[drc]

If I was re-writing the rules I would say say 'a few' years. Some points are:

* If 2 years is original, why can't 3 be? 2 years is PSA/DNA's definition (fine, they get a vote), but a reasonable collector might say 2.5 years counts as original too. Another collector might say a 1920 studio photo of Ty Cobb with the image shot three years earlier counts as original. Someone might say, 'Let's make the number 1.' At the least, 2 seems arbitrary where 2.2 or 1.5 would be just as valid.

* 2 years is too finite a number in an often gray world. Say you have a genuine 1930s George Burke photo of Joe Dimaggio (Burke's antique stamp on back proving the old age). You often can't be certain when the photo was made, even if you are certain the photo is from the 1930s. You have no idea how the 2 rule applies, even though you know the photo is old and you very well might call it an original and it might rightly sell for good $$. Burke may have printed that photo in 1933, he may have printed in 1936. No one knows. It's a personal judgment call as to whether or not it's original. Notice my rule was a more ambiguous 'a few,' as there is ambiguity in this case.

---
Beyond that pesky 2 issue, I've read the grading rules and, even if it's not the way I would structure the categories, the rules and thinking are logical. I understand what they're talking about and why they made the categories that way. However, just as trading card collectors shouldn't judge a card just by the 1-10 grade, collectors shouldn't judge a photograph solely by the type2, type3 categories. Treat them as a guide or categorization rather than final arbiter of taste. For example, a 1917 real photo postcard with a second generation or 4 year old image of Joe Jackson is still a 1917 postcard of Joe Jackson and should and rightly will fetch good $$ at auction.