Opinion on this Jimmy Foxx photo

[Forever Young]

As to the Conlon Ty Cobb example, it would be more like having a 1911 copy done from the original negative BY Charles Conlon being worth significantly less than the 1909 version of the photo. Same Paper/Same Photographer/Same Studio/Same Image, Two prices.

---------------------------------------------------------
So what you are saying is they would both be type 1's with sig diff prices? You are leaving it up to the buyers to completely know the difference AND/OR the auction house noting as such(not a bad thing but not everyone will do the research/be willing and I have seen auction houses less than upfront).


In many ways I am not a fan of 3rd party grading but there are definitely positives associated with it....growth of the hobby in other genres(cards and sigs) are testament to that.

I really do see what your saying but my point is that the Types bring a standard and security(through psa) that will grow photos and take to another level if utilized. Again, just my opinion...100 percent would disagree but I like listening to myself type

[prewarsports]

I thought it had to be within 2 years (1 year 364 days or less). I did not realize it was 2 calendar years.

Here is an example, slightly extreme but it applies nonetheless.

Charles Conlon is in his studio and he produces 2 Cobb images from the original Negative in late December 1911. They are being sent to two different publications. He sends one to the New York Times and they get it and date stamp it December 31, 1911. He sends the other one to Maine (a little further away) and they dont get it until Jan 1, 1912 and stamp the file date on it. The New York Times example is a Type 1 worth $50,000. The other one can not be a type 1 because it is more than 2 years from the 1909 date. It MUST be labeled a Type 2 by PSA right? By the rigid standards of some collectors, this is worth significantly less money because it is a Type 2.

Before you laugh, some collectors ARE that stupid and wont want the latter example because it is a type 2 and PSA says it is inferior to a one day older example. This is just an attempt to standardize the hobby of photos and make money off of it. I have no problem with calling a photo "vintage" or "Not Vintage" and coming up with a general standard, but producing any type of rigid rules for a non-rigid collectible to me is arbitrary at best.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

I thought it had to be within 2 years (1 year 364 days or less). I did not realize it was 2 calendar years.

Here is an example, slightly extreme but it applies nonetheless.

Charles Conlon is in his studio and he produces 2 Cobb images from the original Negative in late December 1911. They are being sent to two different publications. He sends one to the New York Times and they get it and date stamp it December 31, 1911. He sends the other one to Maine (a little further away) and they dont get it until Jan 1, 1912 and stamp the file date on it. The New York Times example is a Type 1 worth $50,000. The other one can not be a type 1 because it is more than 2 years from the 1909 date. It MUST be labeled a Type 2 by PSA right? By the rigid standards of some collectors, this is worth significantly less money because it is a Type 2.

Before you laugh, some collectors ARE that stupid and wont want the latter example because it is a type 2 and PSA says it is inferior to a one day older example. This is just an attempt to standardize the hobby of photos and make money off of it. I have no problem with calling a photo "vintage" or "Not Vintage" and coming up with a general standard, but producing any type of rigid rules for a non-rigid collectible to me is arbitrary at best.

Your definition of two years is accurate I believe.
I am not laughing at those collectors at all as the buyer is going to do what he/she wants as a collector and/or if they are smart(not stupid) they might also buy as an investor. Thus, if psa type 1 vs a type 2(no matter how extreme) brings more money, they would and should opt for the type 1distinction I would imagine if they can buy for the same price.
If a collector doesn't want to spend more for a type 1 nor do they care, they always have type 2s and 3s to choose from.
I guess I just do not see how it is bad for anyone; the economy will "boom" with psa certs(national debt disappears-ok now I am laughing), the masses are more educated on what they are buying and I think photos will become more collectible.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

I thought it had to be within 2 years (1 year 364 days or less). I did not realize it was 2 calendar years.

Here is an example, slightly extreme but it applies nonetheless.

