There are 2 separate issues.
First is the classification issue. Second is authentication. I think the only connection between the two is that the TPA's use the classification system to offer a service to make money.
The book, A Portrait in Baseball Photography, co written by Yee, Fogel, and Oser, that first proposed the "Type" classification, was printed in 2005. Considering PSA and Becket only started offering authentication in the past year or so, I don't think there is any nefarious connection between the book being written and authentication services being offered.
As far as the 2 years conundrum is concerned, I don't think there is an answer that would satisfy everyone. No matter what time frame is chosen, someone will come up with a rational argument for why it should be different, but I think there should be some cutoff to allow more structured classification.
The argument that 2 yrs is arbitrary is valid, as it is arbitrary, but I don't think the fact that it is arbitrary really matters as much as some make it out to be. There are plenty of examples of arbitrary values being chosen as part of our society's function. For example, the ages to vote, drink, and drive are arbitrary. Another would be grades in schools. In some areas, A- is 90-92, A is 93-97 and A+ is 98-100. In others it's 90-93, 94-98, and 99-100 respectively. There are many other examples as well, but it's too late for me come up with right at this moment.
I think the real importance lies in trying to find some agreement on the actual number of years. Personally, I think a 5yr window to be considered Original or Type 1 would be reasonable. I also think it is not unreasonable to say a picture is unclassifiable, as in the case of newer photos.
drc,
I agree with you that people need to asses the picture itself to assess value. To paraphrase what they say on the card side, "Buy the pic not the slab"
You stated you wouldn't have chosen the system Henry and Marshall chose, but understand it. I'm curious as to how you would've devised a classification system.
Best,
Mark
|