Chicago Tribune/Balt Sun Photos

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

I do have one question along those lines. When the newspaper stamping (logo, address, etc.) appears on the back of an original photo, with or without a date stamp, does that necessarily mean that the photo was produced at that time or could the photo have been produced much earlier and that was just the date/time that the particular newspaper used it for printing? I'm sure that the newspaper photographers did not take many of the photos originally that were printed in their publications over the years.

While that COULD be the case, I think you'd be taking quite a leap to come to that conclusion without supporting evidence. The more likely scenario would be that the photo with the later-date stamping is a re-strike from the original negative or second-generation photo re-shot from an earlier original photo. While not all papers were particularly diligent about stamping dates on the backs of photos, I think the scenario you are describing of an unmarked photo sitting in the archives for years before being pulled out, used for production, and then stamped at that later date would be far less likely than it simply being a re-strike.

Just my 2 cents based on this hypothetical scenario...

[drc]

To Phil, most photos with the newspaper's stamp on the back were shot by a staff photographer. If the quality of the image/paper seems original, then the photo probably is. A newspaper can make reprints of old images just like news services did, but most will be originals.

Big newspapers both received photos from UPI, ACME etc for national/international events and shot their own photos of local/regional events. Their archives will contain both types.

[Leon]

Here is a 1921 Baltimore Sun photo I received in the mail yesterday. I think I am becoming a bit obsessive? But how cool is it to also have the corresponding 1921 Tip Top bread card too?

Edited to add I do think we will continue to see some more photos coming out. Newspapers have nothing to do with them and John makes it an easy win-win for them. Nice photos (top tier) will still fetch decent prices and more common players will be lower of course. This one cost me a whopping $15.00

[dog*dirt]

Nice photo Leon. That was a nice eye to be able to pick up on that photo.
Thanks everyone for your responses so far.

I just thought it would be cool if over the next few years we may have the opportunity to acquire some really nice photos that have been hidden away for years. It seems that a number of these photos that come from a local paper could be ideal for those who collect specific teams from that area.

[Exhibitman]

The archive liquidations have been amazing for collectors, that's for sure. Some of the finds, especially the vintage photos with the press releases attached, have been amazing. I think this will go on for some time as we move into the digital age and newspapers can treat their archives as a cash cow rather than a research facility.

[mybestbretts]

Now that is just plain cool!

[Ulidia]

I occasionally buy from the Chicago / Sun collection and also a sister company / outlet, Jay Parrino's The Mint (JPTM) which seems to sell more movie / entertainment photos than sporting photos.

My most recent photo from that source is this one. I bought it at the time because it was described as a photo including Happy Felsch (from the "Black Sox" infamy) but others, notably via baseball fever, have identified it as a Robins / Dodgers photo from 1914 / 1915 era with Casey Stengel, left, and Zach Wheat, right:




I've a multitude of Stengel photos but all from either his time with the Yankees in the 1940s / 1950s or on field with the Giants in early 1920s and personally wouldn't have been able to identify him at all here from the later shots.

[71buc]

How did I miss that one?! That's a beautiful photo.

Originally Posted by Ulidia

I occasionally buy from the Chicago / Sun collection and also a sister company / outlet, Jay Parrino's The Mint (JPTM) which seems to sell more movie / entertainment photos than sporting photos.

My most recent photo from that source is this one. I bought it at the time because it was described as a photo including Happy Felsch (from the "Black Sox" infamy) but others, notably via baseball fever, have identified it as a Robins / Dodgers photo from 1914 / 1915 era with Casey Stengel, left, and Zach Wheat, right:




I've a multitude of Stengel photos but all from either his time with the Yankees in the 1940s / 1950s or on field with the Giants in early 1920s and personally wouldn't have been able to identify him at all here from the later shots.

[Ulidia]

Thanks Mike - I think it had been there for some days before I got it but was one of those that was mislabelled so falls between the cracks.

Initially, I was going to buy it anyway because I liked the image. Ironic that it's a photo of the Robins / Dodgers as I'll be visiting the LA Dodgers for the first time later this month.

Looking forward to picking up those Lazzeri photos you sent to me when I'm over in San Diego in another two weeks time

[tjb1952tjb]

That Zach Wheat sure had a set of shoulders, huh?