Are Composite photos by nature type 3 or 4?

[bn2cardz]

... or at least never type 1?

The specific nature of the question is from the 1909 Pirates photo in Huggins and Scott.

This question came up in a thread a while back when Ben showed off his winnings in post 24, it was brought up again starting with post 30:
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=174349

I know that this photo is great either way, but should it be classified as a type 3 (or another type) and not a type 1?

[Econteachert205]

It is my understanding that if it comes from the negatives within a two year frame it is type one, so if that was done from multiple original negatives within that time frame it should not matter and still should be type 1. I could be wrong.

[Jaybird]

Originally Posted by Econteachert205

It is my understanding that if it comes from the negatives within a two year frame it is type one, so if that was done from multiple original negatives within that time frame it should not matter and still should be type 1. I could be wrong.

They wouldn't have been done from negatives. The original print would have been cut up and placed on a background and then rephotographed. So, it is by nature a photo of multiple prints assembled. I don't know what label you want to put on it given that information.

I don't own this one anymore but you can see the ovals were cut out, put on a background where they did some nice ornamentation and then it was photographed and reproduced. Same thing with the H&S one. Multiple prints (from original negatives) are assembled on the background with that writing in the middle. Then someone even wrote on each player's image a number. Then it was photographed and a new print made from that new composite negative.

The new composite negative that was created is a new entity, so perhaps they are calling the print derived from that composite negative a TYPE 1. But the images used within that negative are now 2nd generation.

[drcy]

double post

[drcy]

Depends on how the composite is made. The images can be made from the original negative, or can be second generation. Also, since there are multiple parts and images, some parts can be first generation and some generation. One individual image can be original, while another is a reprint.

In cases, a composite has the individual images printed one after another on a sheet of photo paper, each from the original single player negative, and meets any definition of original. It's just that the photo was printed in parts, and while one player was being printed, the rest of the photo paper was covered up. One the order of painting a painting, by painting the hand, then the leg, then the head.

In cases, the individual photos are literally pinned or placed on a background and the whole design is photographed. So the whole unique design is first generation original, but the individual photos within in are photos of photos. For example, there was a composite of individual player photos places amongst a physical wreath and handwritten design and text and that was photographed. The resulting composite was simultaneously first generation and second generation-- the photo of the whole design and wreath was original, but it contained already photographed photos within it.

In another case, a 1950 wirephoto may include two really old, rough quality second generation images from the newspaper's dusty archives printed side by side-- clearly different that the above two examples.

As I said, it depends how they are made.

Also realize that many composites are ornate and unique, and the background design and graphics can be original artistically, so the whole piece can be original in artistic sense, while the individual pieces are second generation. It's kind of like cutting up 1990s baseball cards are arranging them into portraits of Derek Jeter. Each piece is old, but the overall artwork is original and new.

A good example is a Horner cabinet of an individual player the above team composite. The cabinet and the postcard are different things. They look nothing like each other, they're different designs. The postcard is a unique design and creation, perhaps never seen before. Do you consider the postcard original or not? It's a matter of opinion and the way you look at it. Someone might even say "Both yes and no."

If you make a composite that has an original photo pasted next to ten year old reprint, is the composite original or reprint? That's a real question you get with many composites. Some may say the question itself is myopic and dubious. Some questions don't have either/or answers.

So composites are complicated and can have conflicting parts. And there can be legitimate differing opinions if the overall piece is 'original' or not.

This is a prime example where the type system doesn't answer all your questions. A composite can both be original and second generation-- have original and second generation parts or be an original design but with individual second generation parts. Something can be original in way of consideration but not another equally valid way. The question of if an piece is original can go beyond what the type system can tell you.

A valuation key with composite photos is the age of the photo. A vintage 1908 composite of the Detroit Tigers with Ty Cobb will be valued due to its age, even if technically the individual images are second generation and some shot in 1901. Is the above postcard, with old individual images in it, rare, valuable and prized by collectors? Yes, very much. It will cost you 10x more than many Type I Babe Ruth photos. If you say the postcard "Isn't type I" and the seller agrees with you, it's still cost you 10X more than that Type I Babe Ruth photo. The postcard's value goes beyond it's "Typeness."

