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.