Photograph Authentication: Am I right or Wrong?

[Johnphotoman]

Question on Photograph Authentication Services. Type or classifications 1,2,3,4. from PSA. How is this for confusion? I have over 100 baseball photos, that I have been told are type 3, and there is not much value in them because most people want Type 1. Ok, this is not about the value, but one day who knows. Now for sure, the photos are from the 1940s 1950s. The images are the 1940S on most. See my post 1/28/2022...vintage baseball photographs, for info on photos. Stay with me, Type 3 because my photos have what is called, facsimile signature or name on them.
Type 3 are a 2nd generation photograph developed from a duplicate negative. Again a duplicate negative, and not the subject, not the photo but a second negative. Why, do I say this...for my photos they would take the subject, the picture of the ballplayer, and add the name to the photo take a new picture of it thereby creating a second negative. Notice the new picture are not from a duplicate negative, but an original. By the way, all duplicate negatives are of inferior quality to the original, this is why Type 3 is of lesser value.
Type one versions are 1st generation photos, developed from an original negative within two years of the subject on the photo. So I then can say my photos are type1. Because they are a first-generation negative, not a duplicate negative. It does not matter that it was a picture of a picture, as so as you take a new picture and print it out with the original negative within two years, it then becomes a Type 1 ... Am I wrong or Right? Thanks, John.

[Bicem]

Yes.

[D. Bergin]

No,

Based on PSA's explanations, a photo of a photo IS a duplicate negative. So Type III......or type IV if created more then two years after the original image was taken.

It's all pretty silly and arbitrary anyways. The idea that any Type III is always inferior to a Type I, is pure bunk. Most publicity and promotional studio shots and premiums from the first half of the 20th century are not technically Type I's, although they are often described as such.

Many are sought after by collectors.

The work done on them is often far superior then plenty of Type I shots that you might see offered from press archives.

As always it depends on the subject of the photo, the quality of the print, the age of the print and many other factors as far as value or desirability goes.

[Johnphotoman]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

No,

Based on PSA's explanations, a photo of a photo IS a duplicate negative. So Type III......or type IV if created more then two years after the original image was taken.

It's all pretty silly and arbitrary anyways. The idea that any Type III is always inferior to a Type I, is pure bunk. Most publicity and promotional studio shots and premiums from the first half of the 20th century are not technically Type I's, although they are often described as such.

Many are sought after by collectors.

The work done on them is often far superior then plenty of Type I shots that you might see offered from press archives.

As always it depends on the subject of the photo, the quality of the print, the age of the print and many other factors as far as value or desirability goes.

Yes, I agree on being pretty silly, that's why the question...But wait what I am saying... the photos I have were all done at the same time as the originals without the names on them., and within the two-year window. That is to say the original and the ones I have were done at the same time or again within the window of two years, from that I say Type 1and, not type 3> Thanks, John. PS question for you... would you say I have type 1 or 3. There are type 3 because someone added the name...common now!

[Johnphotoman]

Type I – A 1st generation photograph, developed from the original negative, during the period (within approximately two years of when the picture was taken).
Type II – A photograph, developed from the original negative, during the period (more than approximately two years after the picture was taken).
Type III – A 2nd generation photograph, developed from a duplicate negative or wire transmission, during the period (within approximately two years of when the picture was taken).
Type IV – A 2nd generation photograph (or 3rd or later generation), developed from a duplicate negative or wire transmission, during a later period (more than approximately two years after the picture was taken).
Type 1 photographs are the most desirable and valuable of the four photograph types because of their vintage and originality.

Many Type 4's were issued after 1970, either for latter-era publication of earlier original images or for the general public consumption.

Duplicate negatives are produced by taking a photograph of an existing original photograph thereby creating a second negative that is of inferior quality to the original

All photograph types are collectible; a Type 3 photograph of a Hall of Famer Mickey Mantle may be worth considerably more than a Type 1 photograph of a common player from the 1920's.


