Ruth Red Sox photo, type 1 ??

[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.

[ScottR81]

The photo is 5" x 7". Im gonna take it with me to next sports show in Nov. (in Chicago) and take it to PSA or JSA see what they think.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Scott:

You may want to consider Beckett also. They have a really nice mid-size holder for photos up to 5" X 7" max.

[Frozen in Time]

I am new to the forum and joined primarily because of the wealth of shared information that is contained in discussions such as this one. From the tone of some of the responses it appears that the "Type" classification system for photos has already been discussed and debated.

I don't want to raise inappropriate issues, but would simply like to add that I have been collecting vintage baseball photographs for over 30 years now and have found the Fogel, Oser and Yee book extremely helpful even though there are clearly prints that "fall between the cracks" of their classification format.

For what it is worth, the Ruth photograph does not appear to me to be a first generation print (lack of clarity and full tonal range) but, as many here have stated, that does not diminish in any way it's significance.

Whereas I believe collectors should accumulate what appeals to them, I would caution those who ignore the rarity of true Type 1 photographs. As I have seen repeatedly, the number of fully documented Type 1 prints for a given image can often be counted on one hand and in many cases only a single example has survived. In that context, I do not see why anyone would have an issue with what is the ultimate quest in vintage photography.

[kevlewis]

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

Kevin