Confusion with Type Photos on PSA Site
 

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)

Assuming the above is accurate how is the Ruth photo they show on PSA's site a Type IV and not a Type III????

https://www.psacard.com/services/ori...uthentication/


Ruth does not get to the Yankees until December 26 of 1919. Lets' Crazily assume they shot this the day he was signed. That means the photo would be have to be dated after December 26 2021 to be considered a Type IV...Correct??? also, how do they know it was made from a Duplicate negative??

Just trying to educate myself.

Happy Collecting,
Jason

I think they just have the date wrong on their site. They state it is a UPI photo and that company did not come about until a merger in 1958 which would make the Type 4 classification correct. If it was indeed a 1921 photo off a duplicate negative it would be a Type 3.

Not such a good "look" for the experts if the misidentify something on their own webpage....

That is what I thought. How would you know it is a duplicate negative if the photo was within the 2 year time frame?

They have the type correct, but the wrong date under the image. Maybe it is supposed to be 1961 not 1921. UPI was formed in the 1950s.

You appear to be first to have noticed the discrepancy.

Could be based on the clarity of the image, or various indications of it being a wire photo.

This post raises my concerns about the use of the current type system. I think we should change to focus on clarity of the image and the age of the print . This would force us to value photos based on the image quality and the relative rarity. This would also be way more objective of a standard rather then trying to figure out exactualy how the photo was made.

I think the type system - which I'm not much of a fan of- is an attempt at doing just that.

Generally speaking, a print from a copy negative won't be as sharp as a print from the original.

The counterpoint to that is that some of the prints especially earlier ones would have been made one at a time, or in batches from the same setup. If the setup was bad, the resulting print won't be clear. I've seen some pretty bad prints from original negatives, and some really nice ones from copy or duplicate negatives. It's mostly operator skill.

What I don't like is the idea that a print from the original negative is necessarily not as "good" if it was done years later. If the contrast and clarity are really nice, to me it shouldn't matter. (the exception being some art photographers, where the is and should be a difference between a print processed by the artist and one done by someone with access to the negatives. )

Your concern is only an issue if the value assigned to a photo is based strictly on its Type classification. PSA marketing team's assertions aside, a photo's "Type" (shorthand for when and how a print was produced) should NOT be the only factor considered in judging its value. Other factors, including clarity, theme, subject, date, photographer, condition, and even size also affect a photo's value. If you can't figure out when or how a photo was made, it is not rendered worthless. Nor does a photo being Type 1 automatically make it valuable. The Type designation is simply shorthand for some of the less-subjective factors.

the type system
 

The current system for grading the legitimacy of photographs gives us a framework. However....

UPI images were made from the original negatives, but since they were printed decades after the fact, they have very little monetary value among collectors. This is kind of nuts as the UPI prints done into the 1960s on fiber based paper are really excellent images. Later, because time and money became an issue, the prints were done on RC (resin based) paper. Photos on RC paper look as though they are printed on plastic. I didn't invent this opinion; archival prints aren't done on RC paper.

UPI wasn't alone, everybody did it. Jim Rowe would print 8x10s on RC paper, but since his photos were used for autographs or by collectors who didn't want to throw around a lot of money, it was never about aesthetics.

It's possible to buy Bain photos that are 100 years old that were printed from another photograph. Often they are very obvious. They don't always look so hot, either, but as they go back to Teddy Roosevelt's time, does that in itself make them more valuable than a fiber based image of Babe Ruth printed in 1958?

Brown Brothers did the same thing back in the day.

There are hundreds of type I NEA photos out there, especially spring training shots c. 1919, that are completely out of focus.

Quality wise, wire service images, which go back to the 1930s, are much worse than photos printed on RC paper. In photo auctions they go for very little money. I can't imagine buying a wire service image regardless of the subject matter simply because they look so bad. If you want to fill in gaps in a collection (Len Koenecke climbing into the airplane, for example), a wire photo is a great place to start, but they aren't much to look at.

Then again, "I really like this photo," should probably be the bottom line.

I'm fighting way above my weight class, somebody step in, please.
lumberjack

With all due respect to Steve, I think this is conflating the idea of something being collectible or valuable with it being aesthetically pleasing. There are very few areas of collectibles in which vintage examples are valued equally with modern reproductions, even if made identically using the same means and materials. They may appear identical and have the same utility and aesthetics, but there is nearly always a premium placed on vintage/original examples of any collectible that I can think of.

Aesthetics is, or should be, essential to value, but, as a collector, I'm only interested in originals. This means they have to be vintage. Not saying that's right, just my interest.

Many of the later made UPI photos are very aesthetically pleasing, and there's nothing errant with collecting those. They were made in limited in number, are official news photos, and, of course, are a more affordable alternative.

Also, with historical artifacts, age is an essential quality. A modern reproduction of a Civil War sword isn't a Civil War artifact.

I totally get the originality aspect, it's common throughout every hobby I'm in.


With photos though, to me it becomes a bit arbitrary.


