Type I photos... why are their multiples?

[T_Hamilton]

Haven't dipped my toe in the type I photo water yet, but am curious about how to think about Type I photos. Sometimes I will see the same image in two different photos and both are described as Type I. Can their be multiple Type I photos of the same image?

[Snapolit1]

Sure. Can be many. Just printed from the original negative within 2 years of when it was taken.

[drcy]

For most vintage photos, there no more than a handful of originals out there.

[Lordstan]

The definition of a Type 1 photograph according to the Yee/Fogel system, which PSA has adopted, is a photo printed from the original negative within 2 years of the photo being taken.
Given that definition, it is certainly possible, even probable, that more than one copy was made, for various reasons. The reality is likely not that many were made and some of those were destroyed/damaged/cut up for composites or editorial choices. This is why they bring premiums over Types 2, 3, or 4.

[Robbie]

The longer you are active in the photo market (and the more photos you see or handle), the more you will learn about which images are unique, scarce, rare, plentiful, etc. as original vintage prints made from the original negative.

[Jersey City Giants]

I have really gotten into collecting these. Far, far fewer examples of a type I photo than a card. A type 1 can be 1 of 1 or 1 of 50. Just depends how popular the shot was at the time. A shot can be type 1 as long as it was developed within ROUGHLY 2 year from being taken. I have seen a bit of wiggle room here.

[docpatlv]

Originally Posted by Jersey City Giants

I have really gotten into collecting these. Far, far fewer examples of a type I photo than a card. A type 1 can be 1 of 1 or 1 of 50. Just depends how popular the shot was at the time. A shot can be type 1 as long as it was developed within ROUGHLY 2 year from being taken. I have seen a bit of wiggle room here.

Always wondered, how can you tell if a print was made from the negative 2 years after the photo was taken...versus 3, 4 or 5 years later? Does it need to have a date stamped on back?

[T_Hamilton]

Originally Posted by docpatlv

Always wondered, how can you tell if a print was made from the negative 2 years after the photo was taken...versus 3, 4 or 5 years later? Does it need to have a date stamped on back?

Great information so far, that is another question I would LOVE answered.

[Jersey City Giants]

Stamps, paper type, writing on back. Many times PSA will not offer an opinion when they just don't know.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by T_Hamilton

Great information so far, that is another question I would LOVE answered.

2 years is an arbitrary number, though, as noted, date stamps, tags or circumstance says the photo was made within 2 years.

News photos were by definition for news and news reporting, so, barring stock or reusable images (ala standard portrait of the President or image of the Capitol Building), they were made very soon after the image was made.

Original movie press or still photos were made for when the movie came out, not 2 or 3 years after. That's a case of determining by circumstance.

But for some photos, such as George Burke photos, you can't know. From the studio stamp you can be sure a Burke photo is vintage, ala 1930s, but won't know if that 1933 image or Babe Ruth was made in 1933 or 1939.

Vintage Burke photos are still highly collectible and collected, and that they fall outside the type system shows the limits and scope of the type system not the photos. The type system was designed with the usually easily datable news photos in mind. PSA has to bend their rules to call a Burke photo a Type I-- and I think they often do. They bend their rules for other photos, and are often making fair judgment calls.

But there's no reason the cut off has to specifically be 2 years. That was just PSA's arbitrary pick for their 'type system,' and no doubt there are PSA 1-ing photos that they aren't certain fall within that window. Thus, they don't always use it as a cut-and-dry detriment because they can't. However, since 2 years is arbitrary anyway (why can't it be 3 yeas or 2-1/2 or 1 or 'soon after'?) that's doesn't have to be treated as a big issue. Vintage and from the original negative is what you should be looking for.

Also note that PSA's system doesn't say a Type I is automatically better and more value than a Type 2 or whatever. PSA itself specifically makes that point. It's a system for cataloging photos-- though there are some obvious trends value-wise. They also say that their system doesn't apply to some photos.

One needs only point out that N172 Old Judges are not Type 1 images (they're photos of photos), and can be quite valuable. Though N172s are also trading cards, and that it's own collecting genre. You can say that N172s fall into two colleting areas, and any 1800s baseball photo will have value just from being from the1800s.

[T_Hamilton]

This is all just so fascinating to me... its like the light to my shelter in place darkness.

Any other good threads or websites that can be shared would be appreciated.

Taylor

[drcy]

By chance, I'm designing and setting up as we speak an online short course on authenticating news photos. I hope to have it ready to go in a couple of weeks.

Will cover everything one needs to know.

[docpatlv]

Originally Posted by drcy

By chance, I'm designing and setting up as we speak an online short course on authenticating news photos. I hope to have it ready to go in a couple of weeks.

Will cover everything one needs to know.

Thanks for the info!

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by drcy

By chance, I'm designing and setting up as we speak an online short course on authenticating news photos. I hope to have it ready to go in a couple of weeks.

Will cover everything one needs to know.

David's knowledge about photography is exceptional, and I've found his course/educational materials to be very helpful and valuable.

[Bpm0014]

*there

[prewarsports]

Sounds like a great idea David, there is so much to learn at the beginning of the process and then once you have a handle on it, you can self authenticate about 99% of vintage photographs so I think your new venture is fantastic!

Rhys

[Robbie]

I have tremendous respect for Rhys and RMY Auctions, and encourage all photo enthusiasts to support his great auctions! However, I do have a different view on the apparent ease of "self-authenticating" photographs.

