Type I versus Type II : I'm a little confused

[baseballart]

The definition of Type I versus Type II is stated from Henry Yee's usual wonderful assortment of photos:



Type II photos thus may be printed approximately 2 or more years after the original photo was taken and from the original negative.

For a photo taken in 1910, how is it at all possible to tell whether the print was made in 1910 or say 1916 or 1920? In the 1980s, I printed copies my own photos from the original negatives several years apart and now a number of years later, I can't tell which were printed first. Is there a leap of faith required on the authentication of Type I versus Type II photos or am I missing something?


Thanks,

Max


Thanks,

Max

[HRBAKER]

In a word Max, IMO it is not possible.

[D. Bergin]

Easier to tell with press photos, not so much with Studio/Freelance or Amateur photography photos.

I believe the two year time frame is a bit arbitrary and probably very flexible in it's actual implementation.

[Ladder7]

I dont know how either. I'd sent some to PSA long ago for LOA's and they were right on. Recently, I'd send a stack of Type 1s (along with another "iffy" photo) to Beckett and they correctly found it to be a type 2.

There are some guys that are just damn good at their vocations.

[HRBAKER]

So if a picture is taken on January 1, 1910 and a print is made from the negative on Septmeber 30, 1911 and another on September 30, 1913, the experts could correctly discern the Type 1 from the Type 2? I know that this is an extreme example for sure but that is what you are buying into here. Steve, if they can do that they are more than damn good at their vocation!

[drc]

Most type IIs will be be from many years after the photo was shot. Ala a 1960 photo with an image from 1930.

With press photos, the stamps or tags usually identify the ones printed later.