vintage Ruth wire photos

[drc]

They put out the Type I terminology first. That doesn't make it worthwhile terminology. I'm sure I could put out a color coded system.

I describe photos using the English language: Original, original printed later, later generation. Unlike with Type I, I never have to explain to a collector what original means.

Sorry if I say my (and everyone else's in the photo world who doesn't collect PSA or Beckett), the English language system, is the superior system. It's known as describing a photo in words people know and understand. I will be bold and say that using common English words is 10x better than using some convoluted type system. I didn't say the Type system was incorrect, just a pointless and pointlessly confusing. It's a gimmick for graded card collectors.

People come on this board often and say "What does Type I mean?" Does anyone every come on this board and say "What does original mean?" I've never had to explain to anyone what an 'original' painting means.

When I worked for Beckett, they used the Type system, but that had nothing to do with me. I wasn't a fan of that system then, didn't use it, but Beckett decided how to label things not me.

As I said before, press photos aren't a terribly complicated area of photography to identify. You don't have to be Sir Isaac Newton to tackle it. Along that line, do I think Yee and PSA/DNA is competent at labeling press photos? Yes. The PSA LOA's I've seen have been accurate in their descriptions.


* * * *

"What kind of photo is that?"
"It's a Type I"
"What does Type I mean?"
"Original."
"Then why don't you just call it original?"
"Because I'm lame and stupid and girls hate me."
"Oh, okay, as long as you have a reason."

Calm down, it's just a joke. Everyone knows PSA collectors are the smoothest and hippest of the graded sports ephemera collectors. Women love a man with holograms.