Heritage Memorabilia

[Runscott]

Let's ruin that.

[scgaynor]

The Cobb photo is outstanding, but I am confused as to how it received a "Type 1" designation.

It is my understanding that a "Type 1" photo was made from the original negative, which is how I have used the term.

However that particular print was made from a copy neg, which you can tell because of the white marks in the corners. Those white circular marks are where the original photo was tacked down while a mounted camera was used to take a photo of it to produce an additional negative. Sometimes you will see about a 1/4" wide white line where instead of a tack, they used as a long fastener to secure the original photo. I had a book at one time that showed the process. I am guessing based on the type of paper that it was printed at the time, just from a copy neg instead of the original.

I don't have the book handy that describes how PSA determines "types" of photos, but I would think that it would be something other than a "type 1". Maybe there is no classification for a print made from a copy neg. Maybe they just assume that anything that is printed directly from a negative is "type 1". It seems like there should be some distinction though.

I am not trying to rain on anybody's parade that has photos like this, as I have seen other similar ones that are described as "type 1" sold as such, I just don't understand how they get that designation.

[David Atkatz]

The explanation is simple, Scott: The PSA grader had no idea whatsoever what those white circles are. Just another example of the total lack of knowledge and experience of PSA "professionals."

[GrayGhost]

Interesting. Hopefully Henry or someone can come on and explain the designation. Scott's explanation sounds feasible, but again, to me, its just a great OLD PHOTO.

Runscott: I think u need to adjust the second photo. Imaginary wall stuff is great, but I'd be afraid someone would sit on that Random Sol White guide, I think that's what it is

[scgaynor]

Henry just wrote me an email with a really good explaination. I am just waiting to get his approval to post it. Once I hear back from him, I will provide the information.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by scgaynor

Henry just wrote me an email with a really good explaination. I am just waiting to get his approval to post it. Once I hear back from him, I will provide the information.

Curious..why would you not contact Henry first before posting if you have a working relationship with him? It is clear you were unsure Nd he would be the most qualified to answer as he is the authenticator. David, with all due respect..your take on psa is just not true when it comes to original photography.

[Runscott]

Those circles do not look like photographs of objects - they look like negatives of objects, meaning they look like weights/clamps used to hold down a negative.

[scgaynor]

Ben, I was really not trying to call your photo out in particular, my observation was a general one. The photo that you won just caught my attention as one of the first items in this thread. Your photo is killer, I don't think that anybody would deny that, I don't care if it was printed in 1910 or 1950, it is still a photo that any baseball photo collector would want to own.

I am not really in contact with Henry much, it has probably been two or three years since we have cooresponded. He wrote to me after you contacted him. Besides, I had no way of knowing if Henry had seen this photo or not.

I have not heard back from Henry, but bascially his explaination was that the white marks are caused by the holder used when developing the print from the glass plate negative. Since it appears that he was the one that looked at it in person, I assume that he is correct in this case.

I have seen copy negs that were produced using the process that I described earlier, which would explain the existence of glass plate copy negs. Also, both processes would explain why the marks were there in the first place.

Since none of us were there when the print was developed, we can only go on the evidence in front of us and past experience, and in that we can have different opinions and come to different conclusions.