Confusion with Type Photos on PSA Site

[Jersey City Giants]

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)

Assuming the above is accurate how is the Ruth photo they show on PSA's site a Type IV and not a Type III????

https://www.psacard.com/services/ori...uthentication/


Ruth does not get to the Yankees until December 26 of 1919. Lets' Crazily assume they shot this the day he was signed. That means the photo would be have to be dated after December 26 2021 to be considered a Type IV...Correct??? also, how do they know it was made from a Duplicate negative??

Just trying to educate myself.

Happy Collecting,
Jason

[prewarsports]

I think they just have the date wrong on their site. They state it is a UPI photo and that company did not come about until a merger in 1958 which would make the Type 4 classification correct. If it was indeed a 1921 photo off a duplicate negative it would be a Type 3.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

I think they just have the date wrong on their site. They state it is a UPI photo and that company did not come about until a merger in 1958 which would make the Type 4 classification correct. If it was indeed a 1921 photo off a duplicate negative it would be a Type 3.

Not such a good "look" for the experts if the misidentify something on their own webpage....

[Jersey City Giants]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

I think they just have the date wrong on their site. They state it is a UPI photo and that company did not come about until a merger in 1958 which would make the Type 4 classification correct. If it was indeed a 1921 photo off a duplicate negative it would be a Type 3.

That is what I thought. How would you know it is a duplicate negative if the photo was within the 2 year time frame?

[drcy]

They have the type correct, but the wrong date under the image. Maybe it is supposed to be 1961 not 1921. UPI was formed in the 1950s.

You appear to be first to have noticed the discrepancy.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Jersey City Giants

That is what I thought. How would you know it is a duplicate negative if the photo was within the 2 year time frame?

Could be based on the clarity of the image, or various indications of it being a wire photo.

[Jason19th]

This post raises my concerns about the use of the current type system. I think we should change to focus on clarity of the image and the age of the print . This would force us to value photos based on the image quality and the relative rarity. This would also be way more objective of a standard rather then trying to figure out exactualy how the photo was made.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Jason19th

This post raises my concerns about the use of the current type system. I think we should change to focus on clarity of the image and the age of the print . This would force us to value photos based on the image quality and the relative rarity. This would also be way more objective of a standard rather then trying to figure out exactualy how the photo was made.

I think the type system - which I'm not much of a fan of- is an attempt at doing just that.

Generally speaking, a print from a copy negative won't be as sharp as a print from the original.

The counterpoint to that is that some of the prints especially earlier ones would have been made one at a time, or in batches from the same setup. If the setup was bad, the resulting print won't be clear. I've seen some pretty bad prints from original negatives, and some really nice ones from copy or duplicate negatives. It's mostly operator skill.

What I don't like is the idea that a print from the original negative is necessarily not as "good" if it was done years later. If the contrast and clarity are really nice, to me it shouldn't matter. (the exception being some art photographers, where the is and should be a difference between a print processed by the artist and one done by someone with access to the negatives. )

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Jason19th

This post raises my concerns about the use of the current type system. I think we should change to focus on clarity of the image and the age of the print . This would force us to value photos based on the image quality and the relative rarity. This would also be way more objective of a standard rather then trying to figure out exactualy how the photo was made.

Your concern is only an issue if the value assigned to a photo is based strictly on its Type classification. PSA marketing team's assertions aside, a photo's "Type" (shorthand for when and how a print was produced) should NOT be the only factor considered in judging its value. Other factors, including clarity, theme, subject, date, photographer, condition, and even size also affect a photo's value. If you can't figure out when or how a photo was made, it is not rendered worthless. Nor does a photo being Type 1 automatically make it valuable. The Type designation is simply shorthand for some of the less-subjective factors.