Photograph Authentication: Am I right or Wrong?

[Bicem]

Yes.

[D. Bergin]

No,

Based on PSA's explanations, a photo of a photo IS a duplicate negative. So Type III......or type IV if created more then two years after the original image was taken.

It's all pretty silly and arbitrary anyways. The idea that any Type III is always inferior to a Type I, is pure bunk. Most publicity and promotional studio shots and premiums from the first half of the 20th century are not technically Type I's, although they are often described as such.

Many are sought after by collectors.

The work done on them is often far superior then plenty of Type I shots that you might see offered from press archives.

As always it depends on the subject of the photo, the quality of the print, the age of the print and many other factors as far as value or desirability goes.

[Johnphotoman]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

No,

Based on PSA's explanations, a photo of a photo IS a duplicate negative. So Type III......or type IV if created more then two years after the original image was taken.

It's all pretty silly and arbitrary anyways. The idea that any Type III is always inferior to a Type I, is pure bunk. Most publicity and promotional studio shots and premiums from the first half of the 20th century are not technically Type I's, although they are often described as such.

Many are sought after by collectors.

The work done on them is often far superior then plenty of Type I shots that you might see offered from press archives.

As always it depends on the subject of the photo, the quality of the print, the age of the print and many other factors as far as value or desirability goes.

Yes, I agree on being pretty silly, that's why the question...But wait what I am saying... the photos I have were all done at the same time as the originals without the names on them., and within the two-year window. That is to say the original and the ones I have were done at the same time or again within the window of two years, from that I say Type 1and, not type 3> Thanks, John. PS question for you... would you say I have type 1 or 3. There are type 3 because someone added the name...common now!

[Johnphotoman]

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).
Type 1 photographs are the most desirable and valuable of the four photograph types because of their vintage and originality.

Many Type 4's were issued after 1970, either for latter-era publication of earlier original images or for the general public consumption.

Duplicate negatives are produced by taking a photograph of an existing original photograph thereby creating a second negative that is of inferior quality to the original

All photograph types are collectible; a Type 3 photograph of a Hall of Famer Mickey Mantle may be worth considerably more than a Type 1 photograph of a common player from the 1920's.


Let's say in 1947 I am a photographer and have a new project to take pictures of baseball players. The person who hired wants the names on photos. I go and take said photos, print them out. Now I will have to add the names to photos, much like the ones I have. The only way to do that was to make a photostat of the original photo and add a name, now you make a new negative and print out the new photo with the name on them. But these would be a Type 3 photo and not a Type 1. Do you see where all this going?

I forgot to say that I did not mean to imply this was the only way to put names on photos, but this is what all the people I have talked to said it was done. Had to use 2nd generation negative. But I know better, as some had aready said. Thanks John