NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. When you click on links to eBay on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
T206s on eBay
Babe Ruth Cards on eBay
t206 Ty Cobb on eBay
Ty Cobb Cards on eBay
Lou Gehrig Cards on eBay
Baseball T201-T217 on eBay
Baseball E90-E107 on eBay
T205 Cards on eBay
Baseball Postcards on eBay
Goudey Cards on eBay
Baseball Memorabilia on eBay
Baseball Exhibit Cards on eBay
Baseball Strip Cards on eBay
Baseball Baking Cards on eBay
Sporting News Cards on eBay
Play Ball Cards on eBay
Joe DiMaggio Cards on eBay
Mickey Mantle Cards on eBay
Bowman 1951-1955 on eBay
Football Cards on eBay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Main Forum - WWII & Older Baseball Cards > Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-22-2013, 02:28 PM
JoeyF1981 JoeyF1981 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 609
Default wire photo type 1?

Can a wire photo be a Type 1? I read somewhere that theyre considered type 2's or higher.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-22-2013, 02:33 PM
Forever Young's Avatar
Forever Young Forever Young is offline
Weingarten's Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Fargo, ND
Posts: 2,056
Default

Buy this book in teh below thread. It defines the Type System.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=139133

But no, a true wire photo(product of a machine) is not a TYPE 1. You can go on the PSA website an dthey have general definitions as well.
__________________
[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; 07-22-2013 at 02:34 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-22-2013, 03:22 PM
JoeyF1981 JoeyF1981 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 609
Default



Does this indicate its a wire photo or a type 1?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-22-2013, 03:41 PM
prewarsports prewarsports is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,547
Default

Thats not a wire photo. People use the term "wire" interchangably with "press" when in reality they are two totally different things. Paper captions are not on the back of wire photos unless they were put there after the fact. The need for a paper tagline or "slug" was obsolete with the advent of the wire.

Rhys
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-22-2013, 03:43 PM
JoeyF1981 JoeyF1981 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 609
Default

So can press photos be type 1's and if so by the info on the back does it indicate it is?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-22-2013, 03:52 PM
D. Bergin's Avatar
D. Bergin D. Bergin is offline
Dave
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: CT
Posts: 6,051
Default

Would be best to examine the front of the photo. I have seen paper tags on the back of "Sound", "Radio" and "Tele" photos which are in a similar category to "Wire" photos and would fall into the Type III designation.

Chances are yours is a Type 1 press photo, but the whole Type 1 designation can be a bit tricky sometimes.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-22-2013, 04:04 PM
prewarsports prewarsports is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,547
Default

Technically a "press" photo can be all four types, if you want to use that system which is very limited in its applicability but people like it so I will play along.

A "wire" photo (type 3) is a Press photo, but it can ony ever be a type 3. Type 1, and type 2 photos depend on what the photo ws developed from and a type 4 refers to the fact that it is made from a copy negative.

Sometimes the company that received a wire photo would put a paper tag on the back for cataloging purposes as was stated above, but that is a VERY rare occurance, they were not issued with paper tags.

Rhys
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-22-2013, 04:15 PM
JoeyF1981 JoeyF1981 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 609
Default

Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-22-2013, 04:38 PM
drcy's Avatar
drcy drcy is offline
David Ru.dd Cycl.eback
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,466
Default

Looks to be type 1.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-22-2013, 04:42 PM
prewarsports prewarsports is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,547
Default

I want to post something really quick in response to note from another forum member that I got, and they were right so I wanted to clarify. I have knocked the "Type" system in the past but also support it in that I use its terms in my sales etc. (mostly because if I dont I get a hundred e mails a week asking me if a photo is a type 1) So I wanted to clarify a couple of things.

I know and respect Henry Yee very much and I feel that when the system was first implemented it was a dramatic step in the right direction for the hobby. It helped people to understand the hobby of photo collecting and in 99% ++ of the instances it is dead on. Now, here we are several years later and only through viewing literally half a million photographs and seeing many more in auctions etc, I realize there are problems with the system. That does not in ANY WAY diminish that the system is overall VERY good. Sometimes I say things that make it seem like I have a major chip on my shoulder against the system and if that is how it comes across I apologize, it is not my intention. The guys at PSA, do a good job at being consistant within their system and I have never seen ANYTHING that has made me question their motives, expertise, or ethics. I simply post a caveat sometimes that there are problems with the system, not the execution of the system. If I come across as being condescending toward it or those involved, especially Henry, I apologize and that is not in ANY WAY my intentions.

No need to go into the problems now, they are technical and I am sure they will come up at some time in the future and this is not the thread for that. I just wanted to put that out there because at least one person misunderstood me and I dont want others to do the same thing.

Carry on with the discussions.

Rhys yeakley
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-22-2013, 05:33 PM
JoeyF1981 JoeyF1981 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 609
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by prewarsports View Post
I want to post something really quick in response to note from another forum member that I got, and they were right so I wanted to clarify. I have knocked the "Type" system in the past but also support it in that I use its terms in my sales etc. (mostly because if I dont I get a hundred e mails a week asking me if a photo is a type 1) So I wanted to clarify a couple of things.

I know and respect Henry Yee very much and I feel that when the system was first implemented it was a dramatic step in the right direction for the hobby. It helped people to understand the hobby of photo collecting and in 99% ++ of the instances it is dead on. Now, here we are several years later and only through viewing literally half a million photographs and seeing many more in auctions etc, I realize there are problems with the system. That does not in ANY WAY diminish that the system is overall VERY good. Sometimes I say things that make it seem like I have a major chip on my shoulder against the system and if that is how it comes across I apologize, it is not my intention. The guys at PSA, do a good job at being consistant within their system and I have never seen ANYTHING that has made me question their motives, expertise, or ethics. I simply post a caveat sometimes that there are problems with the system, not the execution of the system. If I come across as being condescending toward it or those involved, especially Henry, I apologize and that is not in ANY WAY my intentions.

