Type I versus Type II : I'm a little confused

[prewarsports]

I have been saying on here for the better part of a year or two that the 2 year thing is complete crap. Most original Horner cabinets are photos glued to carboard mounts from about 1910-12 that were actually shot by Horner around 1902-05. So that would make almost all the "original" Horner cabinets Type 2 photos, but of course nobody believes that.

They should just be labeled "Vintage" and "Original Non-Vintage" instead of Type 1 and Type 2. I have a Babe Ruth photo I got a great deal on last year from Henry Yee that was originally shot in 1920 and mine is dated on the back from Spring Training 1924. He sold it as a TYPE 2! Ridiculous, but good for me because I got a $750-$1000 photo for about $150 bucks.

Rhys

[hcv123]

I agree with what seems to be the consensus - the 2 year window is/was an arbitrary measure. As the collecting of photos expands, I think the definitions will change. I guess a line has to be drawn somewhere, but I think 2 years is too tight a window (and often undetminable) - perhaps within the decade?

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by hcv123

I agree with what seems to be the consensus - the 2 year window is/was an arbitrary measure. As the collecting of photos expands, I think the definitions will change. I guess a line has to be drawn somewhere, but I think 2 years is too tight a window (and often undetminable) - perhaps within the decade?

I am a novice at this so indulge me, how is a decade any easier to determine with certitude than 2 years. You have a better chance of being right by a factor of 5 but still?

[hcv123]

Regardless of where you draw the line there exists an identity problem. Even if an image has a date written or stamped, how do we know that wasn't applied later to make it appear as a type 1. While I am unfamiliar with the detail, I am sure some degree (probably not much) of dating can be done using the photographic paper. I was simply suggesting that a 2 year window seems rather tight in terms of suggesting a photo taken in 1921 and printed in 192 is somehow more desirable or valuable than one taken in 1921 and printed in 1929. There is a whole hobby of photography collectors out there, perhaps someone should consult with them. My 2 cents.

[shimozukawa]

.

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by shimozukawa

I believe that at the decade level, available photographic paper and chemicals enter into the equation. Even if a company was selling 1923 paper stock in 1940, the chemicals used in 1940 would be of a different formulation than those used in the 1920s. For the same example, if the chemicals were from the 1930s, they would be the same formulation, but the effect would be different on the paper. Also, exposure technology from the time period would affect how the images came out.

It might be less of an issue with digital photography than film, since printer makers change their ink formulations regularly to bolster sales.

This is similar (in a way) to how the Star Company's cards from the 1980s went from super scarce to not nearly as scarce, overnight. The original manufacturers of the cards sold the machines, plates, paper and processing equipment. As a result, someone could produce the same exact cards... en masse... or at least until they ran out of the original paper... or the original cutting blades dulled out.

OK, so PSA and Beckett have engaged qualified chemical analysts then? I see your point I'm just being the dev's advocate here because we are being asked to take a leap of faith here. Maybe it is all very simple and I have become very jaded, that's entirely possible. I can tell you that in the amount of time that I believe that is spent on any card or photo being graded there is no sophisticated chemical analysis going on most likely.

[baseballart]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

OK, so PSA and Beckett have engaged qualified chemical analysts then? I see your point I'm just being the dev's advocate here because we are being asked to take a leap of faith here. Maybe it is all very simple and I have become very jaded, that's entirely possible. I can tell you that in the amount of time that I believe that is spent on any card or photo being graded there is no sophisticated chemical analysis going on most likely.

I may have respect for PSA photo grading if they are called upon to authenticate the disputed Ansel Adams photos. While I could be wrong, I suspect they won't be called as experts in the case.

Max

[shimozukawa]

.

[autograf]

HRBAKER=JADED

Hard for me to believe they have both 17 year old graders for baseball cards at likely $7.75 an hour AND qualified chemical engineers or analysts to review and determine photo type/manufacturing dates/processes & chemicals used. One word.....puffery.