Charles Conlon is in his studio and he produces 2 Cobb images from the original Negative in late December 1911. They are being sent to two different publications. He sends one to the New York Times and they get it and date stamp it December 31, 1911. He sends the other one to Maine (a little further away) and they dont get it until Jan 1, 1912 and stamp the file date on it. The New York Times example is a Type 1 worth $50,000. The other one can not be a type 1 because it is more than 2 years from the 1909 date. It MUST be labeled a Type 2 by PSA right? By the rigid standards of some collectors, this is worth significantly less money because it is a Type 2.

Before you laugh, some collectors ARE that stupid and wont want the latter example because it is a type 2 and PSA says it is inferior to a one day older example. This is just an attempt to standardize the hobby of photos and make money off of it. I have no problem with calling a photo "vintage" or "Not Vintage" and coming up with a general standard, but producing any type of rigid rules for a non-rigid collectible to me is arbitrary at best.

The thing is..........I don't think the actual standards they use are that rigid. It's more of a roundabout thing.

Common sense dictates it should still be classified a Type I. Date stamps on press photos should not be the end all be all, especially taking into consideration how haphazardly they were used.

Often they aren't ever stamped with a date.......the tag will be missing, etc... Some photos are often used over and over and have an ascending series of dates on them. On photos when the date was only on the tag, the earliest stamp might be later then when the photo was actually produced because the tag is missing or was removed.

Some collectors will have a "just to be safe" attitude and might pass on a photo THEY consider Type II. Maybe they will pay a bit more just to have all the markings THEY are looking for on a vintage photo. That's just they way it is.

Still IMO Press/Wire/etc.. photos are fairly easy to classify for the most part. I still take issue when they decide to classify studio photos (Conlon's, Burke's, etc..) in the same way.

I don't see how they could possibly take a press photo from the original negative with a date stamp 3 years after a photo was taken and classify it as a Type II photo and then decide ANY George Burke photo is definitively a Type I photo knowing he ran a business making prints of his photos years after he actually took the photo.

I realize some stampings may put them in a certain time span............but really, is there any way of knowing he pumped a print out anywhere near the given time span for their designations?

[prewarsports]

Just to clarify, I agree with Ben for the most part. There DOES need to be some standard in palce to protect people from buying photos made 10-20 years after the fact as originals. I also understand grading and certifying of rare photos as well to protect investments. I just think the standard that is being used (Type 1-3 scale) is not very good and something better could be implemented. I would just call them vintage or not vintage and then have Wire Photos be a category all alone. A vintage photo could be certified as one that was produced by the original photographer on the same type of paper/products as the original and one that is not vintage will be one where the photo was made either 10 years later or on different photo type or quality as the original, or something like that. In the long run, the only thing that already seperates these categories is a paper caption which could have been added years later to an older photo (seen it all the time) anyways.

In the long run most people buy what they like and dont get hung up on it. On the flip side, I have been able to get some GREAT Type 1 photos that were mistakenly described as Type 2's because of a file stamp done years after the photo was produced so I really cant complain.

Hopefully I did not offend anyone, I guess I am just too passionate about my beloved Sports Photos!

Rhys Yeakley

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

Just to clarify, I agree with Ben for the most part. There DOES need to be some standard in palce to protect people from buying photos made 10-20 years after the fact as originals. I also understand grading and certifying of rare photos as well to protect investments. I just think the standard that is being used (Type 1-3 scale) is not very good and something better could be implemented. I would just call them vintage or not vintage and then have Wire Photos be a category all alone. A vintage photo could be certified as one that was produced by the original photographer on the same type of paper/products as the original and one that is not vintage will be one where the photo was made either 10 years later or on different photo type or quality as the original, or something like that. In the long run, the only thing that already seperates these categories is a paper caption which could have been added years later to an older photo (seen it all the time) anyways.

In the long run most people buy what they like and dont get hung up on it. On the flip side, I have been able to get some GREAT Type 1 photos that were mistakenly described as Type 2's because of a file stamp done years after the photo was produced so I really cant complain.

Hopefully I did not offend anyone, I guess I am just too passionate about my beloved Sports Photos!

Rhys Yeakley

--------------------------------
Rhys, I agree with most if not all of what you said too man. I think we are both passionate about this stuff buddy! Maybe that is why we like to agree to disagree....gives us an excuse to talk about it. I think Type 1s are a little offended but they will get over it