Difference between Type 1 and Type 2 Press Photos...

[jgmp123]

I am new to photo collecting and was just wondering if someone could please help me out in by explaining the difference between Type 1 and Type 2 Press Photos.

[thecatspajamas]

Simply put, Type 1 photos were printed from the original negative within 2 years of the photo being shot. Type 2 were printed from the original negative more than 2 years of the photo being shot.

There has been a great deal of debate in another string of posts here recently about whether 2 years is too restrictive or not, but that is the cut-off as it currently stands. Obviously, if you're selling a Type 2 photo, you will want to provide more info than just the Type. If you had an original 1920's negative, you could technically produce an unlimited number of Type 2 prints tomorrow, but those would obviously be less desirable than a 1930's print that fell just outside the Type 1 timeframe.

Hope that helps.

[David Atkatz]

The problem, of course, is that a) unless the image itself is easily datable, and b) the photo is date-stamped as to when it was printed, no one can really tell whether a photo is type I or not.

But there's no shortage of "experts" willing to sell their "expertise."

[Ladder7]

730 and 731 days

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by Ladder7

730 and 731 days

Funny!! Sad, but true!

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by Ladder7

730 and 731 days

Maybe they sprinkle it with DNA dust and can divine the 730/731 divide from that.

[murphusa]

what happens when there is a leap year?

[Neal]

Are enhancements to photos viewed differently than enhancements to baseball cards? I imagine that trimming the border around the image and cleaning some smudge marks is acceptable

Comparing the two, the second is certainly a sharper, cleaner copy with better lines

Completed on eBay
https://www.ebay.com/itm/17625163860...mis&media=COPY

The current slab

https://rmyauctions.com/bids/bidplace?itemid=70144



Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Neal

Are enhancements to photos viewed differently than enhancements to baseball cards? I imagine that trimming the border around the image and cleaning some smudge marks is acceptable

Comparing the two, the second is certainly a sharper, cleaner copy with better lines

Completed on eBay
https://www.ebay.com/itm/17625163860...mis&media=COPY

The current slab

https://rmyauctions.com/bids/bidplace?itemid=70144



Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

PSA/DNA does not grade photos, they are merely authenticating whether they are Type 1-4, essentially, which speaks only to the photo's generation. I don't think they take into consideration restoration or what in cards would be deemed altering, in their final assessment.

That said the seller's id sounds familiar for some reason. The eBay listing was ended by the seller (not the same as completed, which implies a sale) on 2/29 just in time for him to clean it up, get it authenticated again and get it to the auction house.

[jethrod3]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

PSA/DNA does not grade photos, they are merely authenticating whether they are Type 1-4, essentially, which speaks only to the photo's generation. I don't think they take into consideration restoration or what in cards would be deemed altering, in their final assessment.

What I was told by a couple of major auction houses now makes sense after reading what Lorewalker mentioned. Basically, at the National last year, I brought a photo to show to some of the major sports auction houses, so I could get a feel for the value of that photo. It had an uneven cut to the top of the photo but it was agreed that it was likely a Type I photo and that I should submit it and get it slabbed. It was a photo that had been used for a 1950 Bowman football card. Both of the auction house reps I visited with told me to trim the top so it looks better, before getting it slabbed, as it would also likely not affect the price I might get for it. That make sense now since there is no grading option and only just authentication that is offered.

[Bicem]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

PSA/DNA does not grade photos, they are merely authenticating whether they are Type 1-4, essentially, which speaks only to the photo's generation. I don't think they take into consideration restoration or what in cards would be deemed altering, in their final assessment.

That said the seller's id sounds familiar for some reason. The eBay listing was ended by the seller (not the same as completed, which implies a sale) on 2/29 just in time for him to clean it up, get it authenticated again and get it to the auction house.

I think they are starting to refuse photos that have been restored (not counting trimming since press photos are often cut down from their original size at time of publication).

I just had a photo that was rejected due to chemicals being used to remove a secretarial signature from the front (I bought it after the restoration). It had been previously graded a type one with the signature.

[Schlesinj]

Originally Posted by Bicem

I think they are starting to refuse photos that have been restored (not counting trimming since press photos are often cut down from their original size at time of publication).

I just had a photo that was rejected due to chemicals being used to remove a secretarial signature from the front (I bought it after the restoration). It had been previously graded a type one with the signature.

That is interesting, I bought a photo recently and it had a distinct stamp of the original owner (I happen to own 4 others from the same collection). The photo did not have a PSA/DNA LOA, but the auction mentioned it had been previously authenticated. It was clearly a Type 1, so I had no issue with buying it.

After I received the photo, I was going to try and get a replacement LOA (it was not slabbed) and while doing some research I found the original photo from an older auction (same personal stamp location) and the photo was trimmed since it had been originally authenticated. I then looked up the authentication number and it was deactivated. I now wonder if it had been cleaned and trimmed and got rejected to get a new LOA. Maybe they have some new standards?

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Bicem

I think they are starting to refuse photos that have been restored (not counting trimming since press photos are often cut down from their original size at time of publication).

I just had a photo that was rejected due to chemicals being used to remove a secretarial signature from the front (I bought it after the restoration). It had been previously graded a type one with the signature.

Great info and thank you for sharing. It made me go back to look at the website and read the submission form. Does not have any language about agreeing to not submit restored photos. It does make sense that in spite of their not assigning a grade the photo should be assessed for more than generation but also originality. To me trimming a photo is nothing like trimming a card but removing stuff would fall into the category of an alteration.

[Bicem]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Great info and thank you for sharing. It made me go back to look at the website and read the submission form. Does not have any language about agreeing to not submit restored photos. It does make sense that in spite of their not assigning a grade the photo should be assessed for more than generation but also originality. To me trimming a photo is nothing like trimming a card but removing stuff would fall into the category of an alteration.

Agreed. Was actually happy to see the result.

[jad22]

I would not consider removing a sharpie auto as an alteration but might feel differently about other types of ink.

[Swadewade51]

I have purchased a photo and removed editorial markings myself and had them removed professionally. Always disclosing the work done. Some people may prefer them and thats fine. I don't so I would've done the same. I think trimming boarders is terrible though and that ebay seller had done that before on some really beautiful pieces.


Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk