Chicago Tribune/Balt Sun Photos

[Runscott]

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.

Could be much older. Example - check out the press photos on my website of Wagner and Ward.

[dog*dirt]

Here is a Cobb from May 1927. It's not in the best shape but is still neat.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Could be much older. Example - check out the press photos on my website of Wagner and Ward.

Scott,

Nice examples! Just goes to show that with vintage photos, you have to take them on a case by case basis if you're trying to determine when the photo was shot, if/when it was used in publication, whether it's a 1st generation, 2nd generation, restrike, etc.

I still feel that later-year restrikes or re-shot photos are the more common occurrance over earlier unmarked photos being repurposed for publication, but in cases like the Wagner and Ward photos Scott mentioned, the supporting details point to those being the exception rather than the rule.

My main concern is not wanting to give the false impression that the situation that Phil was describing was a common occurrence. (I took his original question to be whether a photo clearly shot during an earlier period, say 1927 based on the content of the photo itself, but stamped by the newspaper with a later date, say 1950, could in fact be a print produced in 1927, filed away without any date stamps or markings in 1927, then was pulled out of a file and used for publication in 1950 at which point it was stamped with the 1950 date). I feel that kind of situation would be a rare occurrence, and would require more supporting evidence to make me think that was the case rather than the photo simply being a 1950's-era restrike of a 1927 photo.

That may sound convoluted, but that is what I was getting from his question. It just goes to show how difficult it can be to make an all-encompassing statement when dealing with vintage photographs though. That's why I prefer to take them on a case-by-case basis or, in many indeterminate cases, just call it a "vintage photograph" and talk more about the pretty picture on the front

[GKreindler]

Andrew,

Beaten up or not, that Cobb gaze can't be stopped. And it's a great shot to boot! I love the man with the dark suit behind Ty - it sort of has this reverse halo effect on the contour of his head.

And I think I remember seeing that one on eBay (and at a nice price, I might add) - you picked yourself a winner!

Graig

[dog*dirt]

Craig,

My picking out a nice photo from the internet pales in comparison to the talent you show in your work

[dog*dirt]

Just thought I would bump this on a slow night to see if anyone has picked up anything recently.

I thought this Kaline from the Baltimore Sun was neat from his high school days. Foxx/Klein from 1945 is the bottom picture.

[Runscott]

Andrew, that's a beauty. The Philadelphia Cobb is really a great one.

I probably buy about five of these a month from various Rogers ebay handles. Most of them are just nice generic photos of various sports, but I get a gem every now and then. Recently grabbed what I think is a Charles Conlon photo of the Cubs at spring training on Catalina Island.