No need to go into the problems now, they are technical and I am sure they will come up at some time in the future and this is not the thread for that. I just wanted to put that out there because at least one person misunderstood me and I dont want others to do the same thing.

Carry on with the discussions.

Rhys yeakley
Just curious but why dont you like the type system?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-22-2013, 05:51 PM
prewarsports prewarsports is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,547
Default

Its not that I dont like it, its just limited and I dont like the classification of type "IV" photos especially. The heirarchy suggests 1 is best and 4 is worse etc. In reality there are "Type 4" photos that get authenticated as "Type 1" photos A LOT because they are old ad fit into the 2 year window, many by the original photographers! People use "Type 1" interchangably with "authentic" all the time and dismiss the others as being inferior when that simply is not the case. By "rule" every composite photo in the world is a "type 4". Every 19th century cabinet which was re-photographed to make enlargements (common practice in the 19th century) is a "type 4". However these are graded/authenticated as "type 1" all the time because the age is correct on them. Its a weird loophole but it has the ability to create major problems. I also have a problem with the 2 year window of the current system because it creates an incentive to destroy back stamps and paper labels that would otherwise be incriminating. If you had a beautiful 1920 Babe Ruth photo with a 1923 date and a paper caption on it, its a "type 2". Remove the date and rip of the paper label and what do you have? Most likely now its a "type 1" as long as the stamp is of a correct vintage to be potentially from 1920.


AGAIN, I think the system as it sits does 99%+ good things and removes a ton of fraud and bad stuff from the hobby. When it was created the photo industry was the "Wild West" and the type system cleaned it up dramatically. However, now that we have ad it for 5+ years you can see there are issues with it.

Once again, I applaud Henry and Marshall for coming up with a really "good" system out of thin air when there was none. Its just not perfect is all.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-22-2013, 06:27 PM
Lordstan's Avatar
Lordstan Lordstan is offline
M@rk V3l@rd3
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Allentown, PA
Posts: 3,754
Default

I agree with Rhys.
The system is a good starting point. The 2yr window is too restrictive, but I also think people misinterpret the language of the classification.

From the PSA website:
Type I - A 1st generation photograph, developed from the original negative, during the period (within approximately two years of when the picture was taken).

From the Yee/Fogel book:
I didn't want to type it all, so I scanned the page at the bottom of the post.

Notice the wording in both "Approximately two years." Unfortunately, many sellers may not realize that that 1923 photo of 1920 Ruth would most likely still fit in the Type 1 class.


I think like any first generation system, it is an initial step. The system should be updated to take into account the new information that has been discovered through the liberation of the tens of thousands of photos that have come out of the newspaper archives purchased by John Rogers and others. Revision can also close loopholes that have been found.

Just my 2c.
Mark
Attached Images
File Type: jpg yee.jpg (61.8 KB, 98 views)
__________________
My signed 1934 Goudey set(in progress).
https://flic.kr/s/aHsjFuyogy

Other interests/sets/collectibles.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/96571220@N08/albums

My for sale or trade photobucket album
https://flic.kr/s/aHsk7c1SRL

Last edited by Lordstan; 07-22-2013 at 06:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-22-2013, 07:19 PM
ethicsprof ethicsprof is offline
Barry Arnold
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pensacola,Florida
Posts: 2,733
Default types

since shifting to type 1 baseball photo collecting some 6 years back, I have found
the tome by fogel, yee, and oser to be indispensable. I have found Henry Yee to
be a great help whenever called upon and have won a number of great photos from his auctions. I understand and concur with the contention that the 2 year window for type 1 is very difficult to pin down and a bit arbitrary. I think that Henry would be in this camp now. Having said this, I must underscore, as Rhys and others
have done, that the contributions of Yee et al have been monumental to the hobby.
The offerings of clarification in the previous posts are also key to the ongoing science of the hobby.
all the best,
barry
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-22-2013, 07:43 PM
mybestbretts mybestbretts is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 458
Default Type 1 press photos

That is a beauty, Congratulations
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-22-2013, 07:52 PM
thecatspajamas's Avatar
thecatspajamas thecatspajamas is offline
L@nce Fit.tro
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Franklin, TN
Posts: 2,432
Default

Joey, you can also learn a lot by reading through previous discussions (in this section) regarding photo classification, the Type system, what makes a desirable photo, etc. Don't just rely on the HOFer + Type 1 = Mucho $$$ formula. There is much more to a photo's "value" than just its Subject and Type (though those can certainly be important factors).
__________________
Ebay Store and Weekly Auctions
Web Store with better selection and discounts
Polite corrections for unidentified and misidentified photos appreciated. Rude corrections also appreciated, but less so.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-22-2013, 09:12 PM
Scott Garner's Avatar
Scott Garner Scott Garner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midwest
Posts: 6,597
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mybestbretts View Post
That is a beauty, Congratulations
I agree, what an awesome photo! Type I, Type II, etc., I love the image. Very cool!
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-23-2013, 10:03 AM
JoeyF1981 JoeyF1981 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 609
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thecatspajamas View Post
Joey, you can also learn a lot by reading through previous discussions (in this section) regarding photo classification, the Type system, what makes a desirable photo, etc. Don't just rely on the HOFer + Type 1 = Mucho $$$ formula. There is much more to a photo's "value" than just its Subject and Type (though those can certainly be important factors).
Thanks alot for the info. I did some more reading about type classifications and like you said theres much more to type and value. Even if its only worth a couple dollars I just love the image and one ive never seen before. Its more about subject to me. Appreciate your feedback
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:49 AM.


ebay GSB