Type 1 Photos

[HRBAKER]

I must admit that this photo stuff has me confused. Is this a Type 1 photo of a supplement? Thanks.

http://cgi.ebay.com/John-McGraw-Eddi...item20b37c32d2

[docpatlv]

Jeff,

I was watching that as well, I had no idea what the hell it was and was even more confused that the auction title listed McGraw and Collins, then the auction picture was of Young.

Perhaps photos were taken of supplements to keep for records, but then why not just keep a copy of each supplement. Either way, will probably watch the auction to see what happens, but most likely will not be bidding.

Mike

[bcbgcbrcb]

Definitely not a supplement but a photo instead, although type I is debatable. I saw a number of these at the National in Baltimore at the Sporting News Archives Photos booth including the Cy Young, a Honus Wagner, Elmer Flick, etc. Basically they are probably early 20th Century photos taken of original M101-1 supplements. To me, they may have some value but pale greatly in comparison to the original M101-1 supplements.

[HRBAKER]

I think "debatable" is very generous. That's what I thought, a photo of a supplement. Is this much different than a photcopy of a baseball card?

[Leon]

Compare it to this which will be in our upcoming auction

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by Leon

Compare it to this which will be in our upcoming auction

Leon, that's a beaut! Since it's been designated a Type 1, can you tell me, a.) when the photo was taken, and b.) when the print was made? - This is meant to be a funny.

That is if it indeed will be designated a Type 1. Very nice anyway. What size is it?

[D. Bergin]

It's an old photo of a supplement. Not sure you can narrow it down much more then that.

If a news service takes a photo of a T206 Honus Wagner baseball card in 1925 and develops it for Press use right after............that would be considered a Type I photo of a T206 Honus Wagner baseball card (Assuming it's not an early version of a wire photo).

This Cy Young supplement. Maybe you can narrow the photo down to a certain decade or two based on the paper stock and feel. I'm not sure you can narrow down when the original negative was produced of the photo of the Supplement. It could have been anytime after the supplement itself was produced.

Is either one desirable. I guess that's for the collector to decide. There's no legitimate price guide for photos (and rightfully so).

The Type I designation is easy to slap on a dated press photo. Undated vintage photos, not so much.

The Type I-IV designations are IMO a clumsy way to try and fit every photo into a neat little box for collectors (maybe so one day they can make a price guide for photos, LOL!!).

I don't think the guys who came up with the Type designations even use them in their own descriptions, beyond to say something is a Type I. It's confusing to say the least. Especially when you consider the Type designation ladder doesn't necessarily have anything to do with value. For example a Type 3 photo is in many cases more desirable then most Type 2 Photos.............and a Type 4 Printed from a duplicate negative can (as I believe was mentioned before by Exhibitman) be pretty much imperceptible from a later printed photo from the original negative (Type II).

I use "Type I" sometimes in obvious cases. Otherwise I just say what the photo is, or what I think it is. "Vintage Photograph", "Wire Photo", "Older or Vintage Photo of an Earlier image", "Later Generation Photo of an Earlier Image", "Modern Photo or Print", etc.., etc...

Most collectors just want to know if the photo is old or of the era when the picture was taken, What kind of clarity does it have, what the subject and subject matter is, and is it a "real photo" , "press photo", "printed photo", "wire photo", "laser photo", "radio or sound photo", etc...

Just remember. Slapping the phrase "Type I" on something doesn't automatically make a photo more desirable, collectible, valuable. There are many mitigating factors involved.

End of ramble. I think I may have just confused myself.

[HRBAKER]

You don't think that a "Type 1" designation is meant to have anything to do with value? Is it not implied that a photo that was printed within "two" years of the photo being taken is somehow more valuable than one printed on down the line.

Most collectors just want to know if the photo is old or of the era when the picture was taken, What kind of clarity does it have, what the subject and subject matter is, and is it a "real photo" , "press photo", "printed photo", "wire photo", "laser photo", "radio or sound photo", etc...

I certainly agree with this.