Type III is not a "negative" connotation, it simply explains the reality of what a piece is. If collectors choose to value a Type III at a lower level than Type I that is what they/we (collectively) have chosen to do.
When the Type system first came into use many collectors did not understand what Type III meant and it got a bad rap.
If you look at pricing on quality images it generally holds up to a relative level at this point (meaning Type III image can be considerably valuable) but again, that price is relative. A Type III photo is not a Type I. Printed in the period, yes. But it is not the same as a Type I. That is the reality. To clarify, that Jordan image in Type III will near 100% of the time sell for less than the Type I equivalent. But it is made from a duplicate negative. If someone took pictures of a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle and used that negative to make a new printing plate in 1952 and then printed more Mantles on the same card stock are they "original"? To some, maybe. But i would want a real "original" if that is what my collecting tastes dictated.
Incidentally - I do like that Jordan piece and if I collected basketball I would like to own it. Regardless of Type.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exhibitman
The whole type thing is f***ng stupid anyway. Every team issued photo with printing would be a Type III, as would any composite made up for a news story. I personally prefer a photo that carries its back story right in the image and doesn't rely on somebody guessing the generation of the image or when it was made. MJ's rookie year team issue is a Type III? Silly.
 |