Let's say in 1947 I am a photographer and have a new project to take pictures of baseball players. The person who hired wants the names on photos. I go and take said photos, print them out. Now I will have to add the names to photos, much like the ones I have. The only way to do that was to make a photostat of the original photo and add a name, now you make a new negative and print out the new photo with the name on them. But these would be a Type 3 photo and not a Type 1. Do you see where all this going?

I forgot to say that I did not mean to imply this was the only way to put names on photos, but this is what all the people I have talked to said it was done. Had to use 2nd generation negative. But I know better, as some had aready said. Thanks John

[bn2cardz]

Just because there is text on the image, it doesn't necessarily mean it was from a duplicate negative. The text could be written directly to a glass negative during the processing of the image.

[Johnphotoman]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

Just because there is text on the image, it doesn't necessarily mean it was from a duplicate negative. The text could be written directly to a glass negative during the processing of the image.

Exactly, but all the so could experts I have talked to want to say they are Type 3 because of the text on the photos... please look at my post about this and tell me what you think, i could use all the help I could get. Thanks, John.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by Johnphotoman

Exactly, but all the so could experts I have talked to want to say they are Type 3 because of the text on the photos... please look at my post about this and tell me what you think, i could use all the help I could get. Thanks, John.

Just because a duplicate negative was used to print a photo within the (arbitrary) 2 years does not erase the fact that it was a duplicate negative.
There is no way that a photographer (or his boss) would alter an original negative and risk losing it by screwing up while adding text.
It sounds like you are not satisfied with expert information and just you want someone to tell you that they are Type 1 photos.

They are all Type 1 photos. Happy now?

[prewarsports]

Sometimes photos with text can be Type 1 by the PSA standard, it has to be evaluated on a photo by photo basis. There were techniques that could be done to negatives to create a finished product that looks like it "should" be a Type 3, but it is still off the original negative. Same with composites. Underwood and Underwood used trays for 4x5 inch negatives that could lay two of them side by side and crease a two-part composite photograph each of which is a Type 1 photo, Bain had a similar device. Saying everything with text or writing on the front is a Type 3 is generally safe, but there are exceptions to the rule.

Modern photography (when you start to get into digital and color technologies of the 1990's and early 2000's) make the debate between Type 1-2-3-4 of the vintage era look like a cake walk!

[Johnphotoman]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

Sometimes photos with text can be Type 1 by the PSA standard, it has to be evaluated on a photo by photo basis. There were techniques that could be done to negatives to create a finished product that looks like it "should" be a Type 3, but it is still off the original negative. Same with composites. Underwood and Underwood used trays for 4x5 inch negatives that could lay two of them side by side and crease a two-part composite photograph each of which is a Type 1 photo, Bain had a similar device. Saying everything with text or writing on the front is a Type 3 is generally safe, but there are exceptions to the rule.

Modern photography (when you start to get into digital and color technologies of the 1990's and early 2000's) make the debate between Type 1-2-3-4 of the vintage era look like a cake walk!

I could not agree more. This is some of the proof I have, in the production of the print. In my opinion, they are not type 3 because of the text on photos. But I spoke to quite a few that just dump what I have into type 3 just because they have text on photos. This is bad for collecting. I must also apologize I did not mean to make this about how I want them to be Type 1. If anyone will go back and see my other post they would see where I was going with all this. I am sorry. Thanks to all John.

[Johnphotoman]

No. Not happy at all, it never was about what Type of photos 1,2 3,... I have,! But what kind of photos do I have. Where did they come from, who was the photographer, and more? This is all about the hunt, but I was trying to make a point...every expert I talked to, would say they are Type 3 and just blow me off.
It is like if they are not Type 1, they did not want to talk. Ok, all but one. But I have to say, he finally went there. If I ever do decide to sell, I want as much money as I can get. And that would mean Type 1. I would like to know what I have over if they are Type 1 or not. Yes, I have a very good idea, but I do not want to say on account I do not want to taint what others think, or even know. I believe it's what you like over Type 1,2 or 3.
But every conversation just pulls in what type there are, and not what they are. I would bet if I could prove to the experts that I have spoken to, that my collection is all Type 1...they would take more interest in them.
I started this research back in 1976/77...I want to tell you people were rude back then, many wouldn't even give you the time of day..Today there are many people who are willing to share their knowledge and be very happy to doing so. Thanks to all, John, Oh, and yes just for the record they are Type 1. At least what I know about them.

