Type 2 photos undervalued?

[Lordstan]

Agreed Adam.
Fortunately, I think we are already starting to see that happen. I think a type 2 of a Mathewson Conlon would likely fetch more than a late in life Type 1 Matty in street clothes with his wife.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

Agreed Adam.
Fortunately, I think we are already starting to see that happen. I think a type 2 of a Mathewson Conlon would likely fetch more than a late in life Type 1 Matty in street clothes with his wife.

Well of course but that has more to do with the image than the type classification.

Let's talk apples to apples here rather than random one offs.

If everything is equal, a type 1 is worth more than a type 2 for obvious reasons.

If you want to provide random examples where you have items that don't fit as below, fine. But to say the system is flawed or that it is nonsense is ridiculous.
At the end of the day, know what you are buying and make your own decision. The type system is great for those who have not put thousands of hours into educating themselves and provides direction/classification. It is what it is. If you don't need it, don't use it.

Hi btw Mark.. glad to see you back.

[JoeyFarino]

Ben- would you personally buy a Type 2 if you liked the image and weren't able to find a Type 1 example?

[doug.goodman]

I buy photos I like, at prices I like, I don't care what "type" they are.

AND

Certain differences between types are (to me) a matter of semantics.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

I buy photos I like, at prices I like, I don't care what "type" they are.

AND

Certain differences between types are (to me) a matter of semantics.

Thank you, Doug as I couldn't agree more.
That being said, I collect what I like, period.

[JoeyFarino]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

I buy photos I like, at prices I like, I don't care what "type" they are.

AND

Certain differences between types are (to me) a matter of semantics.

Well said!

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

I buy photos I like, at prices I like, I don't care what "type" they are.

AND

Certain differences between types are (to me) a matter of semantics.

As long as you know what you are buying(which I am sure you do), this is a great way to collect!

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Well of course but that has more to do with the image than the type classification.

Let's talk apples to apples here rather than random one offs.

If everything is equal, a type 1 is worth more than a type 2 for obvious reasons.

If you want to provide random examples where you have items that don't fit as below, fine. But to say the system is flawed or that it is nonsense is ridiculous.
At the end of the day, know what you are buying and make your own decision. The type system is great for those who have not put thousands of hours into educating themselves and provides direction/classification. It is what it is. If you don't need it, don't use it.

Hi btw Mark.. glad to see you back.

Ben,
First off. Thanks. I am glad to be back.

Second, I don't want to rehash the whole merits of the system discussion. You know my feelings that there are areas that can be improved and I know your's that it is fine the way it is. Be that as it may, I was more agreeing with the idea that the Type classification is not the end all be all of photo pricing. Many other factors play into this. None of this is a shock to anyone familiar with photos.

To answer Joey's question, I do think they are a bit undervalued, but it reflects the current state of supply and demand. As more people get into the photo collecting hobby, Type 2s will become more valuable as the supply of originals dry up.

As always, my advice is to buy what you like regardless of what anyone else thinks and you'll enjoy it regardless of perceived value.

Best,
Mark

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

... my advice is to buy what you like regardless of what anyone else thinks and you'll enjoy it regardless of perceived value.

Exactly.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

Ben,


Second, I don't want to rehash the whole merits of the system discussion. You know my feelings that there are areas that can be improved and I know your's that it is fine the way it is. Be that as it may, I was more agreeing with the idea that the Type classification is not the end all be all of photo pricing. Many other factors play into this. None of this is a shock to anyone familiar with photos.



Best,
Mark

There is really nothing to rehash as I was never really given an argument.
That said.. you are right.. collect what you like.. that is the ENTIRE point.

I happen to like very early in uniform babe ruth and lou gehrig photos that are printed when they were taken off the original negative. Unfortunately, for me, they are very pricey and fall into the type 1 category.

I also like fine wine and a good cigar. The good news is, I like ramen noodles and totinos pizza.

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

The good news is, I like ramen noodles and totinos pizza.

Those are good, but I do prefer bagel bites.

[JoeyFarino]

Wait as buff as ben is and he still eats totinos?????

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by JoeyFarino

Wait as buff as ben is and he still eats totinos?????

Correct... 3 at a time.

[Scott Garner]

The good news is, I like ramen noodles and totinos pizza.

Ben, are you sure that you aren't one of my kids?
How about Super Pretzels and Beef Taquitos?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

I also like fine wine and a good cigar. The good news is, I like ramen noodles and totinos pizza.

Newman's Own (cheese), on sale, add extra mozzarella, canned black olives and fresh Italian sausage. Jalapeños optional. About $8

+1 on the Ramen noodles!!!!

[GKreindler]

RAAAMMMMEEEEENNNNNNN!!

(Every artist's good friend.)

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Well of course but that has more to do with the image than the type classification.

Let's talk apples to apples here rather than random one offs.

If everything is equal, a type 1 is worth more than a type 2 for obvious reasons.

If you want to provide random examples where you have items that don't fit as below, fine. But to say the system is flawed or that it is nonsense is ridiculous.
At the end of the day, know what you are buying and make your own decision. The type system is great for those who have not put thousands of hours into educating themselves and provides direction/classification. It is what it is. If you don't need it, don't use it.

Hi btw Mark.. glad to see you back.

Yep.

And the same goes for Adam's comparison of a Type I to a promotional item - there is a collectibility of promotional items that is a different realm than for photos. And while you may not agree that promotional items SHOULD have the relative value that they do, again, "It is what it is".

I generally only collect original prints that were made near the time the photo was taken, for a variety of reasons: they are more likely to have been printed by the photographer, they are more likely to have the 'desirable' characteristics of aging such as silvering and vintage photographer notes and stamps, and they are more easily sold when it's time to do so. But if the image is ugly, I don't want it even if Conlon carried it around with him stuck in his pocket.