Question about photo types
 

Apologies if this question is posted in the wrong section, but I'm thinking I got it right.

So, I just received my first psa graded "type 1" photos (Preacher Roe, image that was used for Topps 1953 card; and Carl Erskine 1951 team issued press photo). I promptly cut them out of the holder with my wife's sewing scissors (don't tell her!). Thank you to psa for making pictures easier to remove than 1956 pins, but that's a different topic.

My question :

On the back of the label it lists definitions of Types 1 thru 4.

Type 1 - A 1st generation photograph, developed from the original negative, during the period (within approximately two years of when the picture was taken).

Type 2 - A photograph, developed from the original negative, during a later period (more than approximately two years after the picture was taken).

Type 3 - blah blah blah

Type 4 - blah blah, blah blah blah


If I understand correctly, the only difference between a type 1 or a type 2 is the time frame when it was developed. They are both first generation photos from the original negative, right?

If a photographer (maybe George Burke) had taken a picture of a player (let's say Hack Wilson) and then not developed the film until the next spring, and then not printed a photo until the summer after that, then that photo would be a type 2, and there would be no such thing as a type 1. Right?

Seems a tad bit too subjective to me, but what do I know.

Thanx for listening to me ramble,
Doug


PS - I took the attached pix from the original ebay listings

Doug, I'm new to these forums also and I think this topic has been discussed extensively before. However, you raise some issues that I have also had questions about - even resorting to direct discussions with Henry Yee for some additional clarification.

To the extent that I understand it, the classification system is generally a very good framework for this relatively new branch of the hobby - namely vintage photography. But as is the case with all systems it is not perfect and breaks down in certain areas when viewed with more scrutiny.

The question that you pose is such an example. The differentiation between Type I and Type II photographs can be extremely subjective, especially if a date stamp or dated paper caption is not present (in such cases emulsion, paper type, the present or absence of brighteners, etc are additional factors that are considered). In addition, the time window of approximately 2 years has also been the subject of a great deal of discussion even during the establishment of the grading criteria.

Considering that your photos have already been graded and designated Type I, I would simple enjoy the vintage, first generation images and not be too concerned about the details that were used for their particular grading parameters.

Doug, I'm new to these forums also and I think this topic has been discussed extensively before. However, you raise some issues that I have also had questions about - even resorting to direct discussions with Henry Yee for some additional clarification.

To the extent that I understand it, the classification system is generally a very good framework for this relatively new branch of the hobby - namely vintage photography. But as is the case with all systems it is not perfect and breaks down in certain areas when viewed with more scrutiny.

The question that you pose is such an example. The differentiation between Type I and Type II photographs can be extremely subjective, especially if a date stamp or dated paper caption is not present (in such cases emulsion, paper type, the present or absence of brighteners, etc are additional factors that are considered). In addition, the time window of approximately 2 years has also been the subject of a great deal of discussion even during the establishment of the grading criteria.

Considering that your photos have already been graded and designated Type I, I would simple enjoy the vintage, first generation images and not be too concerned about the details that were used for their particular grading parameters.

As I mentioned, this classification system has been discussed at length on this forum before - I just can't locate the exact thread.

Welcome to the forum Craig.

I am enjoying my cool old baseball photos, even more so now that I have removed them from their holders. Type 1 or type 12, I don't really care, all I care about is that I enjoy the image.

I'm not really concerned about the other thread. My question was more rhetorical in nature, meant to point out the silliness of grading in general.

For some reason grading issues such as these always make me think of the this video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqhlQfXUk7w

Doug

Doug - I agree 100%. Thats what really counts and I also love these vintage images!!!!

Yes, those of us who have collected baseball cards for 40+ years and still prefer to have cards graded are pretty silly - maybe even stupid, eh? It's a good thing REAL collectors like you are around to remind us of our foolishness on pretty much a daily basis. Maybe we'll eventually get the message.

I was just showing my wife my PSA-graded collection last night, as I just filed to start a pension in January and thought it would be a good time to review our finances (I don't collect for investment, but my collection has significant value). My wife thought having the cards encapsulated, authenticated, graded and registered was an awfully good idea, since it will make it much, much easier to sell the cards for a good price if I die first. She said that honestly, were it not for the grading, she'd probably just give the cards away in frustration.

My insurance company likes the idea also.

And, since I collect cards I like regardless of the numerical grade, and since the cases are protective and, I think, somewhat attractive, and since the cards are fully visible within the cases, I haven't really come across a downside yet. Well, except for the scorn of true collectors such as yourself.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=138782

is one of the more recent (and exhausting) threads dealing with photo "Typing."

I keep hoping that the "slabbed vs. raw" debates (and/or arguments, mud-slinging, name-calling, etc.) will stay confined to the card side of the boards, but PSA adding photos to their line of plastic-encased opinions continues to stir things up on the memorabilia side.

Doug,
Nice pick-ups, and it sounds like you have a pretty good handle on the guidelines for a photo's "Type" whether you agree with them or not. I think the most important thing is to enjoy your photos, and it sounds like you have a handle on that as well :D Keep collecting what you enjoy, and I'm sure we'll cross paths again soon.

All,
Let's remember that someone stating their personal preference should not be taken as an attack on those with differing preferences. There is enough infighting in this hobby as it is without villifying each other based on what amounts to preservation and cataloging techniques. Hobbies are supposed to be FUN :D

I never claimed that I was a "real" collector and those who grade cards are not. In fact, I never actually referenced collectors on any level, what I referred to was the act of grading.

What I said was (this would be my opinion, similar to the opinion that somebody might pay for from a grading company) I think that grading cards (specifically paying somebody for their opinion on cards) is silly.

An opinion. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Mine is free. Take it or leave it.

While my wife and insurance company are worrying about what to do with my collection when I am dead, I will be dead. I won't be putting a whole lot of thought into it. If her health and happiness at that point are based on the value of my collection, than I failed as a husband.

Just an opinion,
Doug


PS - On a practical level, if somebody were to explain to me a logic for spending money and time on grading instead of the same money and time on new "stuff" then my problem would become the issue of space. My Topps collection takes up the entire closet in my room. If it were graded, I think the volume would increase by at least 10 times, and I don't have 9 more closets.

Thank you Lance for sticking up for my right to voice my opinion, even though my opinion may be viewed by some as being "silly". Pun intended. Insert smiley face here.

My interest in old photos was stepped up a notch (or three) when Lance (who I did not know at the time, and only know now from the viewpoint of a satisfied customer) put hundreds of Burke photos on ebay a couple years ago.

Doug

Doug, I agree!

Lance Fittro has been in the hobby for quite some time, but I became an interested and satisfied regular customer when he became the go to guy for Burke postcards and cool snapshots. I love the images that he continually comes up with. For those who have not purchased from him before, he is a class act and one of the best sellers on eBay. Just my 2 cents.... :)

Thanks for the plug, guys! I must say, it has been a pleasure dealing with you both over the last few years, and I hope to help you guys continue adding neat items to your collections for many more. I'll keep hunting them down if you'll keep buying!

Best,
Lance