[rand1com]

Originally Posted by Johnphotoman

No. Not happy at all, it never was about what Type of photos 1,2 3,... I have,! But what kind of photos do I have. Where did they come from, who was the photographer, and more? This is all about the hunt, but I was trying to make a point...every expert I talked to, would say they are Type 3 and just blow me off.
It is like if they are not Type 1, they did not want to talk. Ok, all but one. But I have to say, he finally went there. If I ever do decide to sell, I want as much money as I can get. And that would mean Type 1. I would like to know what I have over if they are Type 1 or not. Yes, I have a very good idea, but I do not want to say on account I do not want to taint what others think, or even know. I believe it's what you like over Type 1,2 or 3.
But every conversation just pulls in what type there are, and not what they are. I would bet if I could prove to the experts that I have spoken to, that my collection is all Type 1...they would take more interest in them.
I started this research back in 1976/77...I want to tell you people were rude back then, many wouldn't even give you the time of day..Today there are many people who are willing to share their knowledge and be very happy to doing so. Thanks to all, John, Oh, and yes just for the record they are Type 1. At least what I know about them.

If you can't get any accepted photo expert to say they are Type 1 you will never be able to sell them as Type 1. Sounds like you have been trying for 40+ years to prove they are Type 1 with zero success. There is likely a reason for that.

Just like if I get an autograph in person and know it is authentic but the autograph experts will not authenticate it, I cannot hope to sell it for its real value.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

Just because there is text on the image, it doesn't necessarily mean it was from a duplicate negative. The text could be written directly to a glass negative during the processing of the image.

Correct. I was going to say that. The OP should post some images.

Also, age is also important to value. And old second-generation photo can have vale.

[drcy]

I just looked at the other thread. They are likely type III. It's a nice collection, and photos with images used on the cards should bring a premium.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by drcy

I just looked at the other thread. They are likely type III. It's a nice collection, and photos with images used on the cards should bring a premium.

John,
I know you are new to net54...
David's expertise when it comes to photos is certainly one of the most educated on net54.
If it were me looking for answers, David is the Answer Man!

[Johnphotoman]

Thanks to all, I am not selling now, but someday. Right now I am putting together photos with the bb cards that match. It is a lot of fun. I just think they are cool. All I wanted from the people I talked to was...what were they, who took them, and in what year, not what type of value they have.

Yes, value always comes into play, but it is about the fun of the hunt. That being said, I have people who have first knowledge about collection these..
and said they are, either Premium Press Photos, Team Issue Photo, Player Picture Pack Photo issued sold at Stadium. I Was told that they were not mass-produced. And that not many were produced, a limited number making them rare.

The years were most likely the 1940s and 1950s because of the style. I have even purchased some more photos like the ones I have that are not in my collection. They are hard to find. I can find baseball cards that match the photos much easier. Thanks John.

[Johnphotoman]

Originally Posted by drcy

I just looked at the other thread. They are likely type III. It's a nice collection, and photos with images used on the cards should bring a premium.

Thanks for all the info, but I still do not understand what makes them type 3. I just want to understand the types of photos at this point. Because if it is the text on them, who am I to believe, the one who says the text on photos makes them a type 3. Or the one who says just because there is text on photos does not make them type 3.

If it is age, well they have been in my family since 1965. And I have had people tell me some of the photos- are definitely from the 1940s because they have collected them first hand, around that time, or someone in their family did pick them up in the 1940s. So what makes them type 3? Thanks John.

[drcy]

I don't doubt their age, and assumed they were vintage. Type III means they're period.

As I've seen these types of photos before, I assumed they were the type where you bought them or the negatives from a catalog, and the negatives were likey copy negatives.

I actually don't know, and was just glancing at the photos. Is it possible they or some of them are Type 1. Yes, that's possible.