Type 1 photo dating

[JoeyFarino]

Was talking to a buddy about Type 1 photo dating and the question came up how to know for sure a photo is a Type 1 if the photo has a blank back or has no date stamp present. Simply going by the photo paper or news stamp seems to be a stretch since both were used for a extended period of time. But how could you tell that the photo was printed within 2 years if neither are present?

[drcy]

One gives one's best judgement on age. Sometimes trying to grade a photo by PSA's 1,2,3 system is like like trying to fit a round hole into a square peg. 2 years is an arbitrary number-- why couldn't it have been 1 year? or 3?-- and for some photos one doesn't know how long after it was printed. How PSA can grade as Type 1 George Burke photos, someone will have to explain to me. There's also an often used word in photography called "circa."

[RichardSimon]

How PSA can grade as Type 1 George Burke photos, someone will have to explain to me. There's also an often used word in photography called "circa."

In order to take the collector's money they have to do something with those photos. For PSA better to grade those photos as Type 1 than to give a credit to the collector (of course a refund is never considered).

[thecatspajamas]

One gives one's best judgement on age. Sometimes trying to grade a photo by PSA's 1,2,3 system is like like trying to fit a round hole into a square peg. 2 years is an arbitrary number-- why couldn't it have been 1 year? or 3?-- and for some photos one doesn't know how long after it was printed. How PSA can grade as Type 1 George Burke photos, someone will have to explain to me. There's also an often used word in photography called "circa."

David, I know there is some long-standing bad blood between you and Henry that I don't care to get in the middle of, but I do feel the need to point out that PSA does use terms like "circa", "c.", and "approximately" on their LOA's, as in the example below.

https://goldinauctions.com/ItemImages/000029/29898c_med.jpeg

As for the George Burke comment, though I shared your sentiment at one time, after some (actually, a lot) of careful observation, I have found that while it is not always possible to narrow a print date down to a specific year, they can be narrowed down to a reasonable time frame based on the stamping style on the verso. Certainly not every print, just as not every news photo can be nailed down based solely on the news service stamping, but taken in conjunction with the subject and other clues, the time frame of print production can be narrowed down on a surprising number of Burke photos. It does take a lot of documenting and cross-referencing of stamping styles and a large body of material to work from though.

In order to take the collector's money they have to do something with those photos. For PSA better to grade those photos as Type 1 than to give a credit to the collector (of course a refund is never considered).

Richard, I understand your intent, but PSA does not "grade" photos. Condition is not a factor in the Type classification system.

Joey, the simplest answer to your question is it's not possible in every case, but as with the Burke photos I mentioned above, in a great many cases the date of production can be reasonably narrowed by observation of other factors besides a date stamp. It's easy to get hung up on the presence or lack of a pinpoint identifier like a date stamp (though date stamps themselves are not infallible proof of a production date), but there are a number of other factors to consider, including those you deem to be "a stretch." Any one taken on its own may not allow definitive dating, but taken as a sum of all the information at hand, a photo's originality and date of production can often (though not always) be determined within a reasonable time frame.

PSA/Henry have chosen "approximately 2 years" as the cut-off for their classification system. Whether you or David agree with that cut-off, consider Rhys's 5 years to be better, or think the use of any specific number to be arbitrary is a matter of your own judgement. To assume that there is an attitude of "all photos are Type 1's unless there is indisputable evidence that they are not" though simply isn't correct. Type 1 is not the default classification, nor should it be. As for PSA, for those photos that are submitted to them that in their judgement can't be reasonably narrowed down, they simply do not authenticate them. What that percentage is that get turned away, I don't know, but I do know it's not 0%.

Again, I'm really not trying to stir the pot here so much as ensure accurate information is out here for any other prospective photo collectors who may happen across this thread. There is already more than enough in-fighting in all other aspects of the baseball collecting world, and my mild OCD has already tricked me into spending too much time writing up this post. :o

[drcy]

I have nothing against Henry. I think his photo book is a good book and as far as I've seen PSA photo authentication is reliable. I actually attempted to find Henry and introduce myself at the National I attended a few years ago, but never saw him.

[JoeyFarino]

Totally understand your point Lance and Im also not at all trying to stir the pot but get a better insight on determining Type 1's that have no real significant evidence like a date stamp or blank back. I know paper types were used over certain periods so like you said its mainly using judgement to determine classification in those instances since none of us were there when the photos were printed.

[drcy]

The PSA system isn't inaccurate and, as far as I've seen, PSA has been accurate in their descriptions and labeling-- but the type system a formulaic or cookie cutter definition of photos, and photos can be more nuanced and complex than the system can define. Joey and I were talking via email about specific examples that don't neatly fit into the type system-- such as a photo made from two negatives (side by side images), one original and one not, and a vintage composite cabinet with a completely original design but the individual player images are technically second generation. There are fine photographs that won't fit into the PSA type system, or at least not fit into the system as some collectors wish.

The below desirable and valuable cabinet is both original (in my opinion, due to the unique intentionally made design) and the image is second generation, because it's a photograph of photographs. Technically speaking it's both original and Type III.

http://photos.imageevent.com/uffda51/19thcenturycabinetcards/websize/1890%20Columbus%20BB%20cabinet%202013%20NSCC.jpg

My only concern is with collectors who go strictly by labels and think a photo isn't 'worthy' if it does get a type I label. Often times, the problem isn't the labeling system, but the way collectors narrow mindedly interpret the system. This of course happens with baseball cards and collectors who collect the number of the grade.

A good example are N172 Old Judges, which aren't "type 1" photos, because the images are photos of photos. Obviously Old Judges are valuable as vintage collectibles, and are really collected as trading cards that happen to be photographs, rather than collected as photographs. There are also some extremely rare and valuable 1800s composite photos that aren't type I.

I remember telling an Old Judge collector at the national that N172s are technically not original photographs, and he jokingly said "Shh! Don't tell anyone that."

Now, experienced photo collectors, such as those here know all this stuff, but I just know that there are idle photo collectors who will go strictly by the type label. They would see "Type III" for that cabinet card above and say "I'll pass. I don't collect reprints"-- when the experience 1800s photo collector who know that that's a rare and highly desirable cabinet card.

I also admit that I have a personal psychological and intellectual predilection against neat label systems, cookie cutter genre categories for music and movies, etc. So whenever someone comes out with a label system or 'Top 10 list' for anything, I'm going to look grit my teeth at least a little bit. Of course, card collectors who say "Buy the card, not the label" are often the same way.

[71buc]

I wish Henry Yee would release a second edition. The current type system is of value. However, it can be confusing. I will use these two Aaron photos as an example. The first was taken in 1954 during Aaron’s first Spring Training. In 1958 United Press and International News merged. The stamp on the back of this photo most closely resembles the 1958-early 1970s UPI example (no zip) on page 168 of Henry’s book. However, that stamp has a border. The stamp on this photo is sans border. In pencil above the stamp is written INP 1249903 1954- Charlie Grimm & Hank Aaron Milwaukee Braves. Henry’s book states “Some previously unstamped photos from earlier periods were stamped in 1958 or shortly thereafter”. Is this such a photo? If you date the photo by the stamp it would be considered a Type II. If you judge it by the hand written notation and International News seven digit number it would be a Type I. Obviously there is quite a difference in value between these two designations.
The second photo was taken in 1957. However, per Henry’s book (page 175) the Wide World Photo stamp on the reverse was used Mid 1940s – 1954.