To me, if one person calls that postcard original and another says it isn't (because the individual player images are old), that's fine with me. I don't even necessarily see a conflict in those superficially conflicting answers. As I said, an answer don't always have an either/or answer.

Also, it's essential to realize that humans are not magicians or supercomputers, they can't do 100 things all at once. There is a process and time to make a final artistic project. A Peanuts cartoon strip involved many sketches, a Da Vinci painting was made after sketches and practice paintings and may have taken months. To make a grand, ornate composite photo, such as the wreath composite I described, he had to do it in stages. And you judge the overall originality by the finished artistic process. If you judge the originality an artwork by the process to get there, no Rembrandt or Da Vinci painting is original, because there are pre-sketches and paintings in the same design. Rather, you judge the originality by the finished product.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Jaybird

They wouldn't have been done from negatives. The original print would have been cut up and placed on a background and then rephotographed.

Great point. You can think of it as 'marking up' a Type I photo with pieces of other material. I don't know enough about printing to know if all the marked-up photos were re-photographed before going to press, but I have seen some examples;e.g-you will see some Type I's (see Ben, I now love that term) that have little white arrows glued to them to point out a baseball, etc., but you will also see photographs where such an arrow is part of the print (so not a Type I). Also, you will hear arguments (generally from the seller, or new owner) that these little arrows were placed directly on the negative to produce the print, which would make the print a Type I. I think that's hogwash, but perhaps someone can produce a glass negative with a little white arrow affixed to it.

So perhaps all such artistic creations were treated like these composites and postcards. Here's one of my favorite new pick-ups (actual cut-up print, glued to paper):

[Econteachert205]

It seems to me that drcy is correct, it is possible to do it either way. Whether one or the other method is done most or more often, it would seem that 2nd gen might be easier, though I don't know

[drcy]

If you look at 1800s composite photos, they are about 50/50 made both way. Printing a single print from individual negatives one after the other, or making a physical composite on a board with ornate design then photographing that all at once. All other things equivalent (say both are vintage 1869 composites of the 1869 Reds), each way will be value the same and the technicality of how the composite was made will be just that-- a technicality for photography philosophers to debate on a chat board and most others won't care either way about. In fact, if the 'second generation' way looks far nicer than the first way (It's got a cooler design, etc), it will be worth more. Yes, in that case, the technically second generation photo will be valued more than the first generation-- perhaps far more if the first generation is too basic and ugly.

People who judge photos strictly by their technicalities, type labels and color coded pie chart representations miss the forrest for the trees, think reading the 50 page Cliff Notes is the same as reading the novel, miss the scenic Swiss Alps attractions going by their car window because their nose is stuck in the road map. Photos are also judged and valued for their artistic, aesthetic and display values.

For Scott's interesting mix and match photo, it's a cool vintage photo. Whether it's technically a a "Type I" or not is just that-- a technicality. An interesting topic for chatboard discussion, but will have no effect on its sale price. It's a cool vintage photo and valued on that criterion. Perhaps the only way the photographer could have made that unique and interesting design that one finds so unique and interesting was to rephotograph the cut out photo on the design. You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs. Some might both say it contains a photo of a photo, but is still original because it's vintage and the overall design is unique. Scott, as the owner, might say "Irrelevant to what it technically is, it still costs $70. Call it a Type XXVII photo and the price is still $70. If you want to save money, buy two photos from my eBay store and I'l combine shipping."

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by drcy

People who judge photos strictly by their technicalities, type system and pie chart representations miss the forrest for the trees. Photos are also judged and valued for their artistic and aesthetic values.

That is a novel concept - I have been growing to learn that it's primarily about $$$ value. Unlearning me could be slow and painful - please stop.

Also, if you are going to use my name, please capitalize it. Or you could 'capitolize' it, as long as you share.

[bn2cardz]

I agree that the type number shouldn't matter on value or beauty of the piece, my question was purely a question of semantics not on value.

I had picked up a picture of Mel Blanc with Bugs Bunny. This is a composite. It was labeled 1, but a Rhys so I don't question it. I assumed it being a type 1 came from most of the composite being the first time it was photographed with only Mel's face being from an older photo. I just like the image and new the composite itself was original. It wouldn't have mattered to me if it was labeled 1st generation or 2nd generation. I was just curious how most people would label a composite.

