1915 Ruth Red Sox Pitching Staff Photo

[prewarsports]

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!

[T206Jim]

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

[Snapolit1]

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.

[Bicem]

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!

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

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!

"henry fails this photo"... you have an exact example of this? What matters is how they purchased it I would imagine. If they purchased, for example, with a guarantee that this will pass psa as a type 1(clearly the seller is taking advantage of a higher selling premium in doing so) and psa does not give it a type 1, then it did fail.

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...

[prewarsports]

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

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

I was not saying anything about Henry, who is awesome. I was just referring to the way people treat any photo they send in that gets 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.

Just to clarify, I think everyone who says Type 1 photos are the best are right, absolutely. My only comments were in regard to the negative way some Type 2 and Type 3 photos are treated. Type 4 photos can suck it

But the people that tell you this, did they buy with a Guarantee it passes as a type 1? Or are these just random odd comments? Clearly if they were going for a psa type 1, and didn't get it.. that would be a failure at some level if we all agree a type 1 is best.

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.

[prewarsports]

I think we can all agree that Type 4 photos can suck it!

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

I think we can all agree that Type 4 photos can suck it!

Haha. Poor type IVs...

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

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.

Back in the early 1980's I bought two giant framed Ansel Adams posters, framed for about $50 each. They appeared to be crystal clear and hung on my walls for years. That was before I collected photographs.

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

[prewarsports]

That is a cool image!