Can we finally lay the "Type I" photo BS to rest?

[David Atkatz]

From Henry Yee's latest auction:






The slug dates the photo 10/2/51, right before the start of the 1951 World Series.

But wait! Where are the lights? Lights were installed in 1946, and the concrete bleachers were built in 1937, so the picture was taken sometime between those two years. Oops! That picture was certainly not developed "within approximately two years of when the picture was taken."

[doug.goodman]

It's a scam that most people follow along behind, just like grading.

Doug

[RichardSimon]

More proof that PSA stands for Please Stop Authenticating.
A pat on the back for anyone who can come up with a good definition of DNA.

[Exhibitman]

Did Not Analyze
Daily Naked Avarice
Duly Noted Assumptions
Don't Need Analysis
Dumbness Normally Accepted
Dealers Need Assurances
Dubious Nonsensical Advice
Definitely Not Accurate
Dollars Not Accuracy
Data Not Available
Deny Negate Argue
Doubts Neatly Assuaged
Demands Noncritical Acceptance

PSA:
Paid Silly Analysis
Please Submit Again
Probably Spurious Advice
Presents Stupid Arguments
Plastic Stupidity Antenna
Penis Smallest Always [for the registry awards]
Pompous Smarmy Attitude
Preferred Submitters Abound

PSA/DNA:
Publish Silly Analysis/Deny Nugatory Arguments
Purchased Some Advice/Don't Need Accuracy

[HRBAKER]

David,
It's not about accuracy, we just want an LOA.

[barrysloate]

This hobby is suffering from a bad case of overslabbing. Less plastic would be a really good thing.

Oops...is this photo even slabbed, or does it just have an LOA? Well, either way, there's too much plastic...as well as too many bad LOA's.

[19cbb]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

It's a scam that most people follow along behind, just like grading.

Doug

Well said Doug, well said!

[Ladder7]

1941 Series, only off by one digit.

[drc]

It's an interesting example.

Most N172 Old Judges aren't type 1 photos, as the images aren't technically first generation. But their collectibility is in their being antique baseball artifacts from the 1880s, not the generation of the image. That's just a side note, not a grand moral statement about news photographs. In ways, baseball cards and original baseball photos are apples and oranges. Most, or at least many, know the image of Honus Wagner used on his T206 Honus Wagner was shot several years earlier. That knowledge clearly hasn't affected its collectibility. But, as I said, a baseball card is different than an Ansel Adams photograph. Baseball cards, by definition, were mass produced commercial items for kids. One would be goofy in the head to assume that every Goudey was hand painted and every Topps was an original photograph. They were sold with gum for in grocery stores, after all

[HRBAKER]

I don't think anyone is maintaining that photos aren't collectible. It is not the collectors that are trying to spoon/force feed these items into categories to enhance their value/collectibility based on when they were shot and printed is it?

[thecatspajamas]

I don't think the issue is (or at least, shouldn't be) the use of Type 1, Type 2, etc. designations for photos. I actually think it is good for photo collectors to have more specific terms to refer to the photos than "modern" vs. "vintage" or "original" vs. "reprint", which can be pretty ambiguous, especially when coming from someone not accustomed to dealing with photos. I would liken it to having specific terms for grading cards like "Very Good," "Excellent," "Near Mint," etc vs. describing them as "pretty nice," "good for its age," "well worn," etc. Nothing wrong with having specific short-hand terms with specific meanings when dealing with photographs. Sounds like most of the backlash though is over the "third party authentication" aspect of it where you're paying someone else to tell you what you should be able to research and determine yourself, which is an age-old argument that seems to extend to every corner of collecting.

Personally, I can see some merit in the holders that PSA uses for the "slabbed" 8x10 photos as they do protect the photo, are much thinner than other photo slabs I've seen, and can actually be matted and framed. Much more appealing to me than the early BGS slabs I got in a mixed lot that are about 3/4" thick and feel like they would kill my dog if I accidentally dropped one on him. I don't much like the idea of having an extra piece of paper to keep track of along with the photo though (as in the sticker + LOA arrangement).

