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

[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.