Type II photos?

Forever Young · #1 06-29-2012, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by repsher

I'm confused.. Are both photos Type 1's? I need that 2nd edition, I can't even find the 1st (for a reasonable price). I'd love to be able to get an electronic version.

Ryan

Please see my response I posted below from Henry. Also, I agree.. an electronic version would rule but who then would pay for all the hours putting it together? You can find them on ebay every now and again relatively inexpensive. It is by far the best resource for baseball photography so I would pick one up if you are serious in collecting photos even if you have to pay a premium. I think I paid 30-40 bucks for the last one I bought(other rone was too worn).

Hankphenom · #2 06-29-2012, 05:18 PM

The second photo is a Type II, according to Henry's book, which has that stamping as dating from 1955-57.

Forever Young · #3 06-29-2012, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

The second photo is a Type II, according to Henry's book, which has that stamping as dating from 1955-57.

Again.. Read My message with Henry's response within this thread. They are both type 1s

drc · #4 06-29-2012, 06:43 PM

How can they both by type Is if only one has typing on it?

drc · #5 06-29-2012, 06:44 PM

(That was a joke by the way.)

thecatspajamas · #6 06-29-2012, 06:49 PM

I think the most important thing to do before diving into serious photo collecting is to learn what goes into the terminology used and the methodology used to determine a photo's "Type," whether you choose to use the term "Type" or not. In the same way that you don't learn algebra just by looking at the answer key, or learn history by staring at a list of events with dates beside them, it would be quite difficult to learn to accurately analyze a photo just by reading the seller's description.

For one thing, sellers' descriptions are often wrong, or misleading (or both), as the sellers' primary objective is not always to educate the buyer. In no way am I including Henry Yee in that group, as his descriptions are typically accurate to a fault. But there are plenty of sellers (including auction houses) that make liberal use of the terms "original," "Type 1," "wire photo," etc when a knowledgable buyer can look at the scans provided and arrive at a far more precise (and accurate) judgement of the photo without being able to physically examine it.

I would love to see a second edition of Fogel and Yee's book if for no other reason than to see more copies of it out there, available and being used. An expanded and refined catalog of stamping styles would also be helpful, but I wouldn't expect any radical changes to the "Type" classification system to be put forth.

Forever Young · #7 06-29-2012, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

I think the most important thing to do before diving into serious photo collecting is to learn what goes into the terminology used and the methodology used to determine a photo's "Type," whether you choose to use the term "Type" or not. In the same way that you don't learn algebra just by looking at the answer key, or learn history by staring at a list of events with dates beside them, it would be quite difficult to learn to accurately analyze a photo just by reading the seller's description.

For one thing, sellers' descriptions are often wrong, or misleading (or both), as the sellers' primary objective is not always to educate the buyer. In no way am I including Henry Yee in that group, as his descriptions are typically accurate to a fault. But there are plenty of sellers (including auction houses) that make liberal use of the terms "original," "Type 1," "wire photo," etc when a knowledgable buyer can look at the scans provided and arrive at a far more precise (and accurate) judgement of the photo without being able to physically examine it.

I would love to see a second edition of Fogel and Yee's book if for no other reason than to see more copies of it out there, available and being used. An expanded and refined catalog of stamping styles would also be helpful, but I wouldn't expect any radical changes to the "Type" classification system to be put forth.

WELL STATED LANCE. I have made many many errors over the years. I have learned to be aware and avoid those who try to create confusion, muddy the waters as they are not doing it for your best interest(believe me). It is definitely no laughing matter. Ask for scans and guarantees that it passes psa as a type 1(if that is what you are going for). If they do not provide either, it is up to you in taking the risk. Sometimes you might hit a home run and sometimes you will lose. I have definitely experienced both. I will tell you, any auction house that doesn't show the backs of any of their photos.. I tend to question as there is no way you can even form your own opinion. Perhaps they want it that way...

Hankphenom · #8 06-29-2012, 08:02 PM

So Henry's book is wrong on the second stamping, which is listed as 1955-57, is that the story here?

Forever Young · #9 06-29-2012, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

So Henry's book is wrong on the second stamping, which is listed as 1955-57, is that the story here?

The story is Henry's book is outdated as it relates to this particular stamp. More has been learned since the book was published.

thecatspajamas · #10 06-29-2012, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Ask for scans and guarantees that it passes psa as a type 1(if that is what you are going for). If they do not provide either, it is up to you in taking the risk. Sometimes you might hit a home run and sometimes you will lose. I have definitely experienced both. I will tell you, any auction house that doesn't show the backs of any of their photos.. I tend to question as there is no way you can even form your own opinion. Perhaps they want it that way...

