Difference between Type 1 and Type 2 Press Photos...
 

I am new to photo collecting and was just wondering if someone could please help me out in by explaining the difference between Type 1 and Type 2 Press Photos.

Simply put, Type 1 photos were printed from the original negative within 2 years of the photo being shot. Type 2 were printed from the original negative more than 2 years of the photo being shot.

There has been a great deal of debate in another string of posts here recently about whether 2 years is too restrictive or not, but that is the cut-off as it currently stands. Obviously, if you're selling a Type 2 photo, you will want to provide more info than just the Type. If you had an original 1920's negative, you could technically produce an unlimited number of Type 2 prints tomorrow, but those would obviously be less desirable than a 1930's print that fell just outside the Type 1 timeframe.

Hope that helps.

The problem, of course, is that a) unless the image itself is easily datable, and b) the photo is date-stamped as to when it was printed, no one can really tell whether a photo is type I or not.

But there's no shortage of "experts" willing to sell their "expertise."

730 and 731 days

Funny!! Sad, but true! :(

Maybe they sprinkle it with DNA dust and can divine the 730/731 divide from that.

what happens when there is a leap year?

The "Type" system was proposed by 2 collectors Henry Yee, also a seller, and Marshall Fogel around 2005 in the book "A Portrait of Baseball Photography." The system attempts to categorize and organize pictures by date printed as compared to the date the picture was actually taken.

This is an excellent book, as beside the system, it goes into great detail into various topics about collecting pictures including news company stamps and the time frames they were used, great photographers and their histories, as well as general collecting topics.

About a year ago PSA/DNA and Beckett started offering a service to authenticate and even slab pictures using the system. This has caused an uproar as there is a large anti "Third Party Authenticator" faction in this group of experienced collectors, especially when it come to PSA.

There are many who don't like the system and many who do, both for various reasons detailed in another recent thread. Without getting into this debate again, here are the official guidelines for the different types in the classification system.

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)

Unfortunately many sellers misdescribe the photos they sell, some for nefarious reasons and some because they just don't know. The best advice is this. Buy the picture, not the authentication or seller description, whether they use the type description or not. Good pictures are good pictures regardless of how they are classified or described.

Good luck and welcome to the hobby.
Mark

The simplest thing to remember is Type 1 is original, and the other types are something different. The label also gives the date (date range-- ala 1960s) when the photo was made, so you should know how old is the photo.

In general, if you want to pick up a photo of Ty Cobb or whomever, you'll want to put your hard earned dollars on the Type !s-- the original. Makes sense. Originals are good, right? There's nothing wrong with picking up a type 2 or 3 or whatever, but obviously they won't be the originals nor valued as originals. For the non-type 1s, I would consider who made the photo (AP, George Brace stamp on back, etc), the quality/aesthetics and when it was made (should be listed on the label).

I'm not telling anyone what to do-- but in most any area of collecting, original is the most desirable type. Also, as the originals were made from the original negative, the image will usually be of superior quality. Copies and copy negatives and reprints usually are of lesser quality, often much lesser quality.

David,

Perhaps at the Approximate two yr point, older negatives lose clarity, fade or otherwise degrade? thanks

Yeah.

And pigs might fly.

Type I vs others
 

I in no way claim to be an expert in this field, but I have found that Type II or later wire photos have the caption written in the photo itself, vs a Type I that may or may not, have a glued captioned piece of paper attached to it.
Also, many TypeII's and later seem to have inferior clarity and quality. Many of the Type I's seem to be almost printed from the original negative.

olsport,
You've got a common mix-up in terminology there. A "wire photo" is a photo that was actually sent over the news wire and developed by the machinery on the other end. As you said, the caption for a wire photo is typically embedded in the image on the front (actually part of the image). The wire photo on the receiving end is considered a Type 3 photo if it is within the 2-year period, or a Type 4 if it's in a later period. As you said, the wire photo will almost always be of inferior quality to the original, though some still come out very nice.

The original photo on the sending end is not considered a "wire photo," though this is a common mistake. It could be called a "news photo" or "press photo," but the term "wire photo" should be reserved for photos that actually travelled over-the-wire and were produced by the machinery on the receiving end. You could say that all "wire photos" are also "news photos," but all "news photos" are not "wire photos."

The photo on the sending end would typically be a Type 1 or Type 2, and the one on the receiving end would be a Type 3 or Type 4.

Also, by definition, ALL Type 1 and Type 2 photos were printed from the original negative.

I thoroughly enjoy reading old threads like these.

I wanted to bring up a question on pricing of original type photographs.

With such variance in types how does one price a photo when considering a purchase?

Are major auction house sale results a good indicator of price?
If I were to buy a photo through Heritage auction house could I count on selling it for the same 5 years down the road?

With what I call "niche" categories of collecting I always find that a particular item can be sold multiple times throughout the years and the final sale prices can vary to a great degree. Does this seem to hold true for original type photo's?

One last question.

Approximately when did news agencies start stamping dates on the back of their photo's?

For the baseball photo's ive seen I found it common for photos Circa early 1900's to have their first stamp dated in the 1930s or 1940's. Could it mean this is a later type original? How would you try to date the photos type in such a case.

If anyone can direct me to some books that cover the subject i'd appreciate that.

In some cases there are no type 1's known to exist of a certain photo so sometimes a type 2 what you have to settle with. I have some type 2's that have way better clarity than most of my type 1's. It all depends and like everyone said buy what you like. Theres alot of sellers out there who are representing their photos as type 1's but have not done the research or have a clue what to look for. My best advice is if you find a photo youre interested in post it here so we can help you out. The best book to buy is yee/fogels book for any information you need regarding stamps, paper and everything else.