As for this particular "oops" on identifying the photo as a Type 1, I think it's probably just a mistake. Bound to happen sooner or later, and one which I feel sure Mr. Yee would rectify in whatever way necessary.

Just my 2 cents since we seem to be taking up a change collection.

Lance F

[Ladder7]

I hear ya Lance, When I break out the BVGs, my Emma wears this,

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

David,
It's not about accuracy, we just want an LOA.

When I was authenticating for an auction house out West the owner of the auction house got into an argument with another member of the authentication team.
The other member of the team had spotted an error in an item that had a COA from a "leading" authentication company for what was a facsimile signature on a Presidential document.
The owner said "I am an auction house, I just need a COA", whether it was an accurate COA did not matter to him.

[Lordstan]

Ok.
Here are my 2 cents.

I don't think there is anything wrong with a classification system for pictures. As Lance stated above very well, I think a system allows people to have more conformity when discussing what types of pictures they have.
I think it is akin to the classification system used for baseball cards (R,F,E,T,M,W, etc). Why would this be bad? It allows people to have some basis to judge pictures for historical significance, rarity and value, among other things.
Now if you want to argue as to the exact definitions of what makes a specific type of photo, I don't disagree. I do think 2 years to be considered original is a bit restrictive. On other hand not everyone agreed with Burdick when he started to classify cards. Heck, not everyone agrees with some of his choices to this day, but his main framework still exists and I think helps collectors.

In general, I am not a fan of Third Party Authenticators, be it for cards, autographs, or pictures. As such, the only time I would grade or authenticate an item, is if I felt it would significantly help the sale price.

I have bought a few things previously from Henry and found him a good guy to deal with. The true measure of a dealer is how they handle this type of problem, when it comes to light.

Now back to scouring ebay!
Mark

[drc]

I think one can say the stadium photo grading is an error by PSA's rules (though the date is correct) and points out some things about news photos (in ambiguous cases (generic player portrait) how can be sure when the image was shot within 2 years).

I never subscribed to PSA's grading rules and in particular wouldn't chose the 2 year window, but that doesn't mean I think the rules are wrong. I'm just not fond of them (how not fond depends on my mood)-- not a fan of black and white categories. However, in my limited experience looking at PSA graded photos, I've thought PSA dated and described the photos accurately, so I have gripe with their abilities.

I just say the stadium photo is an interesting example that rightfully might make some people people ponder about when an image was shot visa vie the photo printed.

[drc]

It is a case where a grading rule was broken, but it's a rule I never agreed with -- So what's the meaning in that? Should I be mad or happy? I don't know. I'll compromise and be sleepy.

[David Atkatz]

I just want to make clear that the point of my post was not to criticise Henry. Rather, it was to point out--yet again--my contention that the photo classification system is absurd. No one can verify to within two years when a "modern" photo was printed. Suppose the photo discussed above was actually taken in 1947, and showed lights, and had no slug on the back. Do you really believe anyone could determine whether it was printed in '47, '48, '49, '50, '51...?

[thecatspajamas]

With this particular photo, the notation "(STOCK)" at the top of the slug should probably be a cue that the dating of the photo bears a little closer scrutiny.

As for whether you can determine with 100% certainty whether the print was produced within 2 years of when it was shot, you have to consider each photo on a case-by-case basis. Generic aerial shots of a stadium would be much harder to pin down than player shots from a team that changed uniform styles regularly. Studio photos that don't have the paper captions on the back would be much more difficult to date the print than would news photos. In cases where you can't tell for sure though, just don't use the specific "Type" classification when you describe it. Even PSA leaves the door open for photos that they authenticate to come back with an "Inconclusive" judgement. Not sure how often they actually apply that, but clearly there are some cases where it would be impossible to tell.

As for using the Type classification on modern photos, I really don't see the point. As you said, it would be difficult if not impossible to judge (unless you produced the print yourself), and in 99% of cases there wouldn't be any value increase associated with it anyway.

[David Atkatz]

Gee... I wonder how the "experts" at PSA missed that, too.

[drc]

With specific game action or award ceremony or the like, one can be confident when the image was shot. But there's no question news agencies re-used stock images of player portraits and the like.

