to deceive but as a newsroom necessity.

A staff photographer would simply take a photo of a photo (usually of a famous image and/or player) and the new negative would be filed away for future use. Of note...many dupe-negs were made 30, 40, 50, or more years ago.

MANY good and well thought out points made here. Thanks.

Jimmy