Ruth Red Sox photo, type 1 ??

[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

[ScottR81]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

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

well yes and no on the ebay, I was in las vegas and had no reception in my room so i was out bid originally but contacted the guy that won it and bought in from him for a bit of an increased price. I wanted it that bad. I see its not a type 1 which is fine, I just would love to know if this was produced for sure in 1919. That would be great.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by ScottR81

well yes and no on the ebay, I was in las vegas and had no reception in my room so i was out bid originally but contacted the guy that won it and bought in from him for a bit of an increased price. I wanted it that bad. I see its not a type 1 which is fine, I just would love to know if this was produced for sure in 1919. That would be great.

I really don't think there's any way to tell for sure if it's a so-called Type I or not.

Studio photographers were really great at reproducing their own negs without much if any loss of quality. We're not talking busy newsrooms here like Yee/Fogel allude to in their book under the Type III definition.

Block lettering like that, it very well could have been printed on the negative (in black ink BTW), backwards. Wouldn't have to be tiny as negs were much bigger in that era. I'd wager that was a 5x7 sized neg or thereabouts.

I had/have many original negs..........and probably copy negs to........but negs nonetheless with printing and credit stamps etched directly on them.

I'm sure studio photographers who were used to the practice, weren't that confused by the process.

No way to tell exactly if the print is 1919, but it's probably fairly close if it's not.

I think it's probably a great pick-up, whatever anybody wants to classify it as.

[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