[thecatspajamas]

Incidentally, for anyone who was not aware, Henry Yee was one of the guys (along with I believe Marshall Fogel and Khyber Oser) who coined the terms Type 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. for photograph evaluation. He and Fogel were also instrumental in helping PSA when they began authenticating photos for Type classifications, which is a fairly recent addition to their services. I believe he was also heavily involved, at least initially, in the authentication process itself (not sure if that is still the case).

All of that is not to point out any kind of conflict of interest though, but rather to say that Yee knows his stuff when it comes to vintage photography, particularly baseball photos. His auctions have always had straightforward and insightful evaluations of the photos themselves along with his lively narratives of the people and events depicted in the photos. He was doing this long before PSA dipped their toes into this end of the collecting pool, and as far as I can tell from his last couple of auctions, has not shifted his emphasis from telling you how great the photo itself is to "isn't it great that PSA thinks this is an authentic photo." The PSA authentication is basically just a blurb in the description and an added picture.

That said, I think the addition of the PSA authentication, particularly with the thin slabs, has made a difference in the prices realized. I haven't gone through his latest auction as closely, but his previous one, which was smaller in scope and consisted of nearly all PSA-slabbed photos, brought in what a friend of mine called "stupid money." There were a lot of very nice photos, which Yee always has, but the trend seemed to be more towards the thousand-dollar-plus mark than usual. And keep in mind that this is all on eBay, not a major independent auction house (which may help explain the added "oomph" that the PSA name brought to the bottom line when dealing with more collectors who recognize their logo over Yee's name).

[drc]

I said that, in my opinion, PSA/DNA appears to do a good job identifying and dating photos. If Yee is doing that work for them, then Yee is. I wasn't suggesting otherwise.

However, if I was asked to re-write their grading rules (which I'm not and I'm not suggesting anyone would ask me), I would change the 2 years in the 2 year rule. I specifically don't like that number 2.

[thecatspajamas]

drc,
Not arguing with you about the quality of work. Just adding some info that others might not be aware of. Didn't mean that to be directed at you.

Since you mention it though, mind if I ask what your specific contention with the 2-year window is? Not saying it's right or wrong. Just curious as to your thoughts.

[drc]

If I was re-writing the rules I would say say 'a few' years. Some points are:

* If 2 years is original, why can't 3 be? 2 years is PSA/DNA's definition (fine, they get a vote), but a reasonable collector might say 2.5 years counts as original too. Another collector might say a 1920 studio photo of Ty Cobb with the image shot three years earlier counts as original. Someone might say, 'Let's make the number 1.' At the least, 2 seems arbitrary where 2.2 or 1.5 would be just as valid.

* 2 years is too finite a number in an often gray world. Say you have a genuine 1930s George Burke photo of Joe Dimaggio (Burke's antique stamp on back proving the old age). You often can't be certain when the photo was made, even if you are certain the photo is from the 1930s. You have no idea how the 2 rule applies, even though you know the photo is old and you very well might call it an original and it might rightly sell for good $$. Burke may have printed that photo in 1933, he may have printed in 1936. No one knows. It's a personal judgment call as to whether or not it's original. Notice my rule was a more ambiguous 'a few,' as there is ambiguity in this case.

---
Beyond that pesky 2 issue, I've read the grading rules and, even if it's not the way I would structure the categories, the rules and thinking are logical. I understand what they're talking about and why they made the categories that way. However, just as trading card collectors shouldn't judge a card just by the 1-10 grade, collectors shouldn't judge a photograph solely by the type2, type3 categories. Treat them as a guide or categorization rather than final arbiter of taste. For example, a 1917 real photo postcard with a second generation or 4 year old image of Joe Jackson is still a 1917 postcard of Joe Jackson and should and rightly will fetch good $$ at auction.

[TexasLeaguer]

I bid on a number of lots in the recent auction (I only won one), but I was a little bothered by the "third party authentication" by PSA because Henry Yee's name is on the COA as part of the authentication team. How is it "third party" in any sense of the words if the seller is also the authenticator? This seems like a pretty big conflict of interest because he has financial motivation to "authenticate" the items he then turns around and auctions. I would feel more comfortable with a COA from an objective source.

