Lance,
Thanks for the insight!

This is where the 'Type' designations get confusing and why I couldn't give a flip about it (yes, bad pun). Most photo collectors I know are interested in the following, and always have been. If you could get a sharp, well-composed print of something you were interested in, and it was printed from the original negative at around the time the photo was taken, then you were happy. And if it was printed yesterday, but would look good on your wall and the price was fair, then you were still happy. Now a 'Type 1' designation within a plastic holder makes up for problems that in the past wouldn't have been acceptable.

• image clarity and composition
• subject
• date printed (either specifically or general)

The Type system is basically just shorthand for when and how a photograph was printed, and shouldn't speak to the quality of the image at all. I think there are definitely "good" Type 1 photos and there are "lousy" Type 1 photos. There is still a judgement call to be made with regard to aesthetics. I would agree that anyone who is allowing a Type designation and plastic holder to make up the difference between lousy and good is going to have a hard time building an aesthetically pleasing collection, even if all of their photos technically fall into the Type 1 category.

It doesn't get confusing at all. In fact, it provides clarity. I would much rather have a TYPE 1 IMAGE OF A BABE RUTH ROOKIE PRINTED IN 1915-16 -rather than the same image printed off the original negative in 1919 when he started breaking records for example. It is a no brainer. If peeps don't want to use the system fine. But make no mistake, it makes a difference to the high end collectors and the value. A BIG DIFFERENCE and rightfully so. I could care less about the slabs(most wouldn’t either so I don't know why this always comes up) but I do care about what the piece is and it is MOST MINUTELY DEFINED WITH THE TYPE SYSTEM. YES… those were CAPS:)

Ben, you and Lance are the same sort of collector as myself, and I understand your points (always did), just as I know you understand mine.

My question to Scott about the 2 pics in question was based on the fact that image quality can often be one factor in determining which type category the image falls in. In my experience type 1, because they come off the original negative, are usually much sharper appearing. Type 3s, because they come from copy negatives or wire transmission, are often less clear and sharp. That is the differentiation I was alluding to. Obviously a type 2 will maintain the original clarity as it's made from the original negative. I made the mistake of assuming the second photo was a type 1 because of image quality. If I had seen the UPI stamp, I would've known it wasn't. I do realize that clarity and sharpness are not the only factor in determining type. Certainly, as has been suggested, the first picture could have been taken by a less skilled photographer with inferior equipment.

As I've stated before, I like the type system, as, IMHO, it allows for some improved clarity and consistency of identification. I also think it has its flaws in both its definitions and implementation by third party graders.

Ben's example is a perfect one to see the flaws. A picture of Ruth from 1916 printed in 1919 may very well be classified as a Type 1 as the definition reads within approx 2yrs window of event. To me this is a flaw in the system's definitions. This situation is also a set up for a flaw in implementation by TPAs. Because the definition is open ended, it allows the TPA to use their discretion. Would this photo example be judged a type 1 if submitted by a big dollar customer/auction house but a type 2 if submitted by a random private individual? I don't know the answer, but certainly there are examples both in the card and autograph ends of the hobby, that would suggest such favoritism could happen.

Most of this discussion is academic. Great photos are great photos regardless of type. The main thing that changes is the amount of monetary value they hold. I guess if I were spending thousands of dollars on a photo, I would want to preserve and protect that value as well. None of all this takes away from the fact that they are both great photos of JVM and Babe.

Best,
Mark

Actually Mark,

My example of Ruth was to show that the 2 year window is very necessary at times. A mantle 1951 printed in 1951 would be much more valuable to me than the same image printed in 1956(when he won the triple crown and was the biggest star of the time) and reproduced many times over.

Both examples show why they settled for 2 year window(approx) and justifiably.

The execution of the type system by PSA is pretty good I would say. Of course there will be misses at times like there are in autographs, cards ect(no matter if is a tpa or a so called single expert we are talking about). But I think they are very accurate. Nobody better than Henry Yee after all.


Ben

Please, please, please...don't get me started. I have been doing so well :)

You get yourself started.:) The only people that would disagree with that statement are so called photo experts who are "competitors" of Henry, dealers who do not like the fact that psa is now cking their work(they have customers who want the service) and you! :) Just keeping is real... haha!!

PS: I love you Scott. And yes, you have been very good. :)

Well, you know me - I would send every photo I own (even family snapshots) in to PSA for slabbing and typing, if I could be guaranteed that Henry Yee would personally handle each one.

(Now I have to go take a good shower, as I'm dripping with vile sarcasm)

New Orleans Pelicans Bank
 

I've seen these banks with other teams, but I've never seen a Pelicans one? It's a glass baseball bank w/ Pelicans logo... 1940s. ???? I've looked around and cannot find one that has sold?

Anybody have one or know of them? High / low value?

Shawn

Pelicans
 

Pelicans

New Orleans
 

New Orleans

I know you and yes.. please go take a shower pigpen. :)

No Words Needed
 

Thanks Ben!

Ouch.. it hurts so bad...the price I have to pay to build my Ruth collection. This is a museum quality piece. It will look perfect with your Cy Young. You are welcome and congrats Bob.

Awesome Walter Johnson.

Ben Bob et al Great new leather frames - and reasonable -

http://www.restorationhardware.com/c...yId=cat2400008

Walter
 

Beautiful! Congrats Bob.

Refinished Roush bat
 

Here's the refinished bat. After the stain dried, I gave it a thin layer of French polish, then used a synthetic wool to rub the shine off of it. The pics look shinier than the actual bat. For reference, two of the pics show comparisons to a 1911-14 bat and a later bat, both completely natural.

These look GREAT Scotty! You and your projects are impressive. I have no patience for things like this so I really appreciate seeing them.

Jon..Do you have your photos framed in these? I would lik eto see some of your items framed.

I think they just came out. I am going to buy a couple soon.

http://www.restorationhardware.com/c...egoryId=search

Above link is in camel color.

Think I like camel better. Tough call.

I love these little guys
 

Picked up two that I needed, if you have a Dallas Cowboys Mini, please let me know. Thanks

Ahhh, back when the Colts, Browns and Steelers were where they belonged.

An interesting early scorecard, New York Giants hosting the Detroit Wolverines. The date was May 30th, 1883.

http://aug13.hugginsandscott.com/a13...rk_detroit.jpg
http://aug13.hugginsandscott.com/a13...rk_detroit.jpg

Here is a nice summary that can be found on the SABR website.

Some additional items of interest include that 1883 was the first year for the NY Giants with the May 30th double header accounting for their 16th & 17th games of the year.

The score card is for the 2nd game of the doubleheader in which NY beat Detroit 8 to 4. What I find most interesting are the light pencil notations on the back which record the inning-by-inning accounts for the NY Mets victory over Columbus (12-5) and Yale's victory over Princeton (5-4). A lot of baseball for one day, I wonder if the scorer made the two earlier games as well.

Nice scorecard Joe! No kidding, what a day of baseball!
It's almost like getting fed ice cream with a snow shovel.

One good thing is that baseball games typically were pretty short back then, as they were frequently played in 2 hours or less. Not like today's 4 hour marathons, FWIW...

Old Sea Captains
 

Thought this one was neat... Old sea captains playing Cricket. Still, research to be done.