My opinion on the matter-- re: type 1, generation 1 debate

[drc]

It's known as friggin original. That's the word. Original. What's this type 1, generation 1 stuff?

While we're calling photos types 1 and gen 1s, how about we also start calling a trading card a 12554*9 and an antique vase a ghjhsd987sda. That sure will clear things up with collectors, right?

Instead of baseball card collectors, let's start calling ourselves entities 8. 'Baseball card collector' is just too clear and obvious, we should make it convoluted.

And that's my opinion on the matter.

[Ladder7]

Yea David, But is it an original press photo, wire photo or news photo?

[HRBAKER]

...........or we could say that in reality we have no idea when it was printed(except maybe in a rare ocassion) and that it is a beautiful photo/print and I like it so I bid on it.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

...........or we could say that in reality we have no idea when it was printed(except maybe in a rare ocassion) and that it is a beautiful photo/print and I like it so I bid on it.

Right on, brother!! +1

[GrayGhost]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

Right on, brother!! +1

Bingo. this stuff is ridiculous, just enjoy. Yeah, if its a REAL old photo, thats what should count. But, to each his own I guess. Its like one guy only collects Nr mt stuff, etc and has to have the best. I guess it is what makes the hobby what it is, the best in the world. haha.

[David Atkatz]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

There's no such thing as a Type I photo. Just an absurd and unverifiable categorization, invented by the grading companies to bilk people out of even more money.

Ask any photo archivist.

[thekingofclout]

An open question. Would you rather own an "original" Mickey Mantle autograph that he signed at some show in 1993 or one the Mick penned on a GPC with a postal cancellation from 1951?

They're both "original" autographs, but which would you prefer?

[HRBAKER]

Jimmy,
That is an excellent question, obviously the GPC cancelled in 1951. Now if all of these phptos actually had verifiable cancellations on the back from when they were printed that would be nice. I have no doubt as I have said before that some of these photos may have been printed within hours or days of the photo being taken. There is just no objective way to tell and the attempt to quantify/codify it with a tight timeframe (2 years, etc.) IMO is a futile effort designed to benefit sellers and graders. I also have no limit to the amount of faith that I have in people in general to oversell their wares and IMO this helps. Edit to add, I am an active buyer of photos.

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

Jimmy,
That is an excellent question, obviously the GPC cancelled in 1951. Now if all of these phptos actually had verifiable cancellations on the back from when they were printed that would be nice. I have no doubt as I have said before that some of these photos may have been printed within hours or days of the photo being taken. There is just no objective way to tell and the attempt to quantify/codify it with a tight timeframe (2 years, etc.) IMO is a futile effort designed to benefit sellers and graders. I also have no limit to the amount of faith that I have in people in general to oversell their wares and IMO this helps. Edit to add, I am an active buyer of photos.

"Now if all of these phptos actually had verifiable cancellations on the back from when they were printed that would be nice."

They do so to speak Jeff. While some photos are dated by a date stamp and many by the date on the slug, many can also accurately be dated due to their stamp. Over a twenty plus year period, Henry Yee had the foresight to create the largest know "fossil file" of stampings from newspapers, syndicates, news services, magazines, free lance photographers, and so on. He has painstakingly cross referenced all known dates to the corresponding stamps. His "fossil file" is tens of thousands strong and is absolutely mind blowing.

He has studied photography from the technical side to the artistic, from the photojournalist to the news room editors, many of whom he has interviewed of the last two plus decades. He actually hung out and I believe worked at some of the papers/syndicates. He has also spent countless hours in the labs as well as in research depts with film manufacturers such as Kodak.

His "dating" methods also include lab testing and cross-referencing the type of paper and photo developing styles used at certain times in history.

We're talking about an obsessed man here and the fruits of his labor are the results we all benefit from today. Also, it should be noted that Marshall & Henry created the "TYPE" system long before they were brought on board at PSA, so it's out of line for anyone to suggest that said system was simply created by the TPG Companies to make more money.

And, all of this is basically just the tip of the iceberg in the amount of blood, sweat & tears that Henry has put into his field of expertise. I'd hate to think where this sector of the hobby would be without his groundbreaking work.