[HRBAKER]

Whether the number is 2, 3, 5 or 10, it most cases it is an arbitrary guess is it not?

[David Atkatz]

Don't expect PSA to ever admit to that.

[travrosty]

its just another revenue stream for them. they have to think up new ways of separating people from their money.

they came up with half grades so they can tell everybody to send in their cards to them AGAIN so they can make another round of fees from people.

everybody thinks their psa 8 sandy koufax might make 8.5 so they pay AGAIN and send them in. psa keeps trying to find new ways to make money off of items they alredy made money off of once.

pretty soon they will be grading the color of the color photographs, they will have separate color designations, brilliant, dazzling, and *'ing unbelievable. of course thats for an extra fee also.

crazy nonsense.

[Lordstan]

There are 2 separate issues.
First is the classification issue. Second is authentication. I think the only connection between the two is that the TPA's use the classification system to offer a service to make money.

The book, A Portrait in Baseball Photography, co written by Yee, Fogel, and Oser, that first proposed the "Type" classification, was printed in 2005. Considering PSA and Becket only started offering authentication in the past year or so, I don't think there is any nefarious connection between the book being written and authentication services being offered.

As far as the 2 years conundrum is concerned, I don't think there is an answer that would satisfy everyone. No matter what time frame is chosen, someone will come up with a rational argument for why it should be different, but I think there should be some cutoff to allow more structured classification.

The argument that 2 yrs is arbitrary is valid, as it is arbitrary, but I don't think the fact that it is arbitrary really matters as much as some make it out to be. There are plenty of examples of arbitrary values being chosen as part of our society's function. For example, the ages to vote, drink, and drive are arbitrary. Another would be grades in schools. In some areas, A- is 90-92, A is 93-97 and A+ is 98-100. In others it's 90-93, 94-98, and 99-100 respectively. There are many other examples as well, but it's too late for me come up with right at this moment.

I think the real importance lies in trying to find some agreement on the actual number of years. Personally, I think a 5yr window to be considered Original or Type 1 would be reasonable. I also think it is not unreasonable to say a picture is unclassifiable, as in the case of newer photos.

drc,
I agree with you that people need to asses the picture itself to assess value. To paraphrase what they say on the card side, "Buy the pic not the slab"
You stated you wouldn't have chosen the system Henry and Marshall chose, but understand it. I'm curious as to how you would've devised a classification system.

Best,
Mark

[thecatspajamas]

Mark, +1 to everything you just said.

I think that photographs will first and foremost always be valued primarily based on their content and quality. A Type 1 photo of Ty Cobb's mother isn't going to sell for more than a Type 2 or 3 photo of Cobb himself in uniform, and a faded out-of-focus Type 1 snapshot of Babe Ruth probably wouldn't bring as much as a sharp, clear in-period wire photo (Type 3) of him in a similar pose. (I say probably, because there are always flukes). Identifying a photo as a "Type 1" does not automatically make it valuable, nor does it being a Type 2, 3, or 4 mean that it's automatically worthless or undesirable. As 'drc' said above, "collectors shouldn't judge a photograph solely by the type...categories."

The photo's "Type" isn't something that directs you to a column in a price guide somewhere, because there are no price guides for photos. Such a thing would be impossible with all the variables that go into the desirability of each individual photo. It's merely a shorthand term for defining the one aspect of photography that is not subjective. Putting a time limit on the Type 1 classification just narrows the field down more than calling a photo "original" or even "1st generation." If you don't like the parameters given for the classification, just don't use the "Type" terminology. And please, if you don't know what the terminology means, or whether it truly applies to your specific photo, don't use it in describing something you're selling. That's where you can get into trouble, and where I see the most (apparently innocent) mistakes on eBay and elsewhere.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by travrosty

its just another revenue stream for them. they have to think up new ways of separating people from their money.

they came up with half grades so they can tell everybody to send in their cards to them AGAIN so they can make another round of fees from people.

everybody thinks their psa 8 sandy koufax might make 8.5 so they pay AGAIN and send them in. psa keeps trying to find new ways to make money off of items they alredy made money off of once.

pretty soon they will be grading the color of the color photographs, they will have separate color designations, brilliant, dazzling, and *'ing unbelievable. of course thats for an extra fee also.

crazy nonsense.