Most dates on the backs of press photos are secondary file marks. Most of the issuing agencies did not date stamp their photos (except on the paper slug) which makes it tricky if those incriminating slugs happen to "fall off" :)

I've seen date stamps before the 1930s.

As far as pricing goes, it depends what you buy and what you pay. People overpay and underpay for photos, so I can't promise anything on a specific theoretical photo. If, in a bidding war, you pay $500 for a $50 photo, I'm certainly not going to guarantee it's worth $500 in five years. A sad fact of today's hobby is people shill their auctions, and prices are realized prices are too high right now. Show me a specific photo and I'll tell you if I think the price was good. Buy quality originals at good prices. Don't jump on bandwagons (as with everywhere else, the hobby has fads), buy quality, know quality. You learn quality and rarity and pricing by following auctions and looking at photos. It's not something you can learn in a five minute lesson.

I think some stuff goes too high these days, but I also see many quality photos that I think are good bargains today. Some old display photos and display composite photos I think are undervalued or at least at good fair prices. Don't look just at news photos-- look into cabinet cards, panoramas, early display photos, tintypes, etc. News photos are plentiful, while the other areas contain many rarities. I thought many photos in the Legendary Dreier auction were undervalued.

I think the majority of collectors are undereducated and myopic, and simply follow hobby trends and fads. There are rare items that are undervalued because the majority of collectors aren't educated or experienced enough to realize the rarity. Collectors don't get wealthy from artifact investments by following latest trends and fads, but by knowing buying quality and rarity before the rest of the hobby realizes the quality and rarity.

I do think, looking overall at all the photos and not zeroing on one or two, past auction house results are a fair indicator of price. As I said, a specific photo may have been bought at a bargain while another went too high, so look overall at all the photos.

My guide to photos pdf ebook (long download time)

Thanks for the replys gentleman.

I guess I have no choice but to post the photo in question. I apologize to anyone who might currently be looking to acquire this particular item. It is not my intention to draw attention to it. I just need some experienced advice on the particulars.

I am interested in the photo for the pure collectors interest. I own several modern prints of cobb and I think it'd be wonderful to own one of the original vintage prints.

It is advertised as from the "Detroit Press" archives, not sure who the photographer was. It was last sold for $1175 in 2010, it's back up for bid.

The earliest stamped date on the back shows May of 1938 (stamped upside down, faintly hidden behind the attached piece of paper)

http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/g...ps611366da.jpg

http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/g...ps150d5883.jpg

So who can tell me what type it is? If there are any definitive labels or signs to prove it's origins.

My guess would be a type 2 but im not 100% sure. Since thats the earliest stamp on there and im sure you know the photo wasnt taken in 1938 then it more than likely is a type 2 since the clarity is still very nice. Theres other indicators such as paper type which could help pinpoint around when it was developed

Drift,
The value of photos is all over the place, that is what makes collecting original press photos interesting and fresh. No price guides to go by.
In Fogel and Yee's book, they mention the 4 C's, Content, Clarity, Contrast and Condition. Good adivice to follow. Drcy also has a lot of information on his web site.
As some say at buying photos, it is whatever you are willing to pay for it, and makes you happy.

I agree! There is no price book on photos and like you said if you love the photo then thats all that matters. Everyone has their opinion on what they think a photo is worth but its really all about what someone is willing to pay for it like anything else. Buy what you like.

The Cobb image is great, especially with Frank Baker being the other guym but for $1100 I'd want better condition and no image markings. But there's no question it's a great, clear image.

In person, a 1909 photo will be on noticeably thin paper, so you should be able to tell if you get in hand. I'd have to see it in person to tell you if it's original or not, though the image is crystal clear which is a good sign.

There are many original Cobb photos on the market, so you will be able to get an original sooner or later.

I know where the photo is, by the way. I would assume the seller is reliable about identifying originals.

I think it's fair to use the previous sale as a valuation marker.

I forgot to add that date stamps can be added years after, so a photo can be older than the earliest stamp.

Thanks again, DRCY are you saying you know who currently owns the photo? If it is in the hands of an experienced photo collector id also assume the photo is worthwhile.

No, I meant I saw what auction it is in. I don't know who is the consigner.

I'd be confident in the auction house as far as identifying it as original. They handle a lot of baseball photos. If they say it's original, I'd assume it's original.

For what its worth, the Culver archives had several examples of press photos from both the Gilliams Press Syndicate, Brown Brothers and Bain with pre-1910date stamps. The oldest date stamp I have personally seen on a press photo is 1906. However, it was not common practice to start dating images until the 1910's and even then it was up to the individual paper. In fact we know EXACTLY when the Detroit Free started date stamping their photos because the images in their archive not date stamped before 1919 have a "filed before 1919" stamp on the back. I would image some were not stamped but it is an interesting piece of photographic history to see that stamp. That Cobb photo looks like it "could" be original, but it is impossible to tell from a scan and easy to tell in person.

Trying to decide if this is worth sending in to get slabbed

I believe this to be a Type I

Yes it's Type 1. But no need to slab, unless for some reason you feel compelled to do so, and incur the costs.

The problem with this is that those 2 made the difference between a Type 1 and Type 2 photos only 2 years, which makes telling them apart almost impossible. People who collect non-sports photos used a 5-10 year difference. This takes in account that the type of photo paper being used when the picture was taken is no longer in circulation.