Ruth Red Sox photo, type 1 ??

[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.