Rhys, I agree that non Type 1's should get a little more love. A perfect example of that are artistic Deadball Era composites. This is an Underwood one from 1911 for Opening Day featuring Bender and President Taft, absolutely original to 1911, absolutely not Type 1, but I love it just as much!

Attachment 290638

I was hesitant to post this but am really happy at the responses. A diversity of views; none right or wrong, all representing a continuum of views. And all informed and smart. Cool stuff.

Agreed 100% on the non-type 1's that are period, will be VERY interesting to see where this Ruth rookie composite photo (that I posted in another thread) ends up. Not a type 1 because of how it was produced but still from 1915.

Ruth


Great example too Jim!

And so are pictures of Ruth from 1918 publications.

The "duplicate negative" makes all the difference. Doesn't matter how close to 1915 it was printed if it is of inferior quality due to not being printed from the original negative.

One of the things I've hated to see happen since vintage photos took off in popularity, is all the 'collectors' who are now collecting photos the way cards are collected. Photos are great because of the clarity and composition of their images on the print. It's super-great when you can find a print made from the original negative very close to when the negative was created; however, we can also appreciate great prints made many years later from original negative. On the other hand, it's tough to appreciate a blurry print made from a second-generation negative, then trimmed down to tiny size.

Two enthusiastic thumbs down.

Agreed. In MANY cases (like about 99% of all Ansel Adams prints) there is no such thing as a Type 1, as almost all of his images were struck more than two years after they were originally taken. To educated buyers of his art it does not matter at all. Photos are not cards and I tell people they are similar to game used bats. Working, functional, tools of a trade that now have tremendous value after the fact. There is no right or wrong, just an emerging collectible that is finding its way in the world.

I agree that all the educated opinions are great!

Rhys,

I think that Adams is a good example. Certain people are defining a 'type 1' is a photo printed within a certain period of time after the negative was created. It seems the parameters are arbitrary. If it is printed using the original negative on quality paper it would not seem to matter. Especially if the photographer's stamp is on the back or if there is a blind stamp. If Adams, or any other photographer for that matter, spent a year in the wilderness photographing, several weeks developing then printing a few months later is it not considered 'type 1'or does it fall outside of the arbitrary parameters?

I mean single prints using the original negative, not limited editions. I would also not consider prints made by the Center for Creative Photography which owns the Adam's negatives.

I guess Brett Weston is an interesting consideration. He destroyed his negatives before he died. No one else can create new prints. I believe he said that the photo and the print were his art and he did not want others trying to recreate what he did.

"But Mr. Weston declared that he had destroyed his negatives simply because he alone could print them the way he intended, and he didn't plan to leave them around for someone else to print after his death. And his actions were hardly the whim of an old man. In fact, it was more than a decade ago, in a 1980 monograph on his work, that he first announced his intention to destroy his negatives when he reached the age of 80."

Brett's brother Cole has control of their father's (Edwin Weston) negatives and continues to print those using handwritten instructions from their father.

"henry fails this photo"... you have an exact example of this? What matters is how they purchased it I would imagine. If they purchased, for example, with a guarantee that this will pass psa as a type 1(clearly the seller is taking advantage of a higher selling premium in doing so) and psa does not give it a type 1, then it did fail.

RE: ANSEL ADAMS- I would still want one printed as close to when the shot was actually taken even if both were produced off the original neg.

RE: Composite
Again, a composite is a composite. They do just fine by themselves... not sure what the type system has to do with them. I see this example come up a lot. All you have to do is call it a composite.

Jeff...it will be interesting...:)

I was not saying anything about Henry, who is awesome. I was just referring to a photo that is anything but a Type 1. Its not PSA's fault, but the perception among uneducated collectors who are used to cards and autographs, that's all. I have just heard that saying "Henry failed this photo" on several occasions from collectors who have a vintage Type 3 or an early Type 2 and it makes me laugh. There are many original images by Bain for example that are really nice Type 3 photos. Are they worthless? of course not, but people treat them like a fake signature or an altered baseball card because of the dreaded "Type 3" designation.

Ben is right, if it is sold as a Type 1 and it does not pass, then that is the same as an autograph or card that comes back an unauthentic or fake. Just like cards and autographs though, PSA is just an opinion. I have NEVER seen anything bad that they passed, but there are photos that are Type 1 that they fail or do not render an opinion on to be safe and that is a HELL of a lot better than letting bad things slip into the market as good! I have no issues with PSA and Henry does a fantastic job!

Just to clarify, I think everyone who says Type 1 photos are the best are right, absolutely. They are rightfully what everyone should want. My only comments were in regard to the negative way some Type 2 and Type 3 photos are treated when they are still quality, vintage items. Type 4 photos can suck it :)

But the people that tell you this, did they buy with a Guarantee it passes as a type 1? Or are these just random odd comments? Clearly if they were going for a psa type 1, and didn't get it.. that would be a failure at some level if we all agree a type 1 is best.

I do agree all types of photos have some value like everyone else. I just don't agree that those are drastically undervalued compared to a documented psa type 1 example. 3k for the one originally posted here vs 15-20k for a type 1 is the example given.

I think we can all agree that Type 4 photos can suck it!:)