Can we finally lay the "Type I" photo BS to rest?

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Mark, many--if not most--of the photos being classified have absolutely nothing on the back--no slugs, no date stamps... nothing. I stand behind my assertion that they cannot be dated with the degree of precision required.

As for the ones that are date-stamped, must I send them to a third party (along with a check) to have the stamps read, or are my amateur reading skills sufficient?

I wonder how photos were collected in those antediluvian times before a few third parties figured out how to skim a bit off the top.

David,
You are correct that some don't have anything on the back. That is exactly why I do feel that 2yrs is too restrictive a time frame for the classification.
Second, who says you have to send it off for third party approval? You're mixing the issues again. The classification system was created at least 5yrs before PSA and Beckett figured a way to take your money for giving their approval.
While it may be that some think the system was created simply to make money from grading, I don't think there is proof of that. I don't know Henry or Marshall personally, so I can't comment directly on their virtues or faults, but I am left with a question for those who are suspicious. Why wait 5yrs to start charging for "authentication?"
The vitriol for the Authentication companies I totally get, as I am no fan of theirs, but I guess I don't understand the distaste for the system itself.
And to answer your question directly, NO I would never send something in to be authenticated by anyone, unless by doing so I would significantly increase the amount of money I cold make. I'm sure this is the same answer many on this board would have.

Originally Posted by murphusa

At the end of the day, all you got is a bunch of old photos. Type 1 only means something to a very small group. The rest of us don't care

Jim,
This is exactly correct! The type system just allows me to communicate with you what and when I think the picture represents in a more succinct form. That is it.

Originally Posted by mr2686

This may be apples and oranges, but...with this type of system an Ansel Adams photo of Half Dome printed in 1927-1929 would be a type 1, and anything printed after would be type 2...even though Adams would have printed it himself. I don't believe many people would care what year it was printed as long as it was from the original negative and that Adams printed it himself.

Mike,
You beat me to the punch as I was about to use this type of example. The "type" classification system, or any other system, if some has a better system to propose, is helpful because the terms "Original" can be, and quite frequently are, interpreted differently. In the world of art photography, Original usually means something very different. It means it was printed by the photographer, from their negative, themselves. There is no consideration to the time when it was created.
Could a picture of Half Dome signed and dated by Adams 1927 sell for more than one signed and dated 1970? Probably yes.
Now the Type system was proposed for Sports photography only as the timing of things is more important in the world of sports collecting. The easiest example showing this is the value of rookie cards.

Great conversation everyone.
Best to all.
Mark