As an example, I met someone who collected bike racing stuff and had what would be the most incredible collection in pretty much any hobby as long as monetary value wasn't the primary concern. *

He bought some publications entire library of Cycling photos, which included the libraries of several other publications that one had bought. Stuff going back at least to the 1930's. Picture several pallets of photos and negatives.

Many of them had never been published. Almost all included the original negatives. And with few exceptions he also got the publishing rights. (Which apparently kept his IP lawyer busy for at least a couple years!) Most of the photos had only one copy made to keep with the negative, newer stuff often only had contact sheets.
The way the pictures were handled by the publication was that they made some copies of the ones they published or that were licensed right away by someone else. If someone licensed an image a few years later, They made a few copies.

So lets say there's a photo of a famous racer, nice, but they used a different one in an article about a race. Different racer, one taken a bit earlier or later, whatever.
5 years later, they're doing an article about that racer and want a picture of him starting that race. They have it, so they get out the negative and make the copies they need.

Now in cycling photos, that's not a big deal, it's "original" . But if it's a baseball photo, it's not a type I, but a type II. And probably worth less, even if there really aren't any type I examples.
To me that seems a bit arbitrary, and not quite right. I can understand a later commercial copy of a file photo that was used for decades not being worth as much as one from the original release, but one from what would be he original release that just happened x years after the picture was taken?



* He's friends with a lot of the old riders, and has helped some of the guys who never made much financially. He mostly collected jerseys, and despite being friends with Eddy Merckx didn't have one of his. When Merckx asked him why it was because he valued being able to meet up when he was in Belgium and go out to dinner or have a couple drinks while watching a race more. Merckx response was that he had one from everyone else, and MUST take one of his so he was ordered to visit him at home the next day. Merckx opened a closet and told him "since I won the most, you have to have more of my jerseys." the closet was organized by race and jersey. Here's one from the World championships, here's a Tour yellow jersey, a Giro pink jersey... etc till he basically had a box with an entire set representing every major race and award. All race used.
That's the equivalent of Ruth personally giving someone a game used jersey from each world series or season.

This I would still disagree with. Much of what you give as examples to follow this statement speaks to the utilitarian nature of the photos as carriers of a desired image. If the rare image, or the use of such for publication is the primary desire, then I agree that it matters little whether a fresh modern print is produced off of the original negative vs an original print produced from the negative within the same period in which it was shot. In fact, a digital scan of the image from the negative might be even more desirable if the intent is to reproduce it in some form of print.

However, most photo "collectors" are not buying photos in order to re-use the image it contains. The print itself is what is being collected, and the closer that print is to being produced from the original negative within the period in which is was shot, the more desirable it is. Which is not the same as saying that all Type 1 photos are automatically desirable, or that all Type IV photos are worthless for any purpose. Worth less, all else being equal, but not worthless.

If it's a baseball photo, it is also "original" in that scenario. Even among cycling enthusiasts though, I would be very surprised if there was zero premium placed on a print produced from the original negative in the period it was shot vs. an identical print produced from the same negative a decade later. Offered both, side by side for the same price, I cannot imagine any collector choosing the later print. All else being equal, the Type 1 photo is more desirable than the Type 2. As you observed, there may not be Type 1 prints of a particular shot available, but then that is not an "all else being equal" scenario. Please keep in mind also that "less desirable" is not the same as "undesirable."

In the end, photography covers such a broad spectrum of subjects and formats that there is really a niche for every collector to find. If you are equally-satisfied with Type 4 photos vs Type 1, then by all means, pursue Type 4's and save a few bucks. As with any area of collecting, each collector should determine for themselves what aspects they place more value in, and pursue their collection accordingly. With or without the Type system though, all other factors being equal, "vintage original" has always carried a premium price point over a modern reproduction, even if the word "Type" is never used in the description.

The examples were just something I used as examples of how the photos were used. I do understand the attraction of originality and how production closer to the taking of the picture is more desirable.

What's always puzzled me is the 2 year limit. Why 2 years instead of 1 or 3 or even 5. (which is right out :D) That's the bit I think is arbitrary.
Rarity could actually be the reverse, a photo of a famous event would be really popular right after, maybe less so more than 2 years later.


To me it's mostly about the image, and if it's remotely original. The 2 years doesn't really do much for me. I don't like scanned and printed copies of anything unless they're really well done and on archival paper. And even then.... I've only bought a couple as gifts. Not that I have a huge photo collection in sports. I probably have more that aren't sports, just images that I found interesting.

Cycling collectors are just plain weird. I can't recall ever hearing any discussion of when an image was created aside from that one huge collection. And most don't collect photos at all. Even with the guys that collect the bikes, a popular one is always worth way more than one that's actually rare. Sometimes... And for most, it has to be in exactly the size they ride.

Aside from cheap reproductions, most Cycling photos are probably type 1. There are events from the 1980's that I haven't been able to find any image of at all. Not even in books and magazines, and I'm talking about fairly major international contests. And only a handful from the 1930's and before would be all that interesting even a short time after they were taken.