Type I versus Type II : I'm a little confused

[baseballart]

The definition of Type I versus Type II is stated from Henry Yee's usual wonderful assortment of photos:



Type II photos thus may be printed approximately 2 or more years after the original photo was taken and from the original negative.

For a photo taken in 1910, how is it at all possible to tell whether the print was made in 1910 or say 1916 or 1920? In the 1980s, I printed copies my own photos from the original negatives several years apart and now a number of years later, I can't tell which were printed first. Is there a leap of faith required on the authentication of Type I versus Type II photos or am I missing something?


Thanks,

Max


Thanks,

Max

[HRBAKER]

In a word Max, IMO it is not possible.

[D. Bergin]

Easier to tell with press photos, not so much with Studio/Freelance or Amateur photography photos.

I believe the two year time frame is a bit arbitrary and probably very flexible in it's actual implementation.

[Ladder7]

I dont know how either. I'd sent some to PSA long ago for LOA's and they were right on. Recently, I'd send a stack of Type 1s (along with another "iffy" photo) to Beckett and they correctly found it to be a type 2.

There are some guys that are just damn good at their vocations.

[HRBAKER]

So if a picture is taken on January 1, 1910 and a print is made from the negative on Septmeber 30, 1911 and another on September 30, 1913, the experts could correctly discern the Type 1 from the Type 2? I know that this is an extreme example for sure but that is what you are buying into here. Steve, if they can do that they are more than damn good at their vocation!

[drc]

Most type IIs will be be from many years after the photo was shot. Ala a 1960 photo with an image from 1930.

With press photos, the stamps or tags usually identify the ones printed later.

[baseballart]

Originally Posted by drc

Most type IIs will be be from many years after the photo was shot. Ala a 1960 photo with an image from 1930.

David

I understand distinguishing a photo printed in 1960 from 1930. I can even identify those myself.

I'm talking about how a Type II is identified from a 1910 photo when it is printed in 1920. I haven't seen anyone explain how this is done.

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by drc

Most type IIs will be be from many years after the photo was shot. Ala a 1960 photo with an image from 1930.

With press photos, the stamps or tags usually identify the ones printed later.

I am sure that is the case so why use the two year cut off? I am not sure it would matter to me if the print was made one week or three years after the photo was snapped but sans a date of some sort is there really a way to tell if a print was made within 2 years of the photo being taken?

[David Atkatz]

It is an arbitrary system, invented solely to put money into third-party pockets.

And, as stated above it is absolutely impossible to determine when a photo was printed with a two-year margin of error, which renders the system meaningless.

(Unless there's a date stamp. But then you'd hardly have to pay PSA to read it, would you?)

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

It is an arbitrary system, invented solely to put money into third-party pockets.

And, as stated above it is absolutely impossible to determine when a photo was printed with a two-year margin of error, which renders the system meaningless.

(Unless there's a date stamp. But then you'd hardly have to pay PSA to read it, would you?)

+1

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

It is an arbitrary system, invented solely to put money into third-party pockets.

And, as stated above it is absolutely impossible to determine when a photo was printed with a two-year margin of error, which renders the system meaningless.

(Unless there's a date stamp. But then you'd hardly have to pay PSA to read it, would you?)

David,
Agreed and I would add sellers as well.

Jeff

[drc]

The "two year" window is their thing, not mine. Other then commenting on PSA's grading, I've never said anything about a two year requirement in photography.

I would imagine that many of the 1930s George Burke photos were printed more than 2 years after the image was shot. Maybe 3 or 5 or 6 years after. It would still be a collectible and antique 1930s photo of Babe Ruth made from the original negative, just maybe printed 3 years after the image was shot instead of the golden 2. If the physical photo is demonstrated to really be from the 1930s (and not a 1950s reprint), does a 2 versus 3 years delay in printing matter a lot? Not that I can see-- especially if you can't know.

[baseballart]

David

I understand what you are saying, but I am not asking about your definition of a Type I/ Type II photo, but PSA/DNA's. When the classification (2+ years = Type II) is made by PSA/DNA, I would hope they would have some ability to support their definitions. This is what I am asking about in this thread.

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by drc

The "two year" window is their thing, not mine. Other then commenting on PSA's grading, I've never said anything about a two year requirement in photography.

I would imagine that many of the 1930s George Burke photos were printed more than 2 years after the image was shot. Maybe 3 or 5 or 6 years after. It would still be a collectible and antique 1930s photo of Babe Ruth made from the original negative, just maybe printed 3 years after the image was shot instead of the golden 2. If the physical photo is demonstrated to really be from the 1930s (and not a 1950s reprint), does a 2 versus 3 years delay in printing matter a lot? Not that I can see-- especially if you can't know.

