Type 2 photos undervalued?

[JoeyFarino]

Just curious on people's thoughts about type 2 photos as far as value and collectibility goes. Obviously collectors want the "original" from the period copy but what about those made 5-10 yrs from the time period? Do you think these are passed up simply because theyre not within the 2 year window gap eventhough the image is great? Ive seen some great type 2 photos out there and curious about peoples opinions on them and if the lack of value seems appropriate

[Lordstan]

I think there have been many type 2s that have gotten very strong prices. Most have been prints from the 30-40 of originals from the teens where likely only 1-2 or no type 1 exists. Why buy a Type 2 of Ruth, when so many nice type 1s are available and many are not ridiculously expensive?
Additionally, I think the photo collecting niche has only really just begun to mature. Cards and autographs have been around forever, but photos only really began to take off 5-10yrs ago. I think once more people join in this collecting field, the Type 1's will start to become scarcer and type 2s will increase proportionally.

[drcy]

As a collector, I'm very partial to originals. But on a case by case basis there will be worthwhile and valuable photos that sometimes fall into other categories. It's myopic and shallow to to say a photo's value is based strictly by what category it falls into. There are other factors. For example, a later made large display photo can be rare and desirable. And N172 Old Judges have second generation images, though their value is as baseball cards and, of course, are still from the 1880s.

But, as I said, I'm partial to originals.

[Exhibitman]

Here's the stupid thing [well, one of them] about the whole type nonsense:

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/boxingphotographsandephemera/large/1960s%20Clay%201_1.jpeg
http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/boxingphotographsandephemera/large/005.jpg

Which is more valuable? Answer: the second photo by far. The first is a first generation portrait while the latter is clearly second generation or later because it is a composite of photo and caption. But the first is a typical anonymous publicity photo while the second is a fighter-issued promotional piece.

Let's play again:

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/boxingphotographsandephemera/large/Tunney%20National%20Studios.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/boxingphotographsandephemera/large/Photo%20Tunney%20promo.jpg

Same result. The second generation image is worth more than the first generation one because of context.

My point being that getting hung up on Types doesn't come close to answering the question of photo value. It is a random trait of an image that has been randomly selected by PSA as a tool for labeling. As the field becomes more sophisticated I think we will see a greater recognition of content and context over type as a real determinant of value.

PSA/DNA Photograph Type Classification

Type I - A 1st generation photograph, developed from the original negative, during the period (within approximately two years of when the picture was taken).
Type II - A photograph, developed from the original negative, during the period (more than approximately two years after the picture was taken).
Type III - A 2nd generation photograph, developed from a duplicate negative or wire transmission, during the period (within approximately two years of when the picture was taken).
Type IV - A 2nd generation photograph (or 3rd or later generation), developed from a duplicate negative or wire transmission, during a later period (more than approximately two years after the picture was taken).

Another factor that I think will take hold in the future is being able to show who the artist is who made the photo; a well-known studio's imprint or stamp or signature should increase value IMO. This Freddie Welsh image is nothing special but the Bain stamp makes it:

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/boxingphotographsandephemera/large/Photo%201911%20Welsh_%20Fred%20by%20Bain.jpg

A double-weight wet signed portrait of Georges Carpentier from the Geisler-Andrews studio, a business that operated from 1917-1921:

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/boxingphotographsandephemera/large/Photo%201917-21%20Carpentier%20by%20Geisler-Andrews.jpg

Hall's Studio Gene Tunney:

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/boxingphotographsandephemera/large/1922%20Tunney%20photo%201_1.jpeg

Cazzie Russell and Rudy LaRusso by George Kalinsky:

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/basketball/websize/1967%20Russell-LaRusso%201.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/basketball/websize/1967%20Russell-LaRusso%202.jpg

Red Grange by the Maurice Seymour studio in Chicago:

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/miscellaneous5/websize/Grange%20by%20Seymour%201.jpeg

[Lordstan]

Agreed Adam.
Fortunately, I think we are already starting to see that happen. I think a type 2 of a Mathewson Conlon would likely fetch more than a late in life Type 1 Matty in street clothes with his wife.

[Forever Young]

Agreed Adam.
Fortunately, I think we are already starting to see that happen. I think a type 2 of a Mathewson Conlon would likely fetch more than a late in life Type 1 Matty in street clothes with his wife.

Well of course but that has more to do with the image than the type classification.

Let's talk apples to apples here rather than random one offs.

If everything is equal, a type 1 is worth more than a type 2 for obvious reasons.

If you want to provide random examples where you have items that don't fit as below, fine. But to say the system is flawed or that it is nonsense is ridiculous.
At the end of the day, know what you are buying and make your own decision. The type system is great for those who have not put thousands of hours into educating themselves and provides direction/classification. It is what it is. If you don't need it, don't use it.

Hi btw Mark.. glad to see you back.

[JoeyFarino]

Ben- would you personally buy a Type 2 if you liked the image and weren't able to find a Type 1 example?

[doug.goodman]

I buy photos I like, at prices I like, I don't care what "type" they are.

AND

Certain differences between types are (to me) a matter of semantics.

