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

[mr2686]

This may be apples and oranges, but...with this type of system an Ansel Adams photo of Half Dome printed in 1927-1929 would be a type 1, and anything printed after would be type 2...even though Adams would have printed it himself. I don't believe many people would care what year it was printed as long as it was from the original negative and that Adams printed it himself.

[19cbb]

Originally Posted by mr2686

This may be apples and oranges, but...with this type of system an Ansel Adams photo of Half Dome printed in 1927-1929 would be a type 1, and anything printed after would be type 2...even though Adams would have printed it himself. I don't believe many people would care what year it was printed as long as it was from the original negative and that Adams printed it himself.

Exactly... and this is why this 'scam' is only being targeted to the sports collecting community.

Beaumont Newhall must be laughing in his grave with all this bullshit!

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Mark, many--if not most--of the photos being classified have absolutely nothing on the back--no slugs, no date stamps... nothing. I stand behind my assertion that they cannot be dated with the degree of precision required.

As for the ones that are date-stamped, must I send them to a third party (along with a check) to have the stamps read, or are my amateur reading skills sufficient?

I wonder how photos were collected in those antediluvian times before a few third parties figured out how to skim a bit off the top.

David,
You are correct that some don't have anything on the back. That is exactly why I do feel that 2yrs is too restrictive a time frame for the classification.
Second, who says you have to send it off for third party approval? You're mixing the issues again. The classification system was created at least 5yrs before PSA and Beckett figured a way to take your money for giving their approval.
While it may be that some think the system was created simply to make money from grading, I don't think there is proof of that. I don't know Henry or Marshall personally, so I can't comment directly on their virtues or faults, but I am left with a question for those who are suspicious. Why wait 5yrs to start charging for "authentication?"
The vitriol for the Authentication companies I totally get, as I am no fan of theirs, but I guess I don't understand the distaste for the system itself.
And to answer your question directly, NO I would never send something in to be authenticated by anyone, unless by doing so I would significantly increase the amount of money I cold make. I'm sure this is the same answer many on this board would have.

Originally Posted by murphusa

At the end of the day, all you got is a bunch of old photos. Type 1 only means something to a very small group. The rest of us don't care

Jim,
This is exactly correct! The type system just allows me to communicate with you what and when I think the picture represents in a more succinct form. That is it.

Originally Posted by mr2686

This may be apples and oranges, but...with this type of system an Ansel Adams photo of Half Dome printed in 1927-1929 would be a type 1, and anything printed after would be type 2...even though Adams would have printed it himself. I don't believe many people would care what year it was printed as long as it was from the original negative and that Adams printed it himself.

Mike,
You beat me to the punch as I was about to use this type of example. The "type" classification system, or any other system, if some has a better system to propose, is helpful because the terms "Original" can be, and quite frequently are, interpreted differently. In the world of art photography, Original usually means something very different. It means it was printed by the photographer, from their negative, themselves. There is no consideration to the time when it was created.
Could a picture of Half Dome signed and dated by Adams 1927 sell for more than one signed and dated 1970? Probably yes.
Now the Type system was proposed for Sports photography only as the timing of things is more important in the world of sports collecting. The easiest example showing this is the value of rookie cards.

Great conversation everyone.
Best to all.
Mark

[thecatspajamas]

Mark,
Great reply, and thank you for saving me a bunch of typing as you said pretty much everything that was running through my head. I definitely agree that the Type system is more applicable (and useful) for sports photography, and in particular sports news photos, than other areas of photograph collecting.

I might add that Henry Yee was providing all of the information needed to determine the "Type" of the photos he sold in his auction descriptions long before PSA started authenticating them. His auctions have always had some of the most informative write-ups of photos, particularly baseball photos, that I have seen anywhere. Once the "Type" classification system was devised, he used those terms in his auction descriptions as well, again for several years before being approached by PSA. The Type classification system definitely is NOT something that was devised by PSA or any other TPA as a money-making scheme.

[novakjr]

The one thing I don't quite get is, why does it matter whether or not a random aerial photo of Yankee Stadium is type 1? It's one thing if we're talking about a photo from it's first season or during the building process. I really don't see the difference between a photo that was printed in 1941, 1951 or 2009 as long as it's taken from the negative, when it's not of anything of major significance....Now if we're talking players or some significant event, then I could understand wanting a period printed photo, since properly dating them would almost put them on the same level as cards. At that point you're dealing with originals and reprints, and to what extent and when they were reprinted. Obviously a period piece of Satchel Paige from the '20 would be far more important and valuable than the same photo printed later on...Same for something of Josh Gibson from the 30's. Or other significantly early photos of any player.. Or photos of a perfect game, significant home run, milestone or any defining moment in a players career, or just a famous photo in general. Those I could understand wanting a period original..

