|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
ALS - Autographed Letter Signed
TLS - Typed Letter Signed ADS - Almost Dead Sharpie. I like it. Tom C |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Type 1 images are the cream of the crop, no doubt. I dont think anyone would argue that. They should sell for a large premium and they do. My comment was not meant to compare the two in any way, just to illustrate that sometimes a nice Vintage Type 3 or a Type 2 from really close to the original year dont get the love they deserve.
In the sports world though, people use "Type 1" synonymous with "original" and that is just not the case. People will say "Henry FAILED this photo" and it gets a Type 3. It is just a misunderstanding of what those numbers actually mean that sometimes stunts the value of otherwise beautiful images that are completely original but off copy negatives. Any thread about photos is a great one in my opinion!
__________________
Be sure to check out my site www.RMYAuctions.com |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
Rhys, I agree that non Type 1's should get a little more love. A perfect example of that are artistic Deadball Era composites. This is an Underwood one from 1911 for Opening Day featuring Bender and President Taft, absolutely original to 1911, absolutely not Type 1, but I love it just as much!
1911-Opening-Day-large-crop.jpg |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
I was hesitant to post this but am really happy at the responses. A diversity of views; none right or wrong, all representing a continuum of views. And all informed and smart. Cool stuff.
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Agreed 100% on the non-type 1's that are period, will be VERY interesting to see where this Ruth rookie composite photo (that I posted in another thread) ends up. Not a type 1 because of how it was produced but still from 1915.
Ruth Great example too Jim! |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
RE: ANSEL ADAMS- I would still want one printed as close to when the shot was actually taken even if both were produced off the original neg. RE: Composite Again, a composite is a composite. They do just fine by themselves... not sure what the type system has to do with them. I see this example come up a lot. All you have to do is call it a composite. Jeff...it will be interesting...
__________________
[I]"When you photograph people in colour you photograph their clothes. But when you photograph people in B&W, you photograph their souls." ~Ted Grant Www.weingartensvintage.com https://www.facebook.com/WeingartensVintage http://www.psacard.com/Articles/Arti...ben-weingarten ALWAYS BUYING BABE RUTH RED SOX TYPE 1 PHOTOGRAPHS--->To add to my collection |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
I was not saying anything about Henry, who is awesome. I was just referring to a photo that is anything but a Type 1. Its not PSA's fault, but the perception among uneducated collectors who are used to cards and autographs, that's all. I have just heard that saying "Henry failed this photo" on several occasions from collectors who have a vintage Type 3 or an early Type 2 and it makes me laugh. There are many original images by Bain for example that are really nice Type 3 photos. Are they worthless? of course not, but people treat them like a fake signature or an altered baseball card because of the dreaded "Type 3" designation.
Ben is right, if it is sold as a Type 1 and it does not pass, then that is the same as an autograph or card that comes back an unauthentic or fake. Just like cards and autographs though, PSA is just an opinion. I have NEVER seen anything bad that they passed, but there are photos that are Type 1 that they fail or do not render an opinion on to be safe and that is a HELL of a lot better than letting bad things slip into the market as good! I have no issues with PSA and Henry does a fantastic job! Just to clarify, I think everyone who says Type 1 photos are the best are right, absolutely. They are rightfully what everyone should want. My only comments were in regard to the negative way some Type 2 and Type 3 photos are treated when they are still quality, vintage items. Type 4 photos can suck it
__________________
Be sure to check out my site www.RMYAuctions.com Last edited by prewarsports; 10-11-2017 at 02:25 PM. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I do agree all types of photos have some value like everyone else. I just don't agree that those are drastically undervalued compared to a documented psa type 1 example. 3k for the one originally posted here vs 15-20k for a type 1 is the example given.
__________________
[I]"When you photograph people in colour you photograph their clothes. But when you photograph people in B&W, you photograph their souls." ~Ted Grant Www.weingartensvintage.com https://www.facebook.com/WeingartensVintage http://www.psacard.com/Articles/Arti...ben-weingarten ALWAYS BUYING BABE RUTH RED SOX TYPE 1 PHOTOGRAPHS--->To add to my collection Last edited by Forever Young; 10-11-2017 at 02:35 PM. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
I think we can all agree that Type 4 photos can suck it!
__________________
Be sure to check out my site www.RMYAuctions.com |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Haha. Poor type IVs...
__________________
[I]"When you photograph people in colour you photograph their clothes. But when you photograph people in B&W, you photograph their souls." ~Ted Grant Www.weingartensvintage.com https://www.facebook.com/WeingartensVintage http://www.psacard.com/Articles/Arti...ben-weingarten ALWAYS BUYING BABE RUTH RED SOX TYPE 1 PHOTOGRAPHS--->To add to my collection |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
But now, as a collector, I always watch the old super-clear Ansel Adams prints when they sell at auction. Yikes. Good thing the 1980's posters are super-clear and display well. Not so for many baseball images, but true for many others. Rhys - regarding that little 3x4" snapshot of Ruth in Tacoma that you sold last month: It was a perfect example of a fabulous image that was very clear, that was actually a type I (I think?), even though it was a snapshot a fan in the stands took. And it was from 1924, which is pretty old for a Ruth, even though he was a Stankee by then. So I ended up being the underbidder on that photo, but stole your jpeg image and blew it up and framed it. It is on my living room end table, complete with your watermark for free advertising. ...so I'm just saying that I love well-composed clear photos, even if they were printed yesterday and have an RMY watermark on them. Here's a great photo that I just printed on nice paper and plan on putting on my wall. Not being political or anything
__________________
$co++ Forre$+ Last edited by Runscott; 09-10-2018 at 02:50 PM. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
That is a cool image!
__________________
Be sure to check out my site www.RMYAuctions.com |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sold Babe Ruth Type I photo, pitching Yankees | bobfreedman | Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T | 0 | 09-30-2017 10:08 PM |
No LongerAvailable: 1915 PSA/DNA Type I Photo - Babe Ruth (Rookie) | bcbgcbrcb | Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T | 1 | 08-28-2014 10:51 PM |
No Longer Available: 1915 PSA/DNA Type I Photo - Babe Ruth (Rookie) | bcbgcbrcb | Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, W, etc..) B/S/T | 0 | 08-26-2014 10:12 AM |
WTB -- 1915 Ruth -- Real Photo | LincolnVT | Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, W, etc..) B/S/T | 0 | 11-12-2013 06:32 PM |
SOLD: Oct 12, 1915 - Babe Ruth Photo - Newspaper - Boston | bcbgcbrcb | Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T | 5 | 10-01-2011 02:24 PM |