1915 Ruth Red Sox Pitching Staff Photo

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

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!

"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...