David,
I agree with what you are saying but I think by making that the "defined" terms for a Type I vs. Type II photo it is implied that it can be told and that a buyer should have some comfort that it can be and pay a difference in price based on this. And this is based upon what magic?

[David Atkatz]

No magic. Just hubris, and a good understanding of human behavior.

The emperor has no clothes.

[19cbb]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

It is an arbitrary system, invented solely to put money into third-party pockets.

+2

[drc]

If people are saying the grading rules (specifically the 2 years) is more specific than their dating abilities, I agree. With many photos, you can date to the year or even day, but with many photos you can't tell if it was printed 1, 2 or 3 years after.

Duly note, I haven't followed their graded photos and can't say they've done something specifically wrong in practice. If you give me 50 of their graded photos, I might very well agree with all their conclusions.

I'm not as perturbed as others may be about this, as I don't take the 'two years' statement seriously (and I don't agree with it). Just because someone puts an arbitrary number in a set of rules doesn't mean you have to accept it. My opinion is collectors should take the number as figurative or representative number rather than something you set your watches by. As my mom would say, "Don't take it so literally."

And I sometimes wonder if PSA used the number as an example, or representative, number to explain what they're talking about, rather than a set in stone cut off.

[mr2686]

I agree with what everyone has said. I think 2 years is an arbitrary number meant to mean "of that era". The only way to know when a photo was printed, short of a date, stamps etc on the back, would be the type of paper used. Obviously if a type of paper wasn't available until 15 years after the photo was taken...yada yada yada.

[prewarsports]

I have been saying on here for the better part of a year or two that the 2 year thing is complete crap. Most original Horner cabinets are photos glued to carboard mounts from about 1910-12 that were actually shot by Horner around 1902-05. So that would make almost all the "original" Horner cabinets Type 2 photos, but of course nobody believes that.

They should just be labeled "Vintage" and "Original Non-Vintage" instead of Type 1 and Type 2. I have a Babe Ruth photo I got a great deal on last year from Henry Yee that was originally shot in 1920 and mine is dated on the back from Spring Training 1924. He sold it as a TYPE 2! Ridiculous, but good for me because I got a $750-$1000 photo for about $150 bucks.

Rhys

[hcv123]

I agree with what seems to be the consensus - the 2 year window is/was an arbitrary measure. As the collecting of photos expands, I think the definitions will change. I guess a line has to be drawn somewhere, but I think 2 years is too tight a window (and often undetminable) - perhaps within the decade?

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by hcv123

I agree with what seems to be the consensus - the 2 year window is/was an arbitrary measure. As the collecting of photos expands, I think the definitions will change. I guess a line has to be drawn somewhere, but I think 2 years is too tight a window (and often undetminable) - perhaps within the decade?

I am a novice at this so indulge me, how is a decade any easier to determine with certitude than 2 years. You have a better chance of being right by a factor of 5 but still?

[hcv123]

Regardless of where you draw the line there exists an identity problem. Even if an image has a date written or stamped, how do we know that wasn't applied later to make it appear as a type 1. While I am unfamiliar with the detail, I am sure some degree (probably not much) of dating can be done using the photographic paper. I was simply suggesting that a 2 year window seems rather tight in terms of suggesting a photo taken in 1921 and printed in 192 is somehow more desirable or valuable than one taken in 1921 and printed in 1929. There is a whole hobby of photography collectors out there, perhaps someone should consult with them. My 2 cents.

[shimozukawa]

.

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by shimozukawa

I believe that at the decade level, available photographic paper and chemicals enter into the equation. Even if a company was selling 1923 paper stock in 1940, the chemicals used in 1940 would be of a different formulation than those used in the 1920s. For the same example, if the chemicals were from the 1930s, they would be the same formulation, but the effect would be different on the paper. Also, exposure technology from the time period would affect how the images came out.

It might be less of an issue with digital photography than film, since printer makers change their ink formulations regularly to bolster sales.

This is similar (in a way) to how the Star Company's cards from the 1980s went from super scarce to not nearly as scarce, overnight. The original manufacturers of the cards sold the machines, plates, paper and processing equipment. As a result, someone could produce the same exact cards... en masse... or at least until they ran out of the original paper... or the original cutting blades dulled out.

OK, so PSA and Beckett have engaged qualified chemical analysts then? I see your point I'm just being the dev's advocate here because we are being asked to take a leap of faith here. Maybe it is all very simple and I have become very jaded, that's entirely possible. I can tell you that in the amount of time that I believe that is spent on any card or photo being graded there is no sophisticated chemical analysis going on most likely.