Sincere regards, Jimmy

[drc]

First, I've read the type 1 type 2 etc definitions-- and I'm not saying the categorizations are wrong or in error. If you you read the categorizations, they are literally sound. If I thought they were errant, then I would have a bigger issue.

My main issue is 'original' is a common word that people know. Even someone off the street would have a good idea what an 'original' photo means. It's like 'game used baseball bat'-- I bet most non-collectors would accurately guess what that term means.

Yet, I hear people getting confused to what type I means-- "What is a type 1 photo? What's the difference between Type 1 and Generation 1?" And when I say "Type 1 means original" they say "Oh, okay. Now I know." That's why I say we should use the world 'original'-- because about everyone knows what that means. It's a commonly understood term, so it makes sense to use it over one that confuses people.

From my personal experience-- I was the photo advisor to Beckett, which uses the Type 1 Type 2 categorizations and I'd regularly have to go back and read what type 2, 3 etc means because I'd forget. Someone at Beckett would send me a image of a photo and say 'Does this look like type 2?' I'd know what was the photo (age, originality, etc), but would have to go look up what type 2 meant. Yes, it is rather funny. I laugh.

If you asked me right now if a photo was a type 3, I'd have to go to the PSA site and look up what type 3 meant again. I may know a lot about photos, but I haven't yet memorized the PSA type categorizations. And, in fact, I'm kind of proud of not knowing. It's kind of like color coding where one forgets which color represents which, and one wonders why they are color coded in the first place.

One note is PSA does have a nice description of the categories and you can look it up. And, again, I've read the type definitions and and, strictly reading them, don't think they're in error. I know some have an issue with the '2 year' rule which is fair. If i was allowed to change only one little detail it would be the '2,' so I guess I agree on that argument.

In conclusion, I prefer common English words to describe. Where a newbie may still have technical questions but will have the general gist. If you say a photo was "shot in 1930 and printed years later," someone off the street may have a bunch of fair photography questions, but will automatically understand that the photo was made a long time after the image was shot.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by thekingofclout

Also, it should be noted that Marshall & Henry created the "TYPE" system long before they were brought on board at PSA, so it's out of line for anyone to suggest that said system was simply created by the TPG Companies to make more money.

Of course it was created to make more money, Jimmy. Henry sells photos, does he not? He's far from a disinterested party.

In general, a photo's printing cannot (regardless of what Henry may or may not say) be dated to within two years of its taking. Ask any professional photo archivist.

You have a remarkable collection of old photos, Jimmy. You really don't need an outside party--or a dealer--certifying that they belong at the top of a totally bogus classification scheme to validate your collection's worth or beauty.

[Leon]

As a novice I have handled maybe a few hundred vintage photos in all. That being said it seems quite obvious to this novice, due to emulsion (correct term?) and wear, when the paper was made that the negatives were printed on, and even an approximate period of the photo mfg date. I guess we sometimes forget common sense? Of course there could be old paper that made the photos from negatives today, but I can't believe the wear would look the same?

[Exhibitman]

I am completely on board with the differentiation between generations of photographs. However, I have a very hard time believing that anyone can pin down the date of issue of an original photo with sufficient clarity to say it was issued within two years of the photo being taken. Sure, if the thing is signed and dated by the subject I guess you could set a date, or if there is a stamp on the back listing when it was received or run in the newspaper, but otherwise is just speculation that I don't think justifies a substantial pricing differential, which is really all we are talking about when it comes to the distinction.

As an aside, one of the things I like about collecting postcards that are postally
used is that the dating is pretty solid on them.

[HRBAKER]

Good points Adam. If you are going to use such a "window" not only do you have to know whent he print was made but also when the photo was taken.

[Hankphenom]

As a dealer in old photos, I use the Yee system mostly as a way to describe and talk about them, and I find it very useful in that regard. Obviously, the money's in Type Is, everything else is distinctly secondary in terms of collectibility. But as they say in card circles, "buy the card, not the slab," I treat photos the same way and make my own judgments about the vintage of a photograph.
Hank Thomas