[Scott Garner]

I buy photos I like, at prices I like, I don't care what "type" they are.

AND

Certain differences between types are (to me) a matter of semantics.

Thank you, Doug as I couldn't agree more.
That being said, I collect what I like, period.

[JoeyFarino]

I buy photos I like, at prices I like, I don't care what "type" they are.

AND

Certain differences between types are (to me) a matter of semantics.

Well said!

[Lordstan]

Well of course but that has more to do with the image than the type classification.

Let's talk apples to apples here rather than random one offs.

If everything is equal, a type 1 is worth more than a type 2 for obvious reasons.

If you want to provide random examples where you have items that don't fit as below, fine. But to say the system is flawed or that it is nonsense is ridiculous.
At the end of the day, know what you are buying and make your own decision. The type system is great for those who have not put thousands of hours into educating themselves and provides direction/classification. It is what it is. If you don't need it, don't use it.

Hi btw Mark.. glad to see you back.

Ben,
First off. Thanks. I am glad to be back.

Second, I don't want to rehash the whole merits of the system discussion. You know my feelings that there are areas that can be improved and I know your's that it is fine the way it is. Be that as it may, I was more agreeing with the idea that the Type classification is not the end all be all of photo pricing. Many other factors play into this. None of this is a shock to anyone familiar with photos.

To answer Joey's question, I do think they are a bit undervalued, but it reflects the current state of supply and demand. As more people get into the photo collecting hobby, Type 2s will become more valuable as the supply of originals dry up.

As always, my advice is to buy what you like regardless of what anyone else thinks and you'll enjoy it regardless of perceived value.

Best,
Mark

[doug.goodman]

... my advice is to buy what you like regardless of what anyone else thinks and you'll enjoy it regardless of perceived value.

Exactly.

[Forever Young]

I buy photos I like, at prices I like, I don't care what "type" they are.

AND

Certain differences between types are (to me) a matter of semantics.

As long as you know what you are buying(which I am sure you do), this is a great way to collect!

[Forever Young]

Ben,


Second, I don't want to rehash the whole merits of the system discussion. You know my feelings that there are areas that can be improved and I know your's that it is fine the way it is. Be that as it may, I was more agreeing with the idea that the Type classification is not the end all be all of photo pricing. Many other factors play into this. None of this is a shock to anyone familiar with photos.



Best,
Mark

There is really nothing to rehash as I was never really given an argument.
That said.. you are right.. collect what you like.. that is the ENTIRE point.

I happen to like very early in uniform babe ruth and lou gehrig photos that are printed when they were taken off the original negative. Unfortunately, for me, they are very pricey and fall into the type 1 category.

I also like fine wine and a good cigar. The good news is, I like ramen noodles and totinos pizza.

[Lordstan]

The good news is, I like ramen noodles and totinos pizza.

Those are good, but I do prefer bagel bites.

[JoeyFarino]

Wait as buff as ben is and he still eats totinos?????

[Forever Young]

Wait as buff as ben is and he still eats totinos?????

Correct... 3 at a time.

[JoeyFarino]

Correct... 3 at a time.

Ooooooweeeee! Pepperoni or combination?

[prewarsports]

Quality "type 2" examples do sell very well and often times sell for over $1000 if they are of really special images. I have seen famous Ruth images from the 1970's off the original negative sell for huge money so its hard to argue that they are bargains with a blanket statement, however you can find really good deals on them if you are patient because the prices are really hit or miss.

[Scott Garner]

The good news is, I like ramen noodles and totinos pizza.

Ben, are you sure that you aren't one of my kids? :)
How about Super Pretzels and Beef Taquitos?

[Runscott]

Well of course but that has more to do with the image than the type classification.

Let's talk apples to apples here rather than random one offs.

If everything is equal, a type 1 is worth more than a type 2 for obvious reasons.

If you want to provide random examples where you have items that don't fit as below, fine. But to say the system is flawed or that it is nonsense is ridiculous.
At the end of the day, know what you are buying and make your own decision. The type system is great for those who have not put thousands of hours into educating themselves and provides direction/classification. It is what it is. If you don't need it, don't use it.

Hi btw Mark.. glad to see you back.

Yep.

And the same goes for Adam's comparison of a Type I to a promotional item - there is a collectibility of promotional items that is a different realm than for photos. And while you may not agree that promotional items SHOULD have the relative value that they do, again, "It is what it is".

I generally only collect original prints that were made near the time the photo was taken, for a variety of reasons: they are more likely to have been printed by the photographer, they are more likely to have the 'desirable' characteristics of aging such as silvering and vintage photographer notes and stamps, and they are more easily sold when it's time to do so. But if the image is ugly, I don't want it even if Conlon carried it around with him stuck in his pocket.

[Runscott]

I also like fine wine and a good cigar. The good news is, I like ramen noodles and totinos pizza.

Newman's Own (cheese), on sale, add extra mozzarella, canned black olives and fresh Italian sausage. Jalapeños optional. About $8

+1 on the Ramen noodles!!!!

[GKreindler]

RAAAMMMMEEEEENNNNNNN!!

(Every artist's good friend.)