Ruth Red Sox photo, type 1 ??

[prewarsports]

I thought the white lettering like that was etched into the negative so it would still be considered a "Type 1"?

Doesn't really matter either way to most people as long as it is vintage despite the "type". It is a beautiful original and vintage piece!

Rhys

[thecatspajamas]

Hank,
I agree wholeheartedly in that I would not try to assign a Type classification to this particular photo unless asked to do so (as in the OP's original question). I didn't mean to detract from an otherwise very desirable photo. Personally, I typically only use the Type classification when dealing with news photos, and even then only when it is helpful. I agree that there are many many wonderful images out there that defy classification by the Type system, and I agree that a collector who limits himself to Type 1's only will miss out on most of them.

As for the Bain photos, I don't think you could give one overarching designation for all of them. You pretty much have to consider each photo on its own, whatever the source.

And while I suppose it is possible to "write" on a photo by scratching or painting on the negative (depending on the desired color of the lettering), I find it highly unlikely that anyone mass-producing photos in those days would have done so. For one thing, you would have to do all your lettering backwards, do it perfectly the first time, and in most cases, do it in miniature. I'm certainly open to the possibility, but I just can't see that being practical.

On the other hand, I've actually had a few original George Burke 8x10 photos that were hand-lettered with white paint in the method I described (as well as black lettering done in pen) where you could see the indentation of the guide lines laid down for the lettering and feel the raised texture (white lettering painted on) or indentations (black pen lettering) of the letters themselves. I also had smaller 4x6 prints of the same shot, with the same lettering in the image (no difference in texture), all with proper back-stamping, making it clear what had been done (at least in that case).

My thinking is that the typical news photographer didn't give a flip about the long-term collectibility of the photos they produced, and certainly never considered the possibility of a "Type" classification system. Why risk ruining your original negative by scratching on it when you could produce a print (or 2 or 3 if you screwed up the first one), letter it, then re-shoot it. Sure, the second generation prints would not be quite as sharp, but if the customer was satisfied, did that really matter? And if it didn't turn out too good, they still had the original negative and could do the whole thing over again.

Edited to add: I also want to emphasize that I am not an expert in photography. I do think that anyone who is thinking of collecting photography, particularly sports and news photographs, should really pick up a copy of Yee and Fogel's book. Whenever I comment on Type classifications, it's safe to assume that most (if not all) that I say is borrowed from, or at least based on, knowledge I gained from reading it, with a little personal experience thrown in for good measure.

[GrayGhost]

This topic keeps getting rehashed over and over. Its a REALLY NICE OLD photo of The Babe. Why isn't that enough, especially in this case?

[Frozen in Time]

I agree with the general sentiment that regardless of the Type, this is an original and vintage early photo of Ruth with the additional benefit of the pencil notations on the back which provide a general time window - a really spectacular find.

In addition to the comments relating to the origin of the hand notations on the image (again which I believe are accurate) another indication that it is a second generation print is the narrow overall tonal range i.e., more grays, less blacks and whites.

While a dated, larger Type I print of this image would probably be worth considerably more, such a print may not even exist, so forget about Type and enjoy this wonderful image.

[mschwade]

This might be well known information, I didn't know anything about it, so I googled it. Found this link explaining the "Little World Series" that featured Babe Ruth and others: http://baseballguru.com/omi/littleworldseries.htm

[ScottR81]

The writting on the bottom is not raised, would you say this photo is authentic to the year 1919 or a later date?

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by ScottR81

The writting on the bottom is not raised, would you say this photo is authentic to the year 1919 or a later date?

Was the photo shot in 1919? Looks like it. Was the print produced that same year? Hard to say for sure. I can't quite make out the studio name printed on the back, which might give some clue if one could find any information on the studio. Given that the studio is located in Attleboro, where the Little World Series took place, it could very well have been produced by a local studio to be sold at or near the ballpark as a souvenir for the throngs of spectators who came to town for the event. Otherwise, I don't see any watermarks on the photo paper itself (could be very very faint) which can also give at least a possible date range based on when the manufacturer used that watermark (most notably Velox/Kodak watermarks can be dated to usually within a couple of decades).

