August Pick Ups

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Butch7999

B) Some black-&-white film will see red as black, and blue (even dark blue) as grey.

Well that explains a few things, both here and with other confusing b/w images I have seen. Thank you VERY much for that added insight. This tidbit made it onto a sticky note on my "wall of reference"

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

Mark,
IDK, but you are certainly correct that the clarity is much better in the second photo that features Vandy and Babe only. Lance called this photo a Type II as I recall...

The photo that I just bought (Vandy, Babe, Derringer) is supposedly a Type I and the slug indicates that it is from 1938. I'll know more when it's in hand. I really like the image regardless....

Type I vs. Type II shouldn't necessarily speak to image quality, as both are necessarily printed from the original negative. The one I sold is a Type II because it was printed some 20 years after the event, when UPI re-issued a slew of images following the merger of United Press and International News in 1958. It was still printed from the original negative, so the image quality should be identical to a Type I, but being that the print was produced well after the original event, it doesn't qualify as a Type I.

Your more recent acquisition, although a Type I produced in the period, appears to have been shot by a less-skilled photographer or, as Butch noted, one using lesser-quality film and equipment (or both). Looks like there must have been a number of photographers popping off shots of Vandy's meeting with Babe!

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Well that explains a few things, both here and with other confusing b/w images I have seen. Thank you VERY much for that added insight. This tidbit made it onto a sticky note on my "wall of reference"



Type I vs. Type II shouldn't necessarily speak to image quality, as both are necessarily printed from the original negative. The one I sold is a Type II because it was printed some 20 years after the event, when UPI re-issued a slew of images following the merger of United Press and International News in 1958. It was still printed from the original negative, so the image quality should be identical to a Type I, but being that the print was produced well after the original event, it doesn't qualify as a Type I.

Your more recent acquisition, although a Type I produced in the period, appears to have been shot by a less-skilled photographer or, as Butch noted, one using lesser-quality film and equipment (or both). Looks like there must have been a number of photographers popping off shots of Vandy's meeting with Babe!

Lance,
Thanks for the insight!

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Type I vs. Type II shouldn't necessarily speak to image quality, as both are necessarily printed from the original negative.

This is where the 'Type' designations get confusing and why I couldn't give a flip about it (yes, bad pun). Most photo collectors I know are interested in the following, and always have been. If you could get a sharp, well-composed print of something you were interested in, and it was printed from the original negative at around the time the photo was taken, then you were happy. And if it was printed yesterday, but would look good on your wall and the price was fair, then you were still happy. Now a 'Type 1' designation within a plastic holder makes up for problems that in the past wouldn't have been acceptable.

• image clarity and composition
• subject
• date printed (either specifically or general)

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Runscott

This is where the 'Type' designations get confusing and why I couldn't give a flip about it (yes, bad pun). Most photo collectors I know are interested in the following, and always have been. If you could get a sharp, well-composed print of something you were interested in, and it was printed from the original negative at around the time the photo was taken, then you were happy. And if it was printed yesterday, but would look good on your wall and the price was fair, then you were still happy. Now a 'Type 1' designation within a plastic holder makes up for problems that in the past wouldn't have been acceptable.

• image clarity and composition
• subject
• date printed (either specifically or general)

The Type system is basically just shorthand for when and how a photograph was printed, and shouldn't speak to the quality of the image at all. I think there are definitely "good" Type 1 photos and there are "lousy" Type 1 photos. There is still a judgement call to be made with regard to aesthetics. I would agree that anyone who is allowing a Type designation and plastic holder to make up the difference between lousy and good is going to have a hard time building an aesthetically pleasing collection, even if all of their photos technically fall into the Type 1 category.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Runscott

This is where the 'Type' designations get confusing and why I couldn't give a flip about it (yes, bad pun). Most photo collectors I know are interested in the following, and always have been. If you could get a sharp, well-composed print of something you were interested in, and it was printed from the original negative at around the time the photo was taken, then you were happy. And if it was printed yesterday, but would look good on your wall and the price was fair, then you were still happy. Now a 'Type 1' designation within a plastic holder makes up for problems that in the past wouldn't have been acceptable.

