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

[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.

[drc]

It is a case where a grading rule was broken, but it's a rule I never agreed with -- So what's the meaning in that? Should I be mad or happy? I don't know. I'll compromise and be sleepy.

[thecatspajamas]

With this particular photo, the notation "(STOCK)" at the top of the slug should probably be a cue that the dating of the photo bears a little closer scrutiny.

As for whether you can determine with 100% certainty whether the print was produced within 2 years of when it was shot, you have to consider each photo on a case-by-case basis. Generic aerial shots of a stadium would be much harder to pin down than player shots from a team that changed uniform styles regularly. Studio photos that don't have the paper captions on the back would be much more difficult to date the print than would news photos. In cases where you can't tell for sure though, just don't use the specific "Type" classification when you describe it. Even PSA leaves the door open for photos that they authenticate to come back with an "Inconclusive" judgement. Not sure how often they actually apply that, but clearly there are some cases where it would be impossible to tell.

As for using the Type classification on modern photos, I really don't see the point. As you said, it would be difficult if not impossible to judge (unless you produced the print yourself), and in 99% of cases there wouldn't be any value increase associated with it anyway.

[David Atkatz]

Gee... I wonder how the "experts" at PSA missed that, too.

[drc]

With specific game action or award ceremony or the like, one can be confident when the image was shot. But there's no question news agencies re-used stock images of player portraits and the like.

[thecatspajamas]

Incidentally, for anyone who was not aware, Henry Yee was one of the guys (along with I believe Marshall Fogel and Khyber Oser) who coined the terms Type 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. for photograph evaluation. He and Fogel were also instrumental in helping PSA when they began authenticating photos for Type classifications, which is a fairly recent addition to their services. I believe he was also heavily involved, at least initially, in the authentication process itself (not sure if that is still the case).

All of that is not to point out any kind of conflict of interest though, but rather to say that Yee knows his stuff when it comes to vintage photography, particularly baseball photos. His auctions have always had straightforward and insightful evaluations of the photos themselves along with his lively narratives of the people and events depicted in the photos. He was doing this long before PSA dipped their toes into this end of the collecting pool, and as far as I can tell from his last couple of auctions, has not shifted his emphasis from telling you how great the photo itself is to "isn't it great that PSA thinks this is an authentic photo." The PSA authentication is basically just a blurb in the description and an added picture.

That said, I think the addition of the PSA authentication, particularly with the thin slabs, has made a difference in the prices realized. I haven't gone through his latest auction as closely, but his previous one, which was smaller in scope and consisted of nearly all PSA-slabbed photos, brought in what a friend of mine called "stupid money." There were a lot of very nice photos, which Yee always has, but the trend seemed to be more towards the thousand-dollar-plus mark than usual. And keep in mind that this is all on eBay, not a major independent auction house (which may help explain the added "oomph" that the PSA name brought to the bottom line when dealing with more collectors who recognize their logo over Yee's name).

[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...?