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

[glchen]

I think Type does dictate something of worth for collectors, and the narrower the window for Type I, the better. I compare it with Real Photo Postcards. A Babe Ruth RPPC with an SGC slab that has the date as c.1930-31 will have a much higher value than one of the date c.1930s. As usual, the reason will be that many more people want a card that was issued during the player's playing days. I think the same principle holds for photos where collectors want photos that they can confidently feel was developed during the playing days or at certain time periods during his playing days.

[Leon]

I am posting this for Henry. I have known Henry for years and have always known him to do the right thing.....Everyone makes mistakes and of course it's how we handle them that makes all the difference.



"Dear fellow collectors, I am having Leon post this message as I do not participate on chat boards.

This is in regards to the 1951 Yankee Stadium photograph that was authenticated and sold as a PSA, TYPE I, period, exemplar by my company on eBay.

The first poster is 100%, absolutely correct. I have indeed made an error and admit to the oversight in misdating this photograph. After looking at this photograph once again, the photograph should have been classified as a TYPE II. The "image" is from the early 1940's period but the photograph itself is a re-strike, made and issued in a later period by Acme Newspictures, in this case, 1951. I apologize for any confusion this might have caused.

With that said, I have already contacted the high bidder of the photo that an error was made. Since the photo has already been paid for and shipped from my office last week, I have instructed the buyer that upon receipt, the photo be returned to me for a full refund including all shipping charges. The PSA letter will be destroyed and a new PSA COA with the correct, TYPE II designation and dates will be assigned to it.

I and PSA as well, take much pride in striving to being 100% accurate in the photograph examination and authentication process. Nothing less should be acceptable. However, I, like everyone, am human and if, and when an error or problem is made, I will always do my best to address the issue swiftly and immediately.

If anyone has any further questions on this or any other matter, please, never hesitate to contact me directly at hyee@mindspring.com. I will be attending the National in Chicago this summer and I will also stop by Leon's annual Network 54 dinner (as he knows I owe him several shots of his favorite). I will be there to mingle and look forward to discussing collecting vintage photography with anyone who is interested in this wonderful genre of our hobby. A great summer to you all !

Best Regards
Henry Yee
hyee@mindspring.com"

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[Hankphenom]

...in my opinion. And what exactly is the "Type I photo BS" that we are supposedly laying to rest here? If this is the best example of a misclassification that can be presented, then that's the best endorsement of the system I can imagine. This is a beautiful first generation vintage photo of Yankee Stadium, and neither the tag nor the LOA claim that the image in the photo represents a contemporary event. This is a terrific vintage collectors item, and anybody who picks this up for the typical $5-10 price of a type II photo is getting a steal. As a collector and dealer in vintage photos, I find the Yee/Fogel classification system, though not perfect, invaluable. Slabbing and grading are another matter altogether.
Hank Thomas

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

...in my opinion. And what exactly is the "Type I photo BS" that we are supposedly laying to rest here? If this is the best example of a misclassification that can be presented, then that's the best endorsement of the system I can imagine. This is a beautiful first generation vintage photo of Yankee Stadium, and neither the tag nor the LOA claim that the image in the photo represents a contemporary event. This is a terrific vintage collectors item, and anybody who picks this up for the typical $5-10 price of a type II photo is getting a steal. As a collector and dealer in vintage photos, I find the Yee/Fogel classification system, though not perfect, invaluable. Slabbing and grading are another matter altogether.
Hank Thomas

What are you talking about, Hank? It is not a "first generation" photo; as Henry says above, it is a restrike.

And if PSA cannot correctly date a photo to within two years in this extremely simple case, how do you suppose they do it with a blank-backed photo? Photo printing techniques and materials did not significantly change from the late teens through the thirties. No blank-backed photo can be dated to within a two-year period in that range of years.

[thecatspajamas]

If I'm understanding him correctly, he's saying "first generation" because the photo was printed from the original negative. "Re-strike" also implies it was printed from the original negative, but in a later period. A "second generation" photo would be printed from a duplicate negative, not the original negative. The terms "first generation" and "Type 1" are not synonomous. All Type 1's are first generation, but all first generation are not Type 1's. I hope that makes sense.

David, can you give an example of a blank-backed photo authenticated as Type 1 by PSA? I was just scanning through Yee's completed listings (since they have a high concentration of PSA-authenticated photos), and the only ones designated as Type 1 that I saw were news photos with various stampings and captions on the back.

[David Atkatz]

Lance, my complaint is not with PSA per se; it's with the impossibility of anyone's dating a photo to within two years. "Type I" photos are offered at every major sports auction, many with no date information. Go, for example, to the Heritage Auction site, and check their past auctions. You'll find many, many photos, all offered as type I (and many certified by PSA), with no date info on the reverse.

[Hankphenom]

...is that "first generation" is a print made from the original negative, which this certainly looks like. That says nothing about WHEN it was made, which is why I added "vintage," which this certainly also is. As for blank-backed photos, unless there is something on the front or some other provenance that proves to me it is a vintage photo, I would never buy it and certainly not sell it as such. Just because there's a system at work in the marketplace, it shouldn't lull anybody into abandoning their own expertise and common sense. "Buyer beware" still applies here as everywhere else. But Henry's system and book brought some much-needed organization to this area of the hobby, and until someone comes up with a better one, it will continue to be followed. Just because you can find an example or two where it was misused doesn't negate it's usefulness in many thousands of other instances. And if you don't agree with somebody's classification, don't buy it. Simple as that. That's what I'm talking about.
Hank Thomas