[baseballart]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

OK, so PSA and Beckett have engaged qualified chemical analysts then? I see your point I'm just being the dev's advocate here because we are being asked to take a leap of faith here. Maybe it is all very simple and I have become very jaded, that's entirely possible. I can tell you that in the amount of time that I believe that is spent on any card or photo being graded there is no sophisticated chemical analysis going on most likely.

I may have respect for PSA photo grading if they are called upon to authenticate the disputed Ansel Adams photos. While I could be wrong, I suspect they won't be called as experts in the case.

Max

[shimozukawa]

.

[autograf]

HRBAKER=JADED

Hard for me to believe they have both 17 year old graders for baseball cards at likely $7.75 an hour AND qualified chemical engineers or analysts to review and determine photo type/manufacturing dates/processes & chemicals used. One word.....puffery.

[Exhibitman]

PSA speaks crap,
Photo dates not knowable,
Enjoy pics, screw grades.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

PSA speaks crap,
Photo dates not knowable,
Enjoy pics, screw grades.

Excellent! I'm going to petition Leon for a Haiku day on Net54 where all posts must be in Haiku form.

[drc]

Well, I posted this in another thread, but as the subject came up here. If you wish you can download the free photo authentication guide

http://cycleback.com/course.html

A few points:

1) Photo paper changed over time-- how it was made, what it looked like-- and can often judge what period the paper came from. Also, you can identify the photo process used, which helps date the photo to a period. Different processes were used during different periods.

2) If you don't know, you don't know. For even the top exert, there will be photos where he won't be certain of the date. There's nothing errant with saying you don't know if you don't know. The only problem is if you made up a date.

3) You can know a photo is old, but be unable to pint point a year. Due to the photo process, paper, style and aging signs, you can be certain a photo was from the 1800s, but can't say 1888 or 1881.

4) Stamps are a good way to date photo, and in the past have rarely been forged. However, with the popularity of PSA grading, it's possible stamp forgeries will rise. One of the lessons of photo examination, is you don't date a photo just by the stamp

5) I'm not a chemical engineer, but, ironically, my dad is. Really. Pure coincidence to this thread ... He's a retired chemical and biological engineering professor, and has always been my "chief and unpaid adviser" on scientific issues concerning what I do ... He's a prestigious scientist (or at least a retired one) who I just happen to call "dad"

6) One note on paper fiber analysis and chemical testing of photos: I bet no one here owns a baseball card that has had paper fiber analysis and chemical testing. As someone who's also familiar with authenticating baseball cards, you can't tell me that photos and trading cards are different categories in this respect. If you believe it's impossible to determine the age of a photo without laboratory testing, you have to also believe that it's impossible to determine the age of the baseball cards you own without laboratory testing-- as they are all printed images on paper or card stock. Yet, I'm sure many in this thread are quite confident, and I would guess correctly so, that they own genuine cards.

Of course, many baseball card collectors have black lights and pocket microscopes and compare the glossiness and opacity. In these cases, the collectors are doing their own mini scientific testing. Checking the color of fluorescence under ultraviolet light is dang close to home laboratory text. Having to put that 1971 Topps Nolan Ryan under paper fiber analysis would not only be extreme overkill, but not needed.

Genuine laboratory paper fiber analysis would be reserved for something like a newly discovered unique Babe Ruth card that collectors have doubts about. Similarly, you might do such analysis for a legal dispute involving $50,000 Ansel Adams photos. But it's no more needed for the average ACME News Photos Charlie Gehringer photo than for that 1971 Topps Nolan Ryan.

[Matt]

David - I'm disappointed you couldn't get that into Haiku form.

Great, informative response from an expert in the field. Thanks!

[HRBAKER]

David,
Very interesting read and valuable insights. I don't doubt that I own many actual cards just like I don't doubt that the photos we have been discussing in the abstract are actual photos. Most cards are dated, many photos are not (I assume) - I don't doubt they are photos, what I doubt is that most graders can ascertain with a degree of certainty a two year window from which the print/photo was made. And I think to a large degree you said that.

I also think that your point about false/fake stamps is spot on as this segment of the hobby takes off. Maybe I should just stick with the ACME News Service photos of Charlie Gehringer.

Thanks again.

[drc]

You take it photo by photo. One photo you can be near certain it was made in a particular year, another you may be confident it's old but you're unable to determine the particular year it was made. That's why you see a cabinet card in an REA auction labeled as circa 1885 or 1860s. REA is certain they are from the advertised era, but can't give you an exact year.

News photos tend to be easier to assign to a specific year than cabinet cards, as they were for news purposes and often have the date on them. Cabinet cards are often more vague. But, yes, there will be old photos where you can't prove the "within 2 years" rule.