To me though, random aerial photos of any Stadium or a photo of some random player scratching his junk in the dugout during his 7th season in the majors in early June after hitting a routine pop-up in the 3rd inning shouldn't matter when they're printed, because at that point they're just photos of almost no historical significance.. Good for display only..Glorified posters..

Trying to date things, just for the sake of dating things when the date really isn't significant makes no sense to me... Maybe I've oversimplified things, maybe I just don't get it though..

[Ladder7]

David,

Agreed, not as significant as a star ball player (Horner's Wagner) or great action shot (Cobb's slide). But a 70 yr old World Series shot is still a significant one. Also two of the biggest records were set season, and still stand. Regardless, I wouldn't want a newer copy of any image and appreciate services such as this and Beckett's. In spite of this snafu.

1936 original;

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by Ladder7

David,

Agreed, not as significant as a star ball player (Horner's Wagner) or great action shot (Cobb's slide). But a 70 yr old World Series shot is still a significant one. Also two of the biggest records were set season, and still stand. Regardless, I wouldn't want a newer copy of any image and appreciate services such as this and Beckett's. In spite of this snafu.

1936 original;

I get the World Series Significance. BUT do we know for sure that this aerial photo is from the World Series, or just a random aerial stock photo (maybe from earlier in the year) that was used to promote the World Series in a newspaper or magazine? There's a big difference.. I'm obviously not talking about the one you posted, but the original picture in question..

[David Atkatz]

Re the thread-starting photo: The Stadium is awfully packed for a regular-season game.

[drc]

As long as the photo is correctly dated and identified, the potential buyer gets to decide what kinds of photo he wants. If a collector is happy with a 1970 reprint of a stadium to hang on his wall, that's perfectly acceptable. I have no reason to argue with his choice. However, if the collector paid extra thinking it was printed in 1930, then he'd have reason to be disappointed to find out it was printed 40 years after.

Saying an Ansel Adams photo printed later by Adams himself is just as nice as the type1 is a reasonable personal collecting/buying choice. However, the Adams photos at sale still have to be correctly described and dated-- in particular as a different collector may not think the before and after photos are equal, and as another collector might think both are nice but will pay extra for the type 1 version.

I should add that I'm not a fan of the later made photos, even if it was hand printed and signed by Ansel Adams. But that's just my personal taste and view. It doesn't mean I won't buy the later version, just that I won't like/value it as much as the type 1.

I'm also not a collector of aerial stadium photos, old or new. Don't appeal to me. Glad I got that off my chest.

[thecatspajamas]

And that's exactly why auction prices vary wildly on photographs. Different aspects matter to different collectors. To some, being able to pin a photograph down to a specific day it was shot is the biggest thrill, especially if they have some connection to that day (their birthday), event (they were at the game or heard it on the radio), or player (a relative, friend of the family, ex-next-door neighbor), because that's about as close as you can get to actually being there and reliving that moment. Sometimes collectors are just looking for clear photos of players from their favorite team, regardless of the context of the shot. There are a lot of variables that go into whether a photograph is desirable (and therefore more valuable), and different factors weigh more heavily for different collectors.

In general, the better quality a shot (contrast, clarity and composition), the more desirable it is when compared to another photo of the same person/place/event. A print made off of the original negative will be of higher quality than one made from a copy negative or wire transmission. Modern prints made from "vintage" negatives do not have the same feel as a vintage print made in the period. All of these lean towards Type 1 photos selling for a premium over the other Types for a similar subject.

BUT, the subject matter often does trump all of that. Clearly significant events and popular players bring a premium, but I have been surprised many times by prices I got for photos of seemingly no-name players on eBay only to find out afterward that the winner is the player's granddaughter, or used to live across the street from the player, or some other variation of that personal connection. Or, a couple of fanatics for a particular team went head-to-head over a photo of a player for whom not many photos exist simply because they like the team. Or some combination of the two. Because the player was not popular, there may not be many photos of them out there period, Type 1 or otherwise, and an avid collector or relative who is having difficulty in locating a photo of them in their baseball uniform may be willing to pay a premium just to fill that hole in their collection.

As you said, I wouldn't expect an outside shot of a field or stadium to sell for more than a photo of a significant event on that same field (and in this case, I don't think it did). Maybe being an aerial shot, there wouldn't be as many available as there are from photographers standing on the ground, but I think in this case, the "Type 1" designation (however incorrect) does not appear to have had a significant impact on the price.

In the end, the buyer has to weigh all of the information available about the photo (hopefully all accurate) and decide what it is worth to them. It certainly won't be the same for everyone, nor should we expect it to be.