Nice win! (assuming this was you that picked it up on eBay):
http://www.ebay.com/itm/BABE-RUTH-Or...-/180708563467

[kevlewis]

Hey there buddy. Do you still own this photo? If so, what do you want for it?

Kevin

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by GrayGhost

This topic keeps getting rehashed over and over. Its a REALLY NICE OLD photo of The Babe. Why isn't that enough, especially in this case?

...but, unfortunately, I have started to see collectors of vintage photography who will not have anything but "Type I"s in their collections. Whether they are trying to be purists, or think they are looking out for their investment value, or think they are going by "the book," I think they are misguided by eliminating examples such as this one, and also every news service or studio photo that has their name or logo in the photo ("Elliott New Service," "Harris and Ewing," "Underwood and Underwood," etc.) all of which are presumably Type IIIs, no matter how great the image or significant the event. I'm not interested in rehashing so much as agitating for a tweaking of the system now before this goes too far. I know some on the board want to eliminate the type system completely, and this major flaw does bolster that argument, but I still think it has helped bring the collecting of vintage sports photography into a more sophisticated environment.
Hank Thomas

[sporteq]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Hank,
I agree wholeheartedly in that I would not try to assign a Type classification to this particular photo unless asked to do so (as in the OP's original question). I didn't mean to detract from an otherwise very desirable photo. Personally, I typically only use the Type classification when dealing with news photos, and even then only when it is helpful. I agree that there are many many wonderful images out there that defy classification by the Type system, and I agree that a collector who limits himself to Type 1's only will miss out on most of them.

As for the Bain photos, I don't think you could give one overarching designation for all of them. You pretty much have to consider each photo on its own, whatever the source.

And while I suppose it is possible to "write" on a photo by scratching or painting on the negative (depending on the desired color of the lettering), I find it highly unlikely that anyone mass-producing photos in those days would have done so. For one thing, you would have to do all your lettering backwards, do it perfectly the first time, and in most cases, do it in miniature. I'm certainly open to the possibility, but I just can't see that being practical.

On the other hand, I've actually had a few original George Burke 8x10 photos that were hand-lettered with white paint in the method I described (as well as black lettering done in pen) where you could see the indentation of the guide lines laid down for the lettering and feel the raised texture (white lettering painted on) or indentations (black pen lettering) of the letters themselves. I also had smaller 4x6 prints of the same shot, with the same lettering in the image (no difference in texture), all with proper back-stamping, making it clear what had been done (at least in that case).

My thinking is that the typical news photographer didn't give a flip about the long-term collectibility of the photos they produced, and certainly never considered the possibility of a "Type" classification system. Why risk ruining your original negative by scratching on it when you could produce a print (or 2 or 3 if you screwed up the first one), letter it, then re-shoot it. Sure, the second generation prints would not be quite as sharp, but if the customer was satisfied, did that really matter? And if it didn't turn out too good, they still had the original negative and could do the whole thing over again.

Edited to add: I also want to emphasize that I am not an expert in photography. I do think that anyone who is thinking of collecting photography, particularly sports and news photographs, should really pick up a copy of Yee and Fogel's book. Whenever I comment on Type classifications, it's safe to assume that most (if not all) that I say is borrowed from, or at least based on, knowledge I gained from reading it, with a little personal experience thrown in for good measure.

I too agree with your statement. I had spoken with a historical photo collector decades ago, that i met on ebay, on the phone. He to had hard time what to call a photograph with writing on it. He knew most were NOT off the original negative. This was way before the Yee photo designation criteria. I find a lot of inconsistencies in the "Type 1" designation. This is one example that comes to mind.


Albert

[prewarsports]

It is hard to tell how names and notes were applied to particular images but often times they were done to the negative themselves which would still make them "Type 1" images. If black paint was applied to the negative it would show up white when the photo was developed and white paint would show up black. Etched names into the negative (scratched on them backwards) were crude but were often done and also pencil was used by many photographers such as Charles Conlon where notations would show up on the side. With photos in hand you can generally tell from the clarity of the image whether they are off the original negative. If the image is clear and bold with small details visible such as individual blades of grass etc. it is highly likely that the names and notes were added to the negative and not afterwards making it still a "type 1" image. Each photo should be looked at individually as there is no blanket rule regarding notations and identifications and the type system.