My question to Scott about the 2 pics in question was based on the fact that image quality can often be one factor in determining which type category the image falls in. In my experience type 1, because they come off the original negative, are usually much sharper appearing. Type 3s, because they come from copy negatives or wire transmission, are often less clear and sharp. That is the differentiation I was alluding to. Obviously a type 2 will maintain the original clarity as it's made from the original negative. I made the mistake of assuming the second photo was a type 1 because of image quality. If I had seen the UPI stamp, I would've known it wasn't. I do realize that clarity and sharpness are not the only factor in determining type. Certainly, as has been suggested, the first picture could have been taken by a less skilled photographer with inferior equipment.
As I've stated before, I like the type system, as, IMHO, it allows for some improved clarity and consistency of identification. I also think it has its flaws in both its definitions and implementation by third party graders.
Ben's example is a perfect one to see the flaws. A picture of Ruth from 1916 printed in 1919 may very well be classified as a Type 1 as the definition reads within approx 2yrs window of event. To me this is a flaw in the system's definitions. This situation is also a set up for a flaw in implementation by TPAs. Because the definition is open ended, it allows the TPA to use their discretion. Would this photo example be judged a type 1 if submitted by a big dollar customer/auction house but a type 2 if submitted by a random private individual? I don't know the answer, but certainly there are examples both in the card and autograph ends of the hobby, that would suggest such favoritism could happen.
Most of this discussion is academic. Great photos are great photos regardless of type. The main thing that changes is the amount of monetary value they hold. I guess if I were spending thousands of dollars on a photo, I would want to preserve and protect that value as well. None of all this takes away from the fact that they are both great photos of JVM and Babe.
Best,
Mark
|