[drcy]

When selling a photo, you don't always have to give a "Type" label. Why are you required to say what "type" of photo is that Mel Blanc photo, when different people will have different interpretations? It's a matter of semantics and personal definition and ways of viewing the photo making process and the photo is part sketch design and part photographic image (Can a photo be 50% original? 75% original? Is a composite with half original images and half reprint images a 'Half a Type I?'). And, as you say, what type it is and who's semantics you use has no effect on your liking or valuation of the photo.

It's like with the George Burke photos. If you don't even know when the photo was printed, you literally can't say what type it is. In your eBay sales description, how can you label what type is a George Burke photo when you don't know what type it is? The answer is, you can't. The type system can't be applied and doesn't come into play.

As I said, focusing strictly on the type labels often involves missing the forrest for the trees. If the Mel Blanc was vintage, cool, unique and you loved it, you should have purchased it. And that's exactly what you did. Bravo! Sounds like you made a great purchase. If someone wants that vintage circa 1930s George Burke photo of Dizzy Dean even though he doesn't know what "type" it is and may never know, he should buy it. Is someone out there seriously never going to buy a 1930s George Burke photo because no one can tell what "type" it is?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by drcy

When selling a photo, you don't always have to give a "Type" label. Why are you required to say what "type" of photo is that Mel Blanc photo, when different people will have different interpretations. It's a matter of semantics and personal definition and ways of viewing the photo making process and that the photo is part sketch design and part photographic image (Can a photo be 50% original? 75% original?). And, as you say, what type it is and who's semantics you use has no effect on your liking or valuation of the photo.

It's like with the George Burke photos. If you don't even know when the photo was printed, you literally can't say what type it is. In your eBay sales description, how can you label what type is a George Burke photo when you don't know what type it is? The answer is, you can't. The type system can't be applied and doesn't come into play.

As I said, focusing strictly on the type labels often involves missing the forrest for the trees. If the Mel Blanc was vintage, cool, unique and you loved it, you should have purchased it. If you want that vintage circa 1930s George Burke photo of Dizzy Dean buy it, even though you don't know what "type" it is and may never know. Is someone out there seriously never going to buy a circa 1930s George Burke photo because no one can tell what "type" it is?

I told you to stop making sense. Next you will tell us that if we don't like the backstamps we still should consider turning the photo over and looking at the image.

And again you use 'forrest'

[drcy]

"What type of photo is that Yankees team composite on your wall?"
"Depends of what time of day you ask."
"No, seriously. Is it original or second generation?"
"Yes, definitely."
"You aren't giving me straight answers."
"My answers are straight. It's your questions that are crooked."

[Exhibitman]

This 'Type' stuff is a PSA construct and should not really be used unless it is in reference to PSA product. Situations like the ones in this thread show the futility of that construct, frankly. I mean, look at this 1927 composite photo from Dempsey-Tunney II: how would PSA classify it? Plainly a photo of other photos but so what?



As for art made of photos and other media, the ones shown so far are great. I have always loved this piece I picked up several years ago of the [then] two tallest heavyweight champs, Jess Willard and Primo Carnera:

[drcy]

Just remember that Doctor Who wins many of his battles by asking an evil computer or robot for the the answer to an unanswerable paradox and the computer or robot says "Does Not Compute. Does Not Compute" until it explodes.

[Forever Young]

If one is looking for answers as it relates to the type system and want a straight answer, I would suggest you email Henry Yee directly and bypass on the nonsense. I think he is pretty good at getting back to people eventually.

hyee@mindspring.com.

[Runscott]

Discussion isn't really nonsense.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

This 'Type' stuff is a PSA construct and should not really be used unless it is in reference to PSA product. Situations like the ones in this thread show the futility of that construct, frankly. I mean, look at this 1927 composite photo from Dempsey-Tunney II: how would PSA classify it? Plainly a photo of other photos but so what?



As for art made of photos and other media, the ones shown so far are great. I have always loved this piece I picked up several years ago of the [then] two tallest heavyweight champs, Jess Willard and Primo Carnera:

That's got to be one of the best artistic composites I've seen.

