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

[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

[David Atkatz]

Pardon my misuse of the jargon, Hank. My mistake. But I'll contend that unless you've seen it printed, you can't be absolutely certain it was made from the original negative. You can categorize all you want, but filling those slots--type I, first generation, etc--is no more than a guess. Sometimes educated, sometimes not.

[Hankphenom]

...sometimes it's a guess. Actually, a lot of times it's a guess, and you really have to look them over carefully front and back and take your best shot. As a collector, if I'm satisfied then that's enough. As a dealer, however, I don't ever want to misrepresent and risk losing credibility. But The Yankee Stadium photo would have fooled me, a reminder that there's always more to learn. It's still a great photo, though, and there's no way I'd let it go at the price of a typical Type II print made long after the event.