The Future of Type I Photos

[Bicem]

Originally Posted by aljurgela

From his native island

Didn't know Beckett used PSA's type system.

[Lucas00]

Originally Posted by Bicem

Didn't know Beckett used PSA's type system.

I think it was probably very early on they used it. And then psa said woa woa no more of that. I'm under the impression PSA has it trademarked. Who knows.

[Exhibitman]

I didn't know Beckett graded photos.

I got my first-ever PSA slabbed photo a few months ago. Heavy and bulky. Not a fan of the slabs. I wish CGC had stuck with its early effort:



They were thin, light, and came three-hole punched for storage in oversized binders.

[GregMitch34]

This is the Mays I got a few day ago. As many have said, it's nice (vital?) to "have a story" and this one is Willie's first return to NYC with the launch of the Mets. I've never seen this exact image before, although a couple with different angles on perhaps the same meetup. And, as others have said, picture quality also key.

https://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1715197703

[Lorewalker]

First, there are some great photos posted here, guys!

I love photos. I think what prevents me from going after them is first, not feeling great about being able to ID a type 1 so that means I am limited to buying it in the holder. Nothing wrong with that but here is where it gets tricky...what do you pay?

Pop is not as relevant because we know pop is going to be considerably low but there is no "price guide" or even a place to go to see sales prices for each team or athlete so we can make an informed decision on what to pay.

And to the person who was grappling with rare vs scarce:

According to Garner's Modern American Usage RARE refers to a consistent infrequency, usually of things of superior quality. SCARCE refers to anything that is not plentiful, even ordinary things that are temporarily hard to find. This means that something can be considered scarce once demand exceeds supply. Nothing can be rare based solely on demand.

[Bicem]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

I love photos. I think what prevents me from going after them is first, not feeling great about being able to ID a type 1 so that means I am limited to buying it in the holder. Nothing wrong with that but here is where it gets tricky...what do you pay?

You can learn through experience, it's really not that difficult once you know what to look for.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Bicem

You can learn through experience, it's really not that difficult once you know what to look for.

Anyway, I would hate to learn on the job and pay type 1 money for a non authenticated photo only to find out that it is not. Did this with cards in the early days and still recovering from those loses.

Being able to buy photos in person could certainly reduce the learning curve but buying online, at this point for me, is just guessing.

[Bicem]

I know you said type 1 in the subject line of this thread but don't overlook other types as well. An early printed photo just beyond two years of when taken (type 2) or a period photo made from an early generation copy negative that is still very clear (type 3) or a photo with both these qualities (type 4) are very nearly as good as a type 1 in my opinion but at a fraction of the price.

Not all type 2/3/4 photos are created equal, you really have to consider how close to type 1's they are or are not.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Bicem

I know you said type 1 in the subject line of this thread but don't overlook other types as well. An early printed photo just beyond two years of when taken (type 2) or a period photo made from an early generation copy negative that is still very clear (type 3) or a photo with both these qualities (type 4) are very nearly as good as a type 1 in my opinion but at a fraction of the price.

Not all type 2/3/4 photos are created equal, you really have to consider how close to type 1's they are or are not.

+1. Would add that 'type' is hype. I far prefer a type 3 ["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)."] team-issued photo of a significant player from his rookie year than a random type 1 photo from the same year.

[Dewey]

Originally Posted by Bicem

I know you said type 1 in the subject line of this thread but don't overlook other types as well. An early printed photo just beyond two years of when taken (type 2) or a period photo made from an early generation copy negative that is still very clear (type 3) or a photo with both these qualities (type 4) are very nearly as good as a type 1 in my opinion but at a fraction of the price.

Not all type 2/3/4 photos are created equal, you really have to consider how close to type 1's they are or are not.

Agreed. I'd never be able to afford some of my favorite photos if they were type 1s. They may not have the same clarity, but for the right historic photo, less clarity and less cost are fine by me. It is not the prettiest, but for this Vintage 3(b) [RMY parlance] from Conlon's lifetime. I was in!

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by GregMitch34

This is the Mays I got a few day ago. As many have said, it's nice (vital?) to "have a story" and this one is Willie's first return to NYC with the launch of the Mets. I've never seen this exact image before, although a couple with different angles on perhaps the same meetup. And, as others have said, picture quality also key.

https://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1715197703

As cool as that picture is to everyone, I just want to get in a time machine and stop them from wrongly using those commas on that sign!!!!!!!!!!!