Help Defining "Type 1 " Photo ; is this one ?

[Bicem]

Post the back.

[MikeGarcia]

Originally Posted by Bicem

Post the back.

,,

..the hurried " 10 / 8 / 35 '' is upside down
..I hope this helps... thanks
..

[Bicem]

Type one.

[MikeGarcia]

Originally Posted by Bicem

Type one.

..Thanks ; now I can bid a lot wilder in the Heritage Auction next weekend...banging heads with Tim and Leon gets pricey and my doctor says I'm forbidden to sell any more blood this calendar year. Type one Greenberg it is. Now I've got some PM's to send....
..

[Exhibitman]

You do realize Type I is a marketing construct of PSA and is not applicable to anything other than a PSA certified photo.

PSA Photograph Type Classification
Type I – A 1st generation photograph, developed from the original negative, during the period (within approximately two years of when the picture was taken).
Type II – A photograph, developed from the original negative, during the period (more than approximately two years after the picture was taken).
Type III – A 2nd generation photograph, developed from a duplicate negative or wire transmission, during the period (within approximately two years of when the picture was taken).
Type IV – A 2nd generation photograph (or 3rd or later generation), developed from a duplicate negative or wire transmission, during a later period (more than approximately two years after the picture was taken).

What you've posted certainly looks to be a vintage 1935-issued first-generation photo based on the stamping and the attached slug.

[steve B]

The lack of clarity/contrast must be from the scan then?

It doesn't seem sharp enough to be from the original negative. Copy negative is more likely.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by steve B

The lack of clarity/contrast must be from the scan then?

It doesn't seem sharp enough to be from the original negative. Copy negative is more likely.

Based on the lack of clarity of the tag, i'd say it's from the scan.

I also think there's way more photo's from copy negs out there, then many people realize..........and I don't think there's anything wrong with that, or should have much to do with value, as long as it's of the era, and the photo appears to be professionally done.

One of the biggest flaws in the type system is the use of the phase "developed from the original negative". Most vintage publicity photos are from larger format copy negs, so the graphic artist of the time period can work the photo into it's final presented format. A print from a skillfully cropped and produced copy neg should be almost impossible to tell from the original that came out of the camera.

Whether that Greenberg press photo is technically a "Type 1" or not, I'd guess they'd give it a "Type 1" designation, because that's a can or worms they likely do not want to open up.