My collection is entirely raw.

The "crazy nonsense" mentioned by travrosty isn't that TPA's change their system and charge people "again".

The "crazy nonsense" is solely that people pay in the first place.

If I owned PSA, I would be preparig to go to a decimal system, as soon as I thought the half point system had made as much money as it could.

Couldn't get your 8 changed to an 8.5 last time? No worries, maybe it can get an 8.4 this time. Cue evil money counting grin and laugh.

I won't end by typing the phrase "what a bunch of dorks", because some might find it offensive.

Doug

[David Atkatz]

It's not that it's an arbitrary system, Mark. It's that any system with sufficiently fine temporal resolution to divide the interval between a photo's being taken and being printed into "meaningful" (and financially lucrative) categories is absolutely unenforceable. Except in rare instances where the technology changed overnight, or the photo paper is labeled and thus can be dated, there is no way to reliably determine whether a photo was printed within one year, or two years, or three years, or... of being taken.

[thecatspajamas]

David A, I think that's a pretty gross generalization to say that no photo can reliably be dated as to when the print was produced. There are plenty that are ambiguous to be sure, but if you see a news photo with original dated paper caption on the back that says, "Here's the boys in the game yesterday," you can be pretty sure of when the photo was taken and when that particular print was produced. That's not to say that you can assign a "Type" category to EVERY photographic print, but there are many that you can with a reasonable degree of certainty. For the ones you can't, you just can't, and you shouldn't try to or expect any TPA to be able to. That's when you fall back on more generic terminology, which in many cases is just as good.

[Lordstan]

David,
I agree that some pictures cannot be dated to specific interval between when it was taken and when it was printed, but I also know that many can. As we see from the recent release of The Sporting News, The Chicago Sun, and The Baltimore News archives, many, if not most of the pictures have multiple date stamps and other notations. Many of these will help date when the picture was printed. Using clues in the pictures like uniforms, stadium architecture, and even weather conditions can help date when the picture was taken.
Neither of these are absolutely foolproof, but I do think they fall within a reasonable margin of error.
I disagree that we should throw out, or not try and create, a classification system to identify photographs.

Also, I don't understand what you mean by "unenforceable." Nobody is enforcing anything. To me this system, like all other classification systems, allows people to communicate more efficiently. If I try and sell you a picture and say it's a type 1, you immediately know 2 things. First that I believe that my pictures dates from the immediate time frame of the pic being taken. Second, will be that I think the picture is more valuable than just a regular print. Both of these may or may not have an impact on what you do next. First, you will likely inspect the picture and you will either agree or disagree with my determination. Second, you will evaluate my price. If it fits into your valuation of the picture, you will buy it. If not, you won't. The "type" designation will not likely have any impact on what you do.

I don't have a problem with the system. In general, I don't care for grading and authentication as a generality, but that is not the fault of the classification system.

Interestingly enough, while It seems that people are suspicious of the financial incentives of labeling Type 1,2, etc, I think, in some ways, the system may have more of the opposite effect. Type 1's, or originals, if one prefers, will always command a premium price, regardless of labeling. An as far as mistakes go, I think the type system with year dating rules, will be more likely to date an older photograph as newer thus lessening the value, as opposed to the opposite. The picture in the original post is, obviously an exception where having the pic dated later probably increased value.

The title to the thread is "Can we finally lay the "Type 1" BS to rest?" I don't think that picture in any way speaks to the "Type" system being valid or not. I think it was a simple mistake, which might challenge your faith in PSA's ability to correctly identify/classify a photo, but doesn't undermine the classification system itself. IMO, given my new found knowledge about the year the lights were installed in the ballpark, that picture should have been labeled as unclassifiable or just vintage.

