wire photo type 1?

[JoeyF1981]

Can a wire photo be a Type 1? I read somewhere that theyre considered type 2's or higher.

[Forever Young]

Buy this book in teh below thread. It defines the Type System.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=139133

But no, a true wire photo(product of a machine) is not a TYPE 1. You can go on the PSA website an dthey have general definitions as well.

[JoeyF1981]

http://i450.photobucket.com/albums/qq224/Blackitalian/ruthback_zpsfcf3fb41.jpg (http://s450.photobucket.com/user/Blackitalian/media/ruthback_zpsfcf3fb41.jpg.html)

Does this indicate its a wire photo or a type 1?

[prewarsports]

Thats not a wire photo. People use the term "wire" interchangably with "press" when in reality they are two totally different things. Paper captions are not on the back of wire photos unless they were put there after the fact. The need for a paper tagline or "slug" was obsolete with the advent of the wire.

Rhys

[JoeyF1981]

So can press photos be type 1's and if so by the info on the back does it indicate it is?

[D. Bergin]

Would be best to examine the front of the photo. I have seen paper tags on the back of "Sound", "Radio" and "Tele" photos which are in a similar category to "Wire" photos and would fall into the Type III designation.

Chances are yours is a Type 1 press photo, but the whole Type 1 designation can be a bit tricky sometimes.

[prewarsports]

Technically a "press" photo can be all four types, if you want to use that system which is very limited in its applicability but people like it so I will play along.

A "wire" photo (type 3) is a Press photo, but it can ony ever be a type 3. Type 1, and type 2 photos depend on what the photo ws developed from and a type 4 refers to the fact that it is made from a copy negative.

Sometimes the company that received a wire photo would put a paper tag on the back for cataloging purposes as was stated above, but that is a VERY rare occurance, they were not issued with paper tags.

Rhys

[JoeyF1981]

http://i450.photobucket.com/albums/qq224/Blackitalian/ruthphoto_zps0f2b7795.jpg (http://s450.photobucket.com/user/Blackitalian/media/ruthphoto_zps0f2b7795.jpg.html)

[drcy]

Looks to be type 1.

[prewarsports]

I want to post something really quick in response to note from another forum member that I got, and they were right so I wanted to clarify. I have knocked the "Type" system in the past but also support it in that I use its terms in my sales etc. (mostly because if I dont I get a hundred e mails a week asking me if a photo is a type 1) So I wanted to clarify a couple of things.

I know and respect Henry Yee very much and I feel that when the system was first implemented it was a dramatic step in the right direction for the hobby. It helped people to understand the hobby of photo collecting and in 99% ++ of the instances it is dead on. Now, here we are several years later and only through viewing literally half a million photographs and seeing many more in auctions etc, I realize there are problems with the system. That does not in ANY WAY diminish that the system is overall VERY good. Sometimes I say things that make it seem like I have a major chip on my shoulder against the system and if that is how it comes across I apologize, it is not my intention. The guys at PSA, do a good job at being consistant within their system and I have never seen ANYTHING that has made me question their motives, expertise, or ethics. I simply post a caveat sometimes that there are problems with the system, not the execution of the system. If I come across as being condescending toward it or those involved, especially Henry, I apologize and that is not in ANY WAY my intentions.

No need to go into the problems now, they are technical and I am sure they will come up at some time in the future and this is not the thread for that. I just wanted to put that out there because at least one person misunderstood me and I dont want others to do the same thing.

Carry on with the discussions.

Rhys yeakley

[JoeyF1981]

I want to post something really quick in response to note from another forum member that I got, and they were right so I wanted to clarify. I have knocked the "Type" system in the past but also support it in that I use its terms in my sales etc. (mostly because if I dont I get a hundred e mails a week asking me if a photo is a type 1) So I wanted to clarify a couple of things.

I know and respect Henry Yee very much and I feel that when the system was first implemented it was a dramatic step in the right direction for the hobby. It helped people to understand the hobby of photo collecting and in 99% ++ of the instances it is dead on. Now, here we are several years later and only through viewing literally half a million photographs and seeing many more in auctions etc, I realize there are problems with the system. That does not in ANY WAY diminish that the system is overall VERY good. Sometimes I say things that make it seem like I have a major chip on my shoulder against the system and if that is how it comes across I apologize, it is not my intention. The guys at PSA, do a good job at being consistant within their system and I have never seen ANYTHING that has made me question their motives, expertise, or ethics. I simply post a caveat sometimes that there are problems with the system, not the execution of the system. If I come across as being condescending toward it or those involved, especially Henry, I apologize and that is not in ANY WAY my intentions.