My perspective based on personal experiences and interactions with other seasoned photo collectors, dealers, and conservators is that the more you know, the more you realize that it can be very challenging to authenticate and date vintage photographs.

I respectfully disagree with those who would imply that it is easy to authenticate photographs. We have all (experienced collectors, auction houses, TPGs) made mistakes in accurately describing, categorizing, and dating of photos.

Further, photos can have many substances and items added to them, taken off them, and they can be altered at different times and in many, many ways. It can be a challenge to verify the authenticity of a photo, or any document, in some cases.

IMHO, someone may be able to "relatively quickly" gain enough knowledge and skill to "self-authenticate" a typical $20-$75 photo in the current marketplace, and that might be okay. But prices are rising for quality photos and the market is growing. There is more incentive for crooks and frauds... and therefore more risk. Many newsphotos are into the hundreds and thousands of dollars... some even at ten's of thousands of dollars or more!

Anyway, yes people can authenticate their own photos... But I don't believe it is easy or simple. Just like becoming an expert in anything, you will need a sufficient amount of knowledge, experience, and skills, as well as proper tools and processes.

In any case, David creates excellent educational materials with information from which anyone interested in photography would benefit.

[Snapolit1]

+100. I have seen some of the very most knowledgeable photo guys on this board have spirited debates on dating certain photos. My experience is some photos are very simple to date and others are difficult and others are next to impossible.

Originally Posted by Robbie

I have tremendous respect for Rhys and RMY Auctions, and encourage all photo enthusiasts to support his great auctions! However, I do have a different view on the apparent ease of "self-authenticating" photographs.

My perspective based on personal experiences and interactions with other seasoned photo collectors, dealers, and conservators is that the more you know, the more you realize that it can be very challenging to authenticate and date vintage photographs.

I respectfully disagree with those who would imply that it is easy to authenticate photographs. We have all (experienced collectors, auction houses, TPGs) made mistakes in accurately describing, categorizing, and dating of photos.

Further, photos can have many substances and items added to them, taken off them, and they can be altered at different times and in many, many ways. It can be a challenge to verify the authenticity of a photo, or any document, in some cases.

IMHO, someone may be able to "relatively quickly" gain enough knowledge and skill to "self-authenticate" a typical $20-$75 photo in the current marketplace, and that might be okay. But prices are rising for quality photos and the market is growing. There is more incentive for crooks and frauds... and therefore more risk. Many newsphotos are into the hundreds and thousands of dollars... some even at ten's of thousands of dollars or more!

Anyway, yes people can authenticate their own photos... But I don't believe it is easy or simple. Just like becoming an expert in anything, you will need a sufficient amount of knowledge, experience, and skills, as well as proper tools and processes.

In any case, David creates excellent educational materials with information from which anyone interested in photography would benefit.

[drcy]

A collector can stick to the easy to identify ones.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by drcy

By chance, I'm designing and setting up as we speak an online short course on authenticating news photos. I hope to have it ready to go in a couple of weeks.

Will cover everything one needs to know.

Looking forward to it, David!

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Jersey City Giants

Many times PSA will not offer an opinion when they just don't know.

With the obvious joke being "but many times they will (offer an opinion)"

Doug "still beating that dead horse" Goodman

Or maybe "as long as that dead horse asks for a beating..."

[GoCubsGo32]

Originally Posted by drcy

By chance, I'm designing and setting up as we speak an online short course on authenticating news photos. I hope to have it ready to go in a couple of weeks.

Will cover everything one needs to know.

This is honestly, what the photo collecting world needs.Looking forward to it David!

[TUM301]

Originally Posted by GoCubsGo32

This is honestly, what the photo collecting world needs.Looking forward to it David!

+ 1, Count me in as another 54`er looking forward to this. Hey Gary how you doing sir, hope all`s well with you and the crew !

[prewarsports]

I was basically saying what David said. There are still new things I am learning every day about vintage photos whether it is a nuance in a stamp, weird captions, new photographers etc. If you are dealing with run of the mill "easy stuff" you can self authenticate and be pretty safe with a HUGE majority of photographs with a small bit of knowledge and sticking to dealers you trust.

To agree with others, yes photographs can be VERY tricky if you dive into blank backed items etc. If you want to start buying 1930's baseball photos stamped on the back by news services, you will be fine with a little education. If you want to start buying blank back Marilyn Monroe studio photographs on ebay, you are going to need the hobby equivalent of a PhD!

It is fun! Start small, educate yourself and you stick to people you trust and allow you to ask questions and before you know it, you will be off to the races!

[drcy]

Yes, the vast majority of news photos are pretty straightforward to authenticate, in part because they are often stamped and tagged. Many literally have the date stamped on them. And the course is about news photos specifically.

There will be debates about obscure photos, such as a 1800s cabinets and CDVs. Though these debates often aren't about whether or not the photo is original, but the specific date range and perhaps who is the pictured team.

[pherbener]

Originally Posted by drcy

By chance, I'm designing and setting up as we speak an online short course on authenticating news photos. I hope to have it ready to go in a couple of weeks.

Will cover everything one needs to know.

I'm looking forward to this David! I also wanted to point out that Mark noted that PSA uses the Fogel/Yee system in its photo classification. I didn't see it mentioned but the Fogel, Yee, et. al. book " A Portrait of Baseball Photography" is a must for anyone delving into the wonderful world of photo collecting!