Mark

[thecatspajamas]

I agree with Mark that the photo that started this thread off probably should have been "unclassifiable" or "undetermined." I started to say that it was clearly either a Type 2 or Type 4 (a later-date print off of either the original negative or a copy negative), but then re-thought the "Stock" notation on the slug line.

It could have been a Type 1 photo that was shot and printed for no specific reason at the time, filed away in Acme's files, then pulled out later when it was needed for the 1951 story and run then. It's a bit more of a long shot to arrive at the Type 1 designation, and would require more knowledge of Acme's filing tendencies than I have (whether they typically retained negatives or prints or both for their stock photos), but could be possible. Notice that there is evidence that a second caption was previously attached to the back of the photo (assuming the one shown isn't floating loose) indicating it may have been distributed previously.

Either way though, a mistake was made (either in the Type-ing or in the dating of the photo). Just something that came to mind.

[David Atkatz]

Mark, many--if not most--of the photos being classified have absolutely nothing on the back--no slugs, no date stamps... nothing. I stand behind my assertion that they cannot be dated with the degree of precision required.

As for the ones that are date-stamped, must I send them to a third party (along with a check) to have the stamps read, or are my amateur reading skills sufficient?

I wonder how photos were collected in those antediluvian times before a few third parties figured out how to skim a bit off the top.

[murphusa]

At the end of the day, all you got is a bunch of old photos. Type 1 only means something to a very small group. The rest of us don't care

[mr2686]

This may be apples and oranges, but...with this type of system an Ansel Adams photo of Half Dome printed in 1927-1929 would be a type 1, and anything printed after would be type 2...even though Adams would have printed it himself. I don't believe many people would care what year it was printed as long as it was from the original negative and that Adams printed it himself.

[19cbb]

Originally Posted by mr2686

This may be apples and oranges, but...with this type of system an Ansel Adams photo of Half Dome printed in 1927-1929 would be a type 1, and anything printed after would be type 2...even though Adams would have printed it himself. I don't believe many people would care what year it was printed as long as it was from the original negative and that Adams printed it himself.

Exactly... and this is why this 'scam' is only being targeted to the sports collecting community.

Beaumont Newhall must be laughing in his grave with all this bullshit!

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Mark, many--if not most--of the photos being classified have absolutely nothing on the back--no slugs, no date stamps... nothing. I stand behind my assertion that they cannot be dated with the degree of precision required.

As for the ones that are date-stamped, must I send them to a third party (along with a check) to have the stamps read, or are my amateur reading skills sufficient?

I wonder how photos were collected in those antediluvian times before a few third parties figured out how to skim a bit off the top.

David,
You are correct that some don't have anything on the back. That is exactly why I do feel that 2yrs is too restrictive a time frame for the classification.
Second, who says you have to send it off for third party approval? You're mixing the issues again. The classification system was created at least 5yrs before PSA and Beckett figured a way to take your money for giving their approval.
While it may be that some think the system was created simply to make money from grading, I don't think there is proof of that. I don't know Henry or Marshall personally, so I can't comment directly on their virtues or faults, but I am left with a question for those who are suspicious. Why wait 5yrs to start charging for "authentication?"
The vitriol for the Authentication companies I totally get, as I am no fan of theirs, but I guess I don't understand the distaste for the system itself.
And to answer your question directly, NO I would never send something in to be authenticated by anyone, unless by doing so I would significantly increase the amount of money I cold make. I'm sure this is the same answer many on this board would have.

Originally Posted by murphusa

At the end of the day, all you got is a bunch of old photos. Type 1 only means something to a very small group. The rest of us don't care

Jim,
This is exactly correct! The type system just allows me to communicate with you what and when I think the picture represents in a more succinct form. That is it.

Originally Posted by mr2686

This may be apples and oranges, but...with this type of system an Ansel Adams photo of Half Dome printed in 1927-1929 would be a type 1, and anything printed after would be type 2...even though Adams would have printed it himself. I don't believe many people would care what year it was printed as long as it was from the original negative and that Adams printed it himself.