No need to go into the problems now, they are technical and I am sure they will come up at some time in the future and this is not the thread for that. I just wanted to put that out there because at least one person misunderstood me and I dont want others to do the same thing.

Carry on with the discussions.

Rhys yeakley

Just curious but why dont you like the type system?

[prewarsports]

Its not that I dont like it, its just limited and I dont like the classification of type "IV" photos especially. The heirarchy suggests 1 is best and 4 is worse etc. In reality there are "Type 4" photos that get authenticated as "Type 1" photos A LOT because they are old ad fit into the 2 year window, many by the original photographers! People use "Type 1" interchangably with "authentic" all the time and dismiss the others as being inferior when that simply is not the case. By "rule" every composite photo in the world is a "type 4". Every 19th century cabinet which was re-photographed to make enlargements (common practice in the 19th century) is a "type 4". However these are graded/authenticated as "type 1" all the time because the age is correct on them. Its a weird loophole but it has the ability to create major problems. I also have a problem with the 2 year window of the current system because it creates an incentive to destroy back stamps and paper labels that would otherwise be incriminating. If you had a beautiful 1920 Babe Ruth photo with a 1923 date and a paper caption on it, its a "type 2". Remove the date and rip of the paper label and what do you have? Most likely now its a "type 1" as long as the stamp is of a correct vintage to be potentially from 1920.


AGAIN, I think the system as it sits does 99%+ good things and removes a ton of fraud and bad stuff from the hobby. When it was created the photo industry was the "Wild West" and the type system cleaned it up dramatically. However, now that we have ad it for 5+ years you can see there are issues with it.

Once again, I applaud Henry and Marshall for coming up with a really "good" system out of thin air when there was none. Its just not perfect is all.

[Lordstan]

I agree with Rhys.
The system is a good starting point. The 2yr window is too restrictive, but I also think people misinterpret the language of the classification.

From the PSA website:
Type I - A 1st generation photograph, developed from the original negative, during the period (within approximately two years of when the picture was taken).

From the Yee/Fogel book:
I didn't want to type it all, so I scanned the page at the bottom of the post.

Notice the wording in both "Approximately two years." Unfortunately, many sellers may not realize that that 1923 photo of 1920 Ruth would most likely still fit in the Type 1 class.


I think like any first generation system, it is an initial step. The system should be updated to take into account the new information that has been discovered through the liberation of the tens of thousands of photos that have come out of the newspaper archives purchased by John Rogers and others. Revision can also close loopholes that have been found.

Just my 2c.
Mark

[ethicsprof]

since shifting to type 1 baseball photo collecting some 6 years back, I have found
the tome by fogel, yee, and oser to be indispensable. I have found Henry Yee to
be a great help whenever called upon and have won a number of great photos from his auctions. I understand and concur with the contention that the 2 year window for type 1 is very difficult to pin down and a bit arbitrary. I think that Henry would be in this camp now. Having said this, I must underscore, as Rhys and others
have done, that the contributions of Yee et al have been monumental to the hobby.
The offerings of clarification in the previous posts are also key to the ongoing science of the hobby.
all the best,
barry

[mybestbretts]

That is a beauty, Congratulations :)

[thecatspajamas]

Joey, you can also learn a lot by reading through previous discussions (in this section) regarding photo classification, the Type system, what makes a desirable photo, etc. Don't just rely on the HOFer + Type 1 = Mucho $$$ formula. There is much more to a photo's "value" than just its Subject and Type (though those can certainly be important factors).

[Scott Garner]

That is a beauty, Congratulations :)

I agree, what an awesome photo! Type I, Type II, etc., I love the image. Very cool!

[JoeyF1981]

Joey, you can also learn a lot by reading through previous discussions (in this section) regarding photo classification, the Type system, what makes a desirable photo, etc. Don't just rely on the HOFer + Type 1 = Mucho $$$ formula. There is much more to a photo's "value" than just its Subject and Type (though those can certainly be important factors).

Thanks alot for the info. I did some more reading about type classifications and like you said theres much more to type and value. Even if its only worth a couple dollars I just love the image and one ive never seen before. Its more about subject to me. Appreciate your feedback