Can we finally lay the "Type I" photo BS to rest?

[doug.goodman]

It's a scam that most people follow along behind, just like grading.

Doug

[RichardSimon]

More proof that PSA stands for Please Stop Authenticating.
A pat on the back for anyone who can come up with a good definition of DNA.

[Exhibitman]

Did Not Analyze
Daily Naked Avarice
Duly Noted Assumptions
Don't Need Analysis
Dumbness Normally Accepted
Dealers Need Assurances
Dubious Nonsensical Advice
Definitely Not Accurate
Dollars Not Accuracy
Data Not Available
Deny Negate Argue
Doubts Neatly Assuaged
Demands Noncritical Acceptance

PSA:
Paid Silly Analysis
Please Submit Again
Probably Spurious Advice
Presents Stupid Arguments
Plastic Stupidity Antenna
Penis Smallest Always [for the registry awards]
Pompous Smarmy Attitude
Preferred Submitters Abound

PSA/DNA:
Publish Silly Analysis/Deny Nugatory Arguments
Purchased Some Advice/Don't Need Accuracy

[HRBAKER]

David,
It's not about accuracy, we just want an LOA.

[barrysloate]

This hobby is suffering from a bad case of overslabbing. Less plastic would be a really good thing.

Oops...is this photo even slabbed, or does it just have an LOA? Well, either way, there's too much plastic...as well as too many bad LOA's.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

David,
It's not about accuracy, we just want an LOA.

When I was authenticating for an auction house out West the owner of the auction house got into an argument with another member of the authentication team.
The other member of the team had spotted an error in an item that had a COA from a "leading" authentication company for what was a facsimile signature on a Presidential document.
The owner said "I am an auction house, I just need a COA", whether it was an accurate COA did not matter to him.

[Lordstan]

Ok.
Here are my 2 cents.

I don't think there is anything wrong with a classification system for pictures. As Lance stated above very well, I think a system allows people to have more conformity when discussing what types of pictures they have.
I think it is akin to the classification system used for baseball cards (R,F,E,T,M,W, etc). Why would this be bad? It allows people to have some basis to judge pictures for historical significance, rarity and value, among other things.
Now if you want to argue as to the exact definitions of what makes a specific type of photo, I don't disagree. I do think 2 years to be considered original is a bit restrictive. On other hand not everyone agreed with Burdick when he started to classify cards. Heck, not everyone agrees with some of his choices to this day, but his main framework still exists and I think helps collectors.

In general, I am not a fan of Third Party Authenticators, be it for cards, autographs, or pictures. As such, the only time I would grade or authenticate an item, is if I felt it would significantly help the sale price.

I have bought a few things previously from Henry and found him a good guy to deal with. The true measure of a dealer is how they handle this type of problem, when it comes to light.

Now back to scouring ebay!
Mark

[drc]

I think one can say the stadium photo grading is an error by PSA's rules (though the date is correct) and points out some things about news photos (in ambiguous cases (generic player portrait) how can be sure when the image was shot within 2 years).

I never subscribed to PSA's grading rules and in particular wouldn't chose the 2 year window, but that doesn't mean I think the rules are wrong. I'm just not fond of them (how not fond depends on my mood)-- not a fan of black and white categories. However, in my limited experience looking at PSA graded photos, I've thought PSA dated and described the photos accurately, so I have gripe with their abilities.

I just say the stadium photo is an interesting example that rightfully might make some people people ponder about when an image was shot visa vie the photo printed.

[David Atkatz]

I just want to make clear that the point of my post was not to criticise Henry. Rather, it was to point out--yet again--my contention that the photo classification system is absurd. No one can verify to within two years when a "modern" photo was printed. Suppose the photo discussed above was actually taken in 1947, and showed lights, and had no slug on the back. Do you really believe anyone could determine whether it was printed in '47, '48, '49, '50, '51...?

[19cbb]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

It's a scam that most people follow along behind, just like grading.

Doug

Well said Doug, well said!

[Ladder7]

1941 Series, only off by one digit.

[drc]

It's an interesting example.

Most N172 Old Judges aren't type 1 photos, as the images aren't technically first generation. But their collectibility is in their being antique baseball artifacts from the 1880s, not the generation of the image. That's just a side note, not a grand moral statement about news photographs. In ways, baseball cards and original baseball photos are apples and oranges. Most, or at least many, know the image of Honus Wagner used on his T206 Honus Wagner was shot several years earlier. That knowledge clearly hasn't affected its collectibility. But, as I said, a baseball card is different than an Ansel Adams photograph. Baseball cards, by definition, were mass produced commercial items for kids. One would be goofy in the head to assume that every Goudey was hand painted and every Topps was an original photograph. They were sold with gum for in grocery stores, after all

[HRBAKER]

I don't think anyone is maintaining that photos aren't collectible. It is not the collectors that are trying to spoon/force feed these items into categories to enhance their value/collectibility based on when they were shot and printed is it?

[thecatspajamas]

I don't think the issue is (or at least, shouldn't be) the use of Type 1, Type 2, etc. designations for photos. I actually think it is good for photo collectors to have more specific terms to refer to the photos than "modern" vs. "vintage" or "original" vs. "reprint", which can be pretty ambiguous, especially when coming from someone not accustomed to dealing with photos. I would liken it to having specific terms for grading cards like "Very Good," "Excellent," "Near Mint," etc vs. describing them as "pretty nice," "good for its age," "well worn," etc. Nothing wrong with having specific short-hand terms with specific meanings when dealing with photographs. Sounds like most of the backlash though is over the "third party authentication" aspect of it where you're paying someone else to tell you what you should be able to research and determine yourself, which is an age-old argument that seems to extend to every corner of collecting.

Personally, I can see some merit in the holders that PSA uses for the "slabbed" 8x10 photos as they do protect the photo, are much thinner than other photo slabs I've seen, and can actually be matted and framed. Much more appealing to me than the early BGS slabs I got in a mixed lot that are about 3/4" thick and feel like they would kill my dog if I accidentally dropped one on him. I don't much like the idea of having an extra piece of paper to keep track of along with the photo though (as in the sticker + LOA arrangement).

As for this particular "oops" on identifying the photo as a Type 1, I think it's probably just a mistake. Bound to happen sooner or later, and one which I feel sure Mr. Yee would rectify in whatever way necessary.

Just my 2 cents since we seem to be taking up a change collection.

Lance F

[Ladder7]

I hear ya Lance, When I break out the BVGs, my Emma wears this,