Here's another one of my favorites. I'm guessing it was used in one of the guides from the 1930's:

[Jaybird]

Straight answers also don't answer the real question. So you get an answer as to which Type your item is. So what?

The term "composite photo" is much more descriptive than "Type X". Then let your eyes do the work and stop looking for easy answers.

This thread is a perfect example of why I love composite photos so much. You can't label them easily. Unless you contact Henry

[Econteachert205]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Discussion isn't really nonsense.

+1

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Econteachert205

+1

Oh it certainly is with some people.

[Econteachert205]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Oh it certainly is with some people.

Perhaps...

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Jaybird

Straight answers also don't answer the real question. So you get an answer as to which Type your item is. So what?

The term "composite photo" is much more descriptive than "Type X". Then let your eyes do the work and stop looking for easy answers.

This thread is a perfect example of why I love composite photos so much. You can't label them easily. Unless you contact Henry

WOW... that's some deep s*it....

Who can't?? They people who have posted on here?? Can't or won't? The question was asked about what type it would be. If that person is interested, they can contact Henry is all I am saying. Ther eis not a blanket type as there are numerous ways a composite can be made.
I am gla dyou love composite photos.. collect what you love for sure.

[Econteachert205]

Well I just emailed Henry so we'll see if he responds.

[Runscott]

...

I love lamp

[thecatspajamas]

The Type system is for classification, not assigning merit or artistic value. Whether a photo is Type 1 or not doesn't make it 2 better than any other photo which happens to be a Type 3. And if you really really like a photo re-shot from an attractive arrangement of die-cut, hand-lettered, artistically-embellished 1st generation photos, I mean really really REALLY like, it still doesn't make it a Type 1. Desirability does not define Type classification, and a Type number is not a comment on a photo's artistic merit.

Put another way, a photo's Type may affect its desirability, but desirability does not affect its Type.

To answer the OP's question, the 1909 Pirates composite is a Type 3. And a very desirable one at that.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

The Type system is for classification, not assigning merit or artistic value. Whether a photo is Type 1 or not doesn't make it 2 better than any other photo which happens to be a Type 3. And if you really really like a photo re-shot from an attractive arrangement of die-cut, hand-lettered, artistically-embellished 1st generation photos, I mean really really REALLY like, it still doesn't make it a Type 1. Desirability does not define Type classification, and a Type number is not a comment on a photo's artistic merit.

Put another way, a photo's Type may affect its desirability, but desirability does not affect its Type.

To answer the OP's question, the 1909 Pirates composite is a Type 3. And a very desirable one at that.

Correct. I thought that I already established that. The question I thought was are "all" this or that. I think I am missing pieces .. I am on my phone. My 1915 photo is def type. .

[drcy]

Okay then. If a composite photo has an equal number of type I images of individual players and an equal number type III images of players in it, it it a Type I photo or a Type III photo? Or is it neither? Or both? Or both and neither simultaneously? Or is it half and half? Or is the very question of 'which one or the other is it?' fruitless and silly, because it doesn't have to be 'wholly one of the other'?

There is no one correct answer to the above photo. Someone could just as easily and logically name it a Type I as they could a Type III. They'd both be equality right and equally wrong. And one could reasonably say "It's sort of both and neither or an average of the two at the same time. Because part of it is Type I, which means that part is not type III, and part of it's Type III (which means that part of isn't Type I). As you can see it's not entirely one or the other."

The very asking of "What type of photo is it, Type I or Type III" implies that it has to be one or the other. The question itself is bad and shallow.

PERSON A: "Is a ball hollow or is it rubber?"
PERSON B: "Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't it be both simultaneously? Or why can't it be part hollow and part rubber simultaneously? Or why can't it be neither, such as with a solid plastic ball?"
PERSON A: "That's nonsense. A ball can only be rubber or hollow."
PERSON B: "Why can't the ball be made out of solid metal? Why can't a ball the made out of solid leather? What about a ball of yarn? Why can't a solid ball be made one third out of plastic, one third out of leather and one third out of metal?"
PERSON A: "Now, you're really talking nonsense."