Mike,
You beat me to the punch as I was about to use this type of example. The "type" classification system, or any other system, if some has a better system to propose, is helpful because the terms "Original" can be, and quite frequently are, interpreted differently. In the world of art photography, Original usually means something very different. It means it was printed by the photographer, from their negative, themselves. There is no consideration to the time when it was created.
Could a picture of Half Dome signed and dated by Adams 1927 sell for more than one signed and dated 1970? Probably yes.
Now the Type system was proposed for Sports photography only as the timing of things is more important in the world of sports collecting. The easiest example showing this is the value of rookie cards.

Great conversation everyone.
Best to all.
Mark

[thecatspajamas]

Mark,
Great reply, and thank you for saving me a bunch of typing as you said pretty much everything that was running through my head. I definitely agree that the Type system is more applicable (and useful) for sports photography, and in particular sports news photos, than other areas of photograph collecting.

I might add that Henry Yee was providing all of the information needed to determine the "Type" of the photos he sold in his auction descriptions long before PSA started authenticating them. His auctions have always had some of the most informative write-ups of photos, particularly baseball photos, that I have seen anywhere. Once the "Type" classification system was devised, he used those terms in his auction descriptions as well, again for several years before being approached by PSA. The Type classification system definitely is NOT something that was devised by PSA or any other TPA as a money-making scheme.

[novakjr]

The one thing I don't quite get is, why does it matter whether or not a random aerial photo of Yankee Stadium is type 1? It's one thing if we're talking about a photo from it's first season or during the building process. I really don't see the difference between a photo that was printed in 1941, 1951 or 2009 as long as it's taken from the negative, when it's not of anything of major significance....Now if we're talking players or some significant event, then I could understand wanting a period printed photo, since properly dating them would almost put them on the same level as cards. At that point you're dealing with originals and reprints, and to what extent and when they were reprinted. Obviously a period piece of Satchel Paige from the '20 would be far more important and valuable than the same photo printed later on...Same for something of Josh Gibson from the 30's. Or other significantly early photos of any player.. Or photos of a perfect game, significant home run, milestone or any defining moment in a players career, or just a famous photo in general. Those I could understand wanting a period original..

To me though, random aerial photos of any Stadium or a photo of some random player scratching his junk in the dugout during his 7th season in the majors in early June after hitting a routine pop-up in the 3rd inning shouldn't matter when they're printed, because at that point they're just photos of almost no historical significance.. Good for display only..Glorified posters..

Trying to date things, just for the sake of dating things when the date really isn't significant makes no sense to me... Maybe I've oversimplified things, maybe I just don't get it though..

[Ladder7]

David,

Agreed, not as significant as a star ball player (Horner's Wagner) or great action shot (Cobb's slide). But a 70 yr old World Series shot is still a significant one. Also two of the biggest records were set season, and still stand. Regardless, I wouldn't want a newer copy of any image and appreciate services such as this and Beckett's. In spite of this snafu.

1936 original;

[drc]

As long as the photo is correctly dated and identified, the potential buyer gets to decide what kinds of photo he wants. If a collector is happy with a 1970 reprint of a stadium to hang on his wall, that's perfectly acceptable. I have no reason to argue with his choice. However, if the collector paid extra thinking it was printed in 1930, then he'd have reason to be disappointed to find out it was printed 40 years after.

Saying an Ansel Adams photo printed later by Adams himself is just as nice as the type1 is a reasonable personal collecting/buying choice. However, the Adams photos at sale still have to be correctly described and dated-- in particular as a different collector may not think the before and after photos are equal, and as another collector might think both are nice but will pay extra for the type 1 version.

I should add that I'm not a fan of the later made photos, even if it was hand printed and signed by Ansel Adams. But that's just my personal taste and view. It doesn't mean I won't buy the later version, just that I won't like/value it as much as the type 1.

I'm also not a collector of aerial stadium photos, old or new. Don't appeal to me. Glad I got that off my chest.

