Type 2 photos undervalued?

[JoeyFarino]

Just curious on people's thoughts about type 2 photos as far as value and collectibility goes. Obviously collectors want the "original" from the period copy but what about those made 5-10 yrs from the time period? Do you think these are passed up simply because theyre not within the 2 year window gap eventhough the image is great? Ive seen some great type 2 photos out there and curious about peoples opinions on them and if the lack of value seems appropriate

[Lordstan]

I think there have been many type 2s that have gotten very strong prices. Most have been prints from the 30-40 of originals from the teens where likely only 1-2 or no type 1 exists. Why buy a Type 2 of Ruth, when so many nice type 1s are available and many are not ridiculously expensive?
Additionally, I think the photo collecting niche has only really just begun to mature. Cards and autographs have been around forever, but photos only really began to take off 5-10yrs ago. I think once more people join in this collecting field, the Type 1's will start to become scarcer and type 2s will increase proportionally.

[drcy]

As a collector, I'm very partial to originals. But on a case by case basis there will be worthwhile and valuable photos that sometimes fall into other categories. It's myopic and shallow to to say a photo's value is based strictly by what category it falls into. There are other factors. For example, a later made large display photo can be rare and desirable. And N172 Old Judges have second generation images, though their value is as baseball cards and, of course, are still from the 1880s.

But, as I said, I'm partial to originals.

[Exhibitman]

Here's the stupid thing [well, one of them] about the whole type nonsense:




Which is more valuable? Answer: the second photo by far. The first is a first generation portrait while the latter is clearly second generation or later because it is a composite of photo and caption. But the first is a typical anonymous publicity photo while the second is a fighter-issued promotional piece.

Let's play again:




Same result. The second generation image is worth more than the first generation one because of context.

My point being that getting hung up on Types doesn't come close to answering the question of photo value. It is a random trait of an image that has been randomly selected by PSA as a tool for labeling. As the field becomes more sophisticated I think we will see a greater recognition of content and context over type as a real determinant of value.

PSA/DNA Photograph Type Classification

Type I - A 1st generation photograph, developed from the original negative, during the period (within approximately two years of when the picture was taken).
Type II - A photograph, developed from the original negative, during the period (more than approximately two years after the picture was taken).
Type III - A 2nd generation photograph, developed from a duplicate negative or wire transmission, during the period (within approximately two years of when the picture was taken).
Type IV - A 2nd generation photograph (or 3rd or later generation), developed from a duplicate negative or wire transmission, during a later period (more than approximately two years after the picture was taken).

Another factor that I think will take hold in the future is being able to show who the artist is who made the photo; a well-known studio's imprint or stamp or signature should increase value IMO. This Freddie Welsh image is nothing special but the Bain stamp makes it:



A double-weight wet signed portrait of Georges Carpentier from the Geisler-Andrews studio, a business that operated from 1917-1921:



Hall's Studio Gene Tunney:



Cazzie Russell and Rudy LaRusso by George Kalinsky:



Red Grange by the Maurice Seymour studio in Chicago:

[Lordstan]

Agreed Adam.
Fortunately, I think we are already starting to see that happen. I think a type 2 of a Mathewson Conlon would likely fetch more than a late in life Type 1 Matty in street clothes with his wife.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

Agreed Adam.
Fortunately, I think we are already starting to see that happen. I think a type 2 of a Mathewson Conlon would likely fetch more than a late in life Type 1 Matty in street clothes with his wife.

Well of course but that has more to do with the image than the type classification.

Let's talk apples to apples here rather than random one offs.

If everything is equal, a type 1 is worth more than a type 2 for obvious reasons.

If you want to provide random examples where you have items that don't fit as below, fine. But to say the system is flawed or that it is nonsense is ridiculous.
At the end of the day, know what you are buying and make your own decision. The type system is great for those who have not put thousands of hours into educating themselves and provides direction/classification. It is what it is. If you don't need it, don't use it.

Hi btw Mark.. glad to see you back.