• image clarity and composition
• subject
• date printed (either specifically or general)

It doesn't get confusing at all. In fact, it provides clarity. I would much rather have a TYPE 1 IMAGE OF A BABE RUTH ROOKIE PRINTED IN 1915-16 -rather than the same image printed off the original negative in 1919 when he started breaking records for example. It is a no brainer. If peeps don't want to use the system fine. But make no mistake, it makes a difference to the high end collectors and the value. A BIG DIFFERENCE and rightfully so. I could care less about the slabs(most wouldn’t either so I don't know why this always comes up) but I do care about what the piece is and it is MOST MINUTELY DEFINED WITH THE TYPE SYSTEM. YES… those were CAPS

[Runscott]

Ben, you and Lance are the same sort of collector as myself, and I understand your points (always did), just as I know you understand mine.

[Lordstan]

My question to Scott about the 2 pics in question was based on the fact that image quality can often be one factor in determining which type category the image falls in. In my experience type 1, because they come off the original negative, are usually much sharper appearing. Type 3s, because they come from copy negatives or wire transmission, are often less clear and sharp. That is the differentiation I was alluding to. Obviously a type 2 will maintain the original clarity as it's made from the original negative. I made the mistake of assuming the second photo was a type 1 because of image quality. If I had seen the UPI stamp, I would've known it wasn't. I do realize that clarity and sharpness are not the only factor in determining type. Certainly, as has been suggested, the first picture could have been taken by a less skilled photographer with inferior equipment.

As I've stated before, I like the type system, as, IMHO, it allows for some improved clarity and consistency of identification. I also think it has its flaws in both its definitions and implementation by third party graders.

Ben's example is a perfect one to see the flaws. A picture of Ruth from 1916 printed in 1919 may very well be classified as a Type 1 as the definition reads within approx 2yrs window of event. To me this is a flaw in the system's definitions. This situation is also a set up for a flaw in implementation by TPAs. Because the definition is open ended, it allows the TPA to use their discretion. Would this photo example be judged a type 1 if submitted by a big dollar customer/auction house but a type 2 if submitted by a random private individual? I don't know the answer, but certainly there are examples both in the card and autograph ends of the hobby, that would suggest such favoritism could happen.

Most of this discussion is academic. Great photos are great photos regardless of type. The main thing that changes is the amount of monetary value they hold. I guess if I were spending thousands of dollars on a photo, I would want to preserve and protect that value as well. None of all this takes away from the fact that they are both great photos of JVM and Babe.

Best,
Mark

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

My question to Scott about the 2 pics in question was based on the fact that image quality can often be one factor in determining which type category the image falls in. In my experience type 1, because they come off the original negative, are usually much sharper appearing. Type 3s, because they come from copy negatives or wire transmission, are often less clear and sharp. That is the differentiation I was alluding to. Obviously a type 2 will maintain the original clarity as it's made from the original negative. I made the mistake of assuming the second photo was a type 1 because of image quality. If I had seen the UPI stamp, I would've known it wasn't. I do realize that clarity and sharpness are not the only factor in determining type. Certainly, as has been suggested, the first picture could have been taken by a less skilled photographer with inferior equipment.

As I've stated before, I like the type system, as, IMHO, it allows for some improved clarity and consistency of identification. I also think it has its flaws in both its definitions and implementation by third party graders.

Ben's example is a perfect one to see the flaws. A picture of Ruth from 1916 printed in 1919 may very well be classified as a Type 1 as the definition reads within approx 2yrs window of event. To me this is a flaw in the system's definitions. This situation is also a set up for a flaw in implementation by TPAs. Because the definition is open ended, it allows the TPA to use their discretion. Would this photo example be judged a type 1 if submitted by a big dollar customer/auction house but a type 2 if submitted by a random private individual? I don't know the answer, but certainly there are examples both in the card and autograph ends of the hobby, that would suggest such favoritism could happen.

Most of this discussion is academic. Great photos are great photos regardless of type. The main thing that changes is the amount of monetary value they hold. I guess if I were spending thousands of dollars on a photo, I would want to preserve and protect that value as well. None of all this takes away from the fact that they are both great photos of JVM and Babe.

Best,
Mark

Actually Mark,

My example of Ruth was to show that the 2 year window is very necessary at times. A mantle 1951 printed in 1951 would be much more valuable to me than the same image printed in 1956(when he won the triple crown and was the biggest star of the time) and reproduced many times over.

Both examples show why they settled for 2 year window(approx) and justifiably.

The execution of the type system by PSA is pretty good I would say. Of course there will be misses at times like there are in autographs, cards ect(no matter if is a tpa or a so called single expert we are talking about). But I think they are very accurate. Nobody better than Henry Yee after all.


Ben

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Nobody better than Henry Yee after all.


Ben

Please, please, please...don't get me started. I have been doing so well