Arbitrary except for a little thing like quality of the photograph/image. :) The type 1 examples of this particular subject are off the charts in clarity vs this. There are reasons why Type 1 photos are higher valued and more sought after than later prints or prints of lesser quality. Those who state otherwise typically have not so objective motives.
It is a great vintage piece but not close to the quality of a 1915 type 1 example.

Ben - I wasn't suggesting for a moment that they are equal quality. Obviously they are not. But questioning the proportionality of it. If a Type I photo is developed at 10 am and the photographer disregards it and "fixes" something an hour later, hard to understand in the abstract why the latter photo would be considered to be worth a fraction of what he threw in the trash. The fact that Henry Yee reviews something in his office and utters ". . . yeah, Type 1. . . off the original negative and the timing works out" catapults something into a higher realm. Just like when PSA says that cards a 10 and not a 9 all of a sudden it goes from a value of $9,000 to $130,000. If the same Ruth photo was sold by another auction house and they didn't qualify it and just said Type 1, this would have gone for much more and no one would be questioning the quality of it.

PSA could change their who photo classification scheme tomorrow anyway.

Comparing s type 1 is to a psa 10 as a vintage type 3 is to a psa 5(or whatever number) is simply not comparable imo(other than the psa). There is no registry for photos to begin with so they are not bought and sold like a stock market. One glaring difference.
My position on this has not changed even when I owned one photo in the beginning. I will always want off original neg as close to when the photo was originally taken. As a knowledgeable collector the variance in price does not seem too out of sorts to me. I want original paintings, not lithographs. I want original cards, not reprints. I want vintage playing days autographs not almost dead sharpies examples. Several "semi-comparable" :)

Dealers, auctioneers , people looking to flip etc are always looking for as much gray area as they can to make extra money. Psa type system can hinder that for them sometimes so they bash. It is a huge pet peeve of mine. Promote the item fir wgat it is rather than tear down what it's not. I'm not pointing at you at all Nap.. I know you are a relatively new photo collector... and I hear what you are saying and respect your opinion.
I too feel there is value in say the piece you posted. I just don't think if the original is worth 15-20k, that this price you showed is out of line.
Bottom line is, people will and should collect what they want. If collectors , actioneees , dealers etc want non type 1s.. that is great(I have some too). I felt the need to respond in my voice to text again sorry if this post is all over the place. Again, great vintage Ruth piece. I have a type 1 and one like this that I can post after work to show the difference. I do think photos in general are undervalued as it related to say cards.

Honestly, I think it's a pretty marginal photo, and people value it highly just because it's an early Ruth.

As a collector of photos, I couldn't agree more. This photo is thoroughly unimpressive.

I'm shifting my collecting focus to "almost dead sharpies."

that would be a mistake.. but by all means do... quit shifting it to mine:)

Jeff, to have a true Type 1 Almost Dead Sharpies collection are you going to use the PSA style within two years prior to death range or a five year range like Rhys uses for photos?

Ha, morbid yet hilarious.

ALS - Autographed Letter Signed
TLS - Typed Letter Signed
ADS - Almost Dead Sharpie.

I like it.

Tom C

Type 1 images are the cream of the crop, no doubt. I dont think anyone would argue that. They should sell for a large premium and they do. My comment was not meant to compare the two in any way, just to illustrate that sometimes a nice Vintage Type 3 or a Type 2 from really close to the original year dont get the love they deserve.

In the sports world though, people use "Type 1" synonymous with "original" and that is just not the case. People will say "Henry FAILED this photo" and it gets a Type 3. It is just a misunderstanding of what those numbers actually mean that sometimes stunts the value of otherwise beautiful images that are completely original but off copy negatives.

Any thread about photos is a great one in my opinion!