In many cases, the very notion that something has to only one thing or the other is nonsensical and shows a lack of intellect. Yes, that a ball has to be EITHER rubber OR hollow is nonsensical. I used it as an obviously silly and nonsensical example. But it is also nonsensical that the above photo that has to be EITHER Type I or Type III. In parts it's like Type I and in parts its like Type III. It's silly that it has to be labelled as wholly one or the other.

As my dad would often say to me when I asked him 'Is it A or B?' questions, "That's not an either/or question." Meaning A and B weren't mutually exclusive. The answer could be both and the answer could be neither.

My dad wouldn't give you an answer unless you phrased the question logically. He'd often say "That's a non-question."

[drcy]

And here you go, folks. I just asked dear old dad about a theoretical photo that was half (left side) original and half (right side) reprint. I used the specific example of it being a 1940 photo of Joe Dimaggio, with the left half showing him in 1940 and the right half showing him back when he was a kid. I asked him "It the whole photo an original or it is a reprint?" His answer was "Well, it's not really either."

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Correct. I thought that I already established that. The question I thought was are "all" this or that. I think I am missing pieces .. I am on my phone. My 1915 photo is def type. .

Ben, I wasn't trying to steal your thunder if I restated your position, and wasn't aiming my comments at anyone in particular. Just reading and "swyping" on my phone as well, and not about to try and quote or go back over with a fine-toothed comb (that last post took me about 20 minutes to hammer out). I'm really just a little surprised by all the sentiments that the Type system is so open-ended/subject to personal interpretation, and that every photo must be able to have a Type assigned to it. A response of "a Type classification simply isn't possible and/or appropriate for that piece" should always be an acceptable response. It doesn't make what you have any more or less desirable than it would be without the Type classification, and in those cases, you simply have to use a few more words to describe what it is.

[Econteachert205]

Mr Yee just responded to me. what a total gentlemen. I am awaiting his response as to whether I can post the entirety of his response, it was very informative.

[drcy]

<< A response of "a Type classification simply isn't possible and/or appropriate for that piece" should always be an acceptable response. It doesn't make what you have any more or less desirable than it would be without the Type classification, and in those cases, you simply have to use a few more words to describe what it is. >>

I agree with that. In cases the type system doesn't apply, or the photo doesn't fit (at least neatly) into the type system, or the type, while technically accurate, doesn't tell the whole story. In some cases a photo can straddle types or fit into multiple types (see composites). In cases you have to go beyond the type labels to explain what the photo really is. Sometimes the description of a novel photo's identity and nature can't fit on a physical label because it's 800 words long.

Question: "Is your composite photo for sale Type I or is it Type II?"
Answer: "The answer to what it is is more complicated that your question suggests. Let me explain how the different parts of the photo were made ..."

[Econteachert205]

.............."with Henry's permission in response to my email inquiry, I am copying his response below"............


Hi Dennis:

Thanks you for your past business. To answer your question ...

Classifying composite photos with the “TYPE” system is on a case by case basis. It depends on the photo in question. First off, very few composite photos would be considered a TYPE I by definition (one made from multiple original negatives) as the majority of composite photos are classified as TYPE III (one made from multiple photos). This is because of the nature of how composite photos were usually made.

A composite photo is "usually" made from multiple photos pieced together. In traditional film photography, the term used is "photomontage" the process and the result of making a composite photograph by cutting and joining two or more photographs into an illusion. The resulting composite image is usually pieced together on an editorial board, then photographed with a camera, the negative developed to make a seamless photographic print - the composite photo itself. In other words, it is a photo of "a multiple of photos". When made in this manner, the composite image is a TYPE III (or TYPE IV if the work was done at a later period later than the depicted subjects forming the composite).

For a composite photo to be a true TYPE I, it would have to be one made off multiple "negatives". The negatives themselves would have to be original negatives as well and not dupe/copy negatives. A photo editor (or photo clerk) would have to actually take these negatives, cut out the desired sectionals which are then joined together and developed to form the composite photo. This practice is rare.

From my experience in what I have seen and in working with archivist of major news photo libraries, most TYPE I composites date to the post WWII-era. Very few joined-negative "proofs" of these composites (made of original negatives pasted together) exist from any era. But there are quite a few photo montage proofs (original photos pieced together mounted on an editorial board).

