Featured Type 1 vs Type 2, etc. Photos

I was wondering if there are any photo experts here that can clarify the differences between the Typ1, Type 2, etc. photo designations? Below are a couple examples with questions. The first photo below came with documentation which clearly dates the photo (code #1198, Landis/Costello) as originally taken in 1928, and then re-published in this example in 1946. Would that then make this 1946 photo a Type 2? The next photo (Hedy Lamarr) came with no documentation and is dated at the bottom as 1946, the year the film was released. Would that then make the Lamarr photo a Type 1? What is confusing to me in this example is that both of these photo I believe were promos, perhaps sent to theaters and elsewhere, and mass produced. Would that disqualify them both as Type 1 or Type 2 photos, even though they both might be from the original negative? Or does it even matter that the photos were re-produced en mass to the public or elsewhere when determining the Type designation (1,2,3, etc.). Thus as long as these photos were produced from the original negative, which in both of these examples appears to be the case due to their clarity, than they can be designated as a Type 1 or Type 2? All the photos are blank backed BTW. Thank you for any insights.

 

Okay, perhaps I'm being dense but... Where does it read "Type 1" and "Type 2"?

Debora

 

Type 1 or Type 2 photos

what does that mean..?

 

I wasn't familiar with those terms... I see they mostly apply to press or publicity photos, referring whether or not they were printed from the original negative within two years of the taking of the photo (Type 1), or later (Type 2). The biggest discussions of these appear to be among people who collect sports or movie photos.

Although I collect photos, I don't collect press photos... Still interesting, so we'll see if somebody can answer this.

https://intelligentcollector.com/inside-the-wide-world-of-type-1-photographs/

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=139049

 

Thank you, yes, Type 1 & Type 2, etc. are used a lot for sports photos as a way to designate a photo as being made from the original negative (Type 1/within 2 years & Type 2/after 2 years), and thus help a buyer/seller determine a value. Example: Babe Ruth Type 1 photos are worth a lot more than Ruth Type 2's & Type 3's since they usually have more clarity, are scarcer, etc. What I don't understand is if the Type designations apply to promo photos that were generated in Hollywood for mass consumption. I assume in that case they still used the original negative because the photos can look very nice and clear. But then again maybe not, because it could cause wear to the negative over time?, so they might have used a copy of the negative, or taken a photo of a photo, before distribution to the masses? In the latter case I believe that would designate the photos as Type 3, 4, etc. (photos not from the original negative), a photo with less clarity than a Type 1/2. Sorry for the confusion. I used to be a sports card/memorabilia collector, and the Type designations are common in that genre. In the end the Type designations probably don't matter that much to the average collector. A photo collector should collect what they like regardless of a Type designation. And I suspect most photo collectors look for the photos with the best clarity anyway, regardless of what Type the photo might be classified.

 

Did the sheet and the two photos start life together? They appear to be part of a PR packet. Given that these are associated with a recap of Warner Bros. productions from the year 1926 through 1946, I'd assume none of them is Type 1. Does the paper have a watermark?

Debora

 

The first link in my previous post includes several non-sports photos that they say are Type 1. And they include links to auctions that were advertised as including Type 1 photos that are not sports related. It needs more investigation than just one site to say for certain, but it does appear that there is reference to Type 1 photos in for other subjects besides sports.

 

I had always assumed that type 1 and type 2 photos referred to the subjects personalities. You learn something every day.

 

Like "A List" and "B List"?

Debora

 

Debora, the Landis/Costello photo came with the paper documentation shown, along with other photos noted in the documentation, related to this WB promo/packet, so you are correct. The Hedy Lamarr photo did not come with the same documentation, however, it was purchased by me at the same time from a person who had quite few other Hollywood promos/packets, most of which are films dated in the mid to late 1940's, film noir era. All are blank backed with no watermarks. Figtree3, yes, 3rd party grading companies really jumped on board the Type designation, regardless of genre. Anything to make them some more $. I think Type 1's are the photos most people send in for grading. I did a little more research yesterday and could not find anything that says the volume of photos created off an original negative effects the Type designation. So in my examples I'll assume the Hedy Lamarr is a Type 1, and the Landis/Costello a Type 2, regardless of the number of promo photos created off the original negative. Does anybody know a good forum for Hollywood photo collectors? I got some great tips here a while back when I was looking for some antique photo forums and Facebook groups! Thank you for the replies!