So if I am reading and understanding correctly, David A and Doug, you both would prefer the elimination of the "Type" classification for photos because
1) Not all photos can be classified by the system.
2) PSA and Beckett are opportunistic companies that are seeking to profit from the system.
3) Some use the system incorrectly.
4) Classification systems are only for the "grade everything" crowd.
5) The Type system will somehow skew the values of pictures
Number 1...
So not all photos can be accurately classified, but a lot can. Simple fix just say you can't classify a specific picture because of lack of date or newspaper stampings, but you believe it to be printed around the time it was taken.
Number 2...
Nobody is forcing either of you, or anyone else for that matter, to pay to use the system. Anyone can use the system for free, by reading. For those who lack even amateur reading skills or the patience to read a book or two, there is a service available. Neither using nor not using the system costs anybody anything.
Number 3...
Is this really a problem with the system or with those who implement it.
Number 4...
Classification systems have nothing to do with the grade everything mindset. Classification systems are part of how we structure our lives. It starts with newborns who are classified as premature vs full term, underweight vs overweight, and even boy vs girl. (Editor's note: While at one point I would graded my daughter a 10, since she has turned 13, 2 months ago, I think she has lost a few points)Now back to our regularly scheduled diatribe...
None of these are value judgements or grades on the worth of the child, just as Type designation isn't a value judgement of the worth of a picture. It is an attempt to classify and identify to all when the picture was created in relation to when the image was actually taken.
Do we throw out the ACC classification system for cards because it promotes grading?
Even if you eliminated card grading with numbers, using the old school terms Mint, ExMT, Ex, VG,etc is still a classification system.
Number 5...
Obviously this is wrong as evidenced by the recent results in Henry's auction. There was a $356 winning bid on the Type 2 of the 1915 Red Sox pitching staff with Ruth, the $172 winning bid on the Type 4 of Nat Fein's Ruth Bows Out, and the $135 winning bid on the 1939 Williams type 2 by Dorrill. These all got higher prices than the Type 1 of Gehrig in the 1938 WS that I won for $61 and 2/3 beat the price I paid for the Gehrig and Ott type 1 at $164. No matter what you call them, the prices will always be, in great part, about content.
Do you really think it is better to go back to using terms like original, vintage, old, first generation, second generation, re-strike, etc? These terms can mean so many different thing to different people, that it is even more confusing than the type system, IMO. Heck, even just a few posts prior to this one Lance jumped in to help clarify David's and Hank's usage of the terms first generation vs second generation vs re-strike. I think the old way of doing things could be just as confusing and was just as misused as the Type system.
Now, if it were up to me, I would change Type 1's from around 2yrs to 5yrs and perhaps even add a fifth category for Unclassifiable with perhaps a date range modifier based upon what is known of printing types, uniforms worn, etc. So it could be Type 5-30 for a pic not classifiable to within 5 yrs, but likely produced in the 1930's. Or something to that effect.
Great Debate.
Best,
Mark