The Traynor is Type III, but, as it's vintage with date stamps and vintage paper caption tag, it's a perfectly collectible photo. A part of the value would be based in the clarity/quality of the image. A duplicate negative or other duplication process can produce a rough, grainy image or it can produce a sharp clear image (or somewhere in between). Obviously, the one with sharp clear image will be valued more.

If selling it and you aren't sure what Type it is you can simply describe it as a "Vintage 1923 photo with the vintage tag and 1923 date stamp on back." That description neither states nor implies the Type, but is describing it by its age. You aren't required to give information you don't know. Just as you aren't required to state the photographer's name when you don't know who is the photographer. Though, if you know absolutely nothing about a photo, including whether it was made in 1923 or 2013, eBay would suggest you not sell it.

Henry's response is very informative and well written. With regard to the photo posted earlier of Bugs Bunny (that was bought from me) I will clarify one quick thing only because my name was brought up and where I differ a bit from the type system. I believe that a photographers intent should be factored into the image. I believe (and most photographers that I have spoken to agree with me) that if I take a photo of several Ansel Adams images and make a composite photo of them it should be treated differently than if Ansel Adams himself did it. In the former, it is not my work but in the latter, Adams used his own images to create a unique work of art. To each his own and I have no problem with the way PSA does it AT ALL, its just a personal preference I have with regard to gray area between classifying "Unique piece of work" and "Photo of a Photo".

I just wanted to clarify since one of my images was posted. It was not misidentified, that was created intentionally as a unique work of art to promote a Bugs Bunny film in the 1950's. It would absolutely get a "Type 3" from PSA, its just not how I view it... and its totally cool either way, just a personal preference.

Back to the discussion which is great!

Rhys

Frankly, I could care less about this whole thing.

Meaning this is an interesting thread... and I do appreciate the insight. :rolleyes:

"If you understand the movie completely, we failed. We wanted to raise far more questions than we answered."-- 2001: A Space Odyssey screenwriter, Arthur C. Clarke

...that was the weirdest dup post ever - not even sure how I did it.

The questions it raises for me EVERY time I see it, are: 1) why did I stay awake for over 1/2 the movie? 2) why did I fall asleep with less than than 1/2 of the movie to go? 3) Why do I always go in thinking "this is the time i'll understand it" 4) Why did I stop and get Chinese take-out to eat on the way to the movie, and miss the best scene?

An interesting 40 second Youtube video clip: Woody Allen on 2001: A Space Odyssey and Stanley Kubrick

Or, as film critic Chris Barsanti wrote, "2001 is a colossal bore, unless you're on its wavelength, in which case it's one of the greatest movies ever made."

Just to make sure everyone does understand that Bugs Bunny did not pose for that photo with Mel, so of course it is a composite of photos...this ain't Who Framed Roger Rabbit, you can't just head over to Toontown and see if Bugs will take a selfie with you.

As for 2001, I cannot watch the opening of that film with a straight face after having seen what Mel Brooks did with it in History of the World Part I.