From an authentication perspective, MANY composite photos can NOT be assigned a “TYPE” classification because they are difficult to determine if the said composite photo was made from multiple photos or made from multiple negatives. PSA does not authenticate/classify many composite photos simply because, in many cases, we just can not say - with absolute certainty.

One important thing I would like to point out is value. Most advanced collectors that collect "composites" do NOT concern themselves of a TYPE designation of the piece. The renowned photographer Carl Horner whose composite photos are by definition, TYPE III but collectors of those five-figure pieces do not base their purchase on what TYPE the piece is classified. It would be silly to even used the TYPE system do so (it would be like classifying 19th century composite cabinet cards with the TYPE designation). It is sort of a different genre of collecting.

In my opinion, the value of a "composite photo" is based on two main factors: (1) the photo being a vintage “period” piece and, (2) the artistry and overall composition of the piece. Not so much the TYPE system. There are some absolutely beautiful composite photos that are some of the most desirable and valuable photographic items in our hobby.

Hope this helps.

Best Regards
Henry

[Runscott]

Well done, Henry!

This was a great discussion - explored the topic pretty well despite all the vintage photo politics. People outside of the hobby must think this is ludicrous.

[bn2cardz]

Thank your for that message. It pretty much correlated with drcy.

I really was just curious about the semantics in general of where composites fell. It is similar to be people saying "I could care less" instead of "I couldn't care less" either way I know what they mean, but I still wonder why they would think the first would make sense and why they would use the phrase that way. It purely was a conversation about semantics not on the value of the said piece. I just don't want to sound ignorant by calling something a type 1 composite if that wasn't an accurate description.

I really didn't think the defining of the Type would have an effect on the price of the Pirates composite, but I didn't know if calling it a "type 1" was, in fact, accurate. I find it interesting that PSA won't even bother trying to give a title to most composites. So composites really just fall outside the "type" designation and shouldn't be mixed in the same description.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

Thank your for that message. It pretty much correlated with drcy.

I like that.

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

I just don't want to sound ignorant by calling something a type 1 composite if that wasn't an accurate description.

I use the word 'original'. It's always worked pretty well, and people can always ask for clarification. Sounds like they would even if you said 'Type x'.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

I find it interesting that PSA won't even bother trying to give a title to most composites. So composites really just fall outside the "type" designation and shouldn't be mixed in the same description.

I don't think that saying they "won't even bother trying" is accurate at all, nor is saying ALL composites fall outside the system. They analyze whatever photos are sent to them, and where they are able to identify a TYPE, they do. It just happens that with many/most composites it is inappropriate or impossible to say with any certainty, so they rightly decline to just make something up or just guess. Ultimately declining to state an opinion is not equivalent to a lack of effort or concern.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

I don't think that saying they "won't even bother trying" is accurate at all, nor is saying ALL composites fall outside the system. They analyze whatever photos are sent to them, and where they are able to identify a TYPE, they do. It just happens that with many/most composites it is inappropriate or impossible to say with any certainty, so they rightly decline to just make something up or just guess. Ultimately declining to state an opinion is not equivalent to a lack of effort or concern.

Lance, the problem is that some people have to have a 'Type' designation for the photo or they don't want the photo - PSA authentication is what makes the print 'real' for them. And before anyone busts my balls - I'm not bashing PSA and I'm not saying ALL collectors. Just some. So if PSA won't give an opinion, it makes the photo phony. My Zack Wheat mounted Conlon is a perfect example - PSA can't see the back, so my understanding is that they can't render an opinion....so to potential buyers, it is not 'real'. So declining to offer an opinion is problematic. Not for me (other than if it involves a customer), but for people who need their authentication.

[drcy]

This thread demonstrates that a photograph (composite) can be both Type III and original. It's like quantum physics

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Lance, the problem is that some people have to have a 'Type' designation for the photo or they don't want the photo - PSA authentication is what makes the print 'real' for them. And before anyone busts my balls - I'm not bashing PSA and I'm not saying ALL collectors. Just some. So if PSA won't give an opinion, it makes the photo phony. My Zack Wheat mounted Conlon is a perfect example - PSA can't see the back, so my understanding is that they can't render an opinion....so to potential buyers, it is not 'real'. So declining to offer an opinion is problematic. Not for me (other than if it involves a customer), but for people who need their authentication.