[thecatspajamas]

And that's exactly why auction prices vary wildly on photographs. Different aspects matter to different collectors. To some, being able to pin a photograph down to a specific day it was shot is the biggest thrill, especially if they have some connection to that day (their birthday), event (they were at the game or heard it on the radio), or player (a relative, friend of the family, ex-next-door neighbor), because that's about as close as you can get to actually being there and reliving that moment. Sometimes collectors are just looking for clear photos of players from their favorite team, regardless of the context of the shot. There are a lot of variables that go into whether a photograph is desirable (and therefore more valuable), and different factors weigh more heavily for different collectors.

In general, the better quality a shot (contrast, clarity and composition), the more desirable it is when compared to another photo of the same person/place/event. A print made off of the original negative will be of higher quality than one made from a copy negative or wire transmission. Modern prints made from "vintage" negatives do not have the same feel as a vintage print made in the period. All of these lean towards Type 1 photos selling for a premium over the other Types for a similar subject.

BUT, the subject matter often does trump all of that. Clearly significant events and popular players bring a premium, but I have been surprised many times by prices I got for photos of seemingly no-name players on eBay only to find out afterward that the winner is the player's granddaughter, or used to live across the street from the player, or some other variation of that personal connection. Or, a couple of fanatics for a particular team went head-to-head over a photo of a player for whom not many photos exist simply because they like the team. Or some combination of the two. Because the player was not popular, there may not be many photos of them out there period, Type 1 or otherwise, and an avid collector or relative who is having difficulty in locating a photo of them in their baseball uniform may be willing to pay a premium just to fill that hole in their collection.

As you said, I wouldn't expect an outside shot of a field or stadium to sell for more than a photo of a significant event on that same field (and in this case, I don't think it did). Maybe being an aerial shot, there wouldn't be as many available as there are from photographers standing on the ground, but I think in this case, the "Type 1" designation (however incorrect) does not appear to have had a significant impact on the price.

In the end, the buyer has to weigh all of the information available about the photo (hopefully all accurate) and decide what it is worth to them. It certainly won't be the same for everyone, nor should we expect it to be.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by Ladder7

David,

Agreed, not as significant as a star ball player (Horner's Wagner) or great action shot (Cobb's slide). But a 70 yr old World Series shot is still a significant one. Also two of the biggest records were set season, and still stand. Regardless, I wouldn't want a newer copy of any image and appreciate services such as this and Beckett's. In spite of this snafu.

1936 original;

I get the World Series Significance. BUT do we know for sure that this aerial photo is from the World Series, or just a random aerial stock photo (maybe from earlier in the year) that was used to promote the World Series in a newspaper or magazine? There's a big difference.. I'm obviously not talking about the one you posted, but the original picture in question..

[David Atkatz]

Re the thread-starting photo: The Stadium is awfully packed for a regular-season game.

[Exhibitman]

I know I will pay more for a photo that can be linked to a specific event or time, like a wire photo with the paper attached that shows exactly when and why it was made, or a photographer signed or stamped photo. For example, this photo of Battling Siki is a nice image but what caught my interest is that it is a wire photo reporting his murder in NYC in 1925:



This one is ink-signed and stamped by Jim Jeffries' official photographer:



This Jeffries is hand-copyrighted (1906) by the photographer:



And this Jeffries is embossed with the Dana Studio stamp:

[GKreindler]

Yeah, the original thread-starting photo was definitely from the World Series (and from '41). You can tell by the angle of the facade's shadow on the field. At that time of the year, the shadow line was generally parallel to the first-base line. As the day wore on and the sun went down, the shadows engulfed the entire field with left never really being covered in shade (which is why it was always referred to as 'the sun garden').

Also, the red, white and blue bunting adorning the decks was always the sign of either Opening Day, an All-Star Game, a holiday doubleheader, or the World Series. In this case, I'd bet the farm that it's from that year's Fall Classic.

Just my two rusty pennies...

Graig

[glchen]

I think Type does dictate something of worth for collectors, and the narrower the window for Type I, the better. I compare it with Real Photo Postcards. A Babe Ruth RPPC with an SGC slab that has the date as c.1930-31 will have a much higher value than one of the date c.1930s. As usual, the reason will be that many more people want a card that was issued during the player's playing days. I think the same principle holds for photos where collectors want photos that they can confidently feel was developed during the playing days or at certain time periods during his playing days.