I would even take it one step further and instead of asking whether PSA would pass it as a Type 1, ask for details about the photo that you know would either confirm or deny it as such. Many of the same sellers who don't know how to use terminology correctly also won't have a clue as to what PSA would verify as a photo's Type, but can provide the necessary details if asked appropriate questions. If they're being intentionally deceitful, they will see that you are fishing for the same details that they are trying to hide and will usually give the same squirmy responses.

Above all, just posting a scan of the back will save everyone some headaches

Forever Young · #11 06-29-2012, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

I would even take it one step further and instead of asking whether PSA would pass it as a Type 1, ask for details about the photo that you know would either confirm or deny it as such. Many of the same sellers who don't know how to use terminology correctly also won't have a clue as to what PSA would verify as a photo's Type, but can provide the necessary details if asked appropriate questions. If they're being intentionally deceitful, they will see that you are fishing for the same details that they are trying to hide and will usually give the same squirmy responses.

Above all, just posting a scan of the back will save everyone some headaches

Yes..but those who don't know what questions to ask and/or new in photos might benefit from the simple psa question. Again, if that is what is important to them. Agree though.. many sellers would not have a clue especially on ebay(but major auctions houses would). Also, ebay sellers might not put the scans on the back simply because it costs more money and would be more than willing to provide a scan if requested. It is the ones that will not that you might want to stay away from

These points are probably pretty obvious to the board members as most everyone here has been to the rodeo before.

Runscott · #12 07-06-2012, 11:42 AM

Quote:

learn what goes into the terminology used and the methodology used to determine a photo's "Type," whether you choose to use the term "Type" or not.
sellers' descriptions are often wrong, or misleading (or both), as the sellers' primary objective is not always to educate the buyer.
a knowledgable buyer can look at the scans provided and arrive at a far more precise (and accurate) judgement of the photo without being able to physically examine it.

Great points, Lance.

Other posts in this thread have mentioned buyers demanding that a photo they win be backed by a guarantee that it pass PSA's 'type I' requirements. I understand such reasoning, but can't imagine sending a photo to a grading company to be hidden in a plastic case. Ask for a backscan, make a purchase decision, send it back if you think there was fraud involved.

I personally have never even opened a copy of Yee's book, but I'm glad to hear everyone else has one - now when I sell my collection, I won't have to worry about identifying each photo by 'type', as you guys can simply look at my super-clear scans and do all that yourselves.

drc · #13 07-06-2012, 11:52 AM

I've never been a fan of the type I, type II, etc classification, but do think Yee's book is good. Even if one plans to never adopt or use the PSA type system, the book has a lot of practical information. The type I et al is just the book's idiosyncratic way of classifying photo types.

Frozen in Time · #14 07-06-2012, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drc

I've never been a fan of the type I, type II, etc classification, but do think Yee's book is good. Even if one plans to never adopt or use the PSA type system, the book has a lot of practical information. The type I et al is just the book's idiosyncratic way of classifying photo types.

The first publication I ever purchased regarding vintage photos was David's "News Service Photographs" which I found to be very helpful in both understanding the general process as well as introducing specific types of photos, paper captions, stampings, etc. His subsequent online (and paper back) offerings have continued to inform.

The second publication I got was the Fogel, Oser and Yee Guide which expanded the topics originally covered by David and provided even more examples of stampings, photographic images, etc.

Although some may not have fully embraced the classification of four Types of photographs introduced in this guide (there are clearly shortcomings in certain instances), I have found it to be the best attempt yet to define photographic origin (and potential value) amongst the myriad of diverse photos that comprise the current marketplace.

One of the joys that I get from collecting (aside from the items themselves) is the education and historical significance associated with each piece that I acquire. Sometimes obtaining this information requires a considerable amount of time and effort (which I embrace) but when a well-researched guide can provide a significant body of information on specific topics I can only view it as a plus for collectors.

One of the essential features in collecting anything is a cogent base of related information and for me the above mentioned guides and publications have certainly enhanced my abilities to more fully understand, appreciate and evaluate vintage photos.

Craig

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
deleted	Lordstan	Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T	6	11-21-2012 07:45 PM
17 Original photos Cedar Rapids Rabbits 1914-1917 relisted on ebay	KNH	Ebay, Auction and other Venues Announcement- B/S/T	2	01-13-2012 04:46 AM
George Burke type one photos	jeffmohler	Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used	4	02-11-2010 12:36 AM
WTB Burke type 1 photos from 1930s	jeffmohler	Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T	0	02-03-2010 05:42 PM
E107 - Type I vs. Type II	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	32	07-17-2005 01:17 AM