Scott, I fully agree that the "no opinion = fake or worthless" mindset is all too prevalent among novice collectors, and have had to take returns as well because of it. I don't blame PSA for the collector's ignorance though, or want them to start guessing on authentication of ambiguous photos just to keep their "No Opinion" count down. Maybe add a note of explanation for why an opinion was not rendered (Is that already done? I don't have an example of a No Opinion letter on hand to verify), but not go out on limbs with their written opinions.

Basically, the collector's ignorance regarding what they are collecting and/or why a TYPE was not assigned is the problem, not the absence of a rendered opinion.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Scott, I fully agree that the "no opinion = fake or worthless" mindset is all too prevalent among novice collectors, and have had to take returns as well because of it. I don't blame PSA for the collector's ignorance though, or want them to start guessing on authentication of ambiguous photos just to keep their "No Opinion" count down. Maybe add a note of explanation for why an opinion was not rendered (Is that already done? I don't have an example of a No Opinion letter on hand to verify), but not go out on limbs with their written opinions.

Basically, the collector's ignorance regarding what they are collecting and/or why a TYPE was not assigned is the problem, not the absence of a rendered opinion.

I didn't suggest that they should start guessing, or that a collectors' ignorance would be PSA's fault - on the contrary, I think the Type system helps educate novices by having defined guidelines.

But PSA is making money authenticating photos, partly because novices want the service - it has created a new collector market. So I do think they owe the collectors more than 'no opinion'. But like you, I haven't seen the 'no opinion' letter. Perhaps it says that the print looks fine, but because they can't get under the mount, they can't render an official opinion.

I guess another way to look at it is that if you are a novice collector, and don't feel comfortable with 'no opinion' items, then just avoid them - I'm thinking it's a fraction of what PSA authenticates, so it shouldn't be a big deal.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

I don't think that saying they "won't even bother trying" is accurate at all, nor is saying ALL composites fall outside the system. They analyze whatever photos are sent to them, and where they are able to identify a TYPE, they do. It just happens that with many/most composites it is inappropriate or impossible to say with any certainty, so they rightly decline to just make something up or just guess. Ultimately declining to state an opinion is not equivalent to a lack of effort or concern.

Thanks for clarifying that. I do have an issue with wording my posts correctly when I keep getting interrupted with "work"

I did understand that they do try when they can, but I meant to say "they won't bother forcing a designation when it isn't clear, which would sound like is more often than not."

[drcy]

As I've always said all along, it's just a convenient guide that has limits and looks at just certain aspects of photos. We all here understand that. But, as Scott said, many newbie collectors treat it as a bible and final arbiter of a photo's value, nature and intrinsic worth. Some collectors will say if something is not Type I it's not worth buying and overpay for an ugly photo of Lou Gehrig simply because it has a Type I label on the holder (I've that seen it happen). And, as Scott says, if someone says a photo (say a composite) can't be labelled by PSA type's system, there really are collectors out there who will assume that means there's something wrong with the photo-- in their mind equating it to PSA not authenticating an autograph. But Henry himself said there are Type IIIs that are valuable and very much worth collecting and there are perfectly good and valuable photos that can't be labelled by the type system.

In short, if you treat the system as a limited and narrow-viewed but convenient way to categorize photos, that's fine. The error, and what is the crux of my complaints all along, is when some people treat it as the final and entire arbiter of a photo's worth and nature-- which some do. I've seen it. If you treat the Type system as one of a combination five ways to judge a photo, that's fine. If you treat it as the only way, you're view of photos is limited and near sided.

[thecatspajamas]

Sorry, I misunderstood and thought you were griping about the number of N.O. letters. My bad, and I think we're on the same page now.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by drcy

This thread demonstrates that a photograph (composite) can be both Type III and original. It's like quantum physics

And here I thought I was the only one who saw Schrodinger's cat lurking in this thread...

Appreciated Henry's take on things. The uncertainty is one of the reasons I buy composite photos based on subject and try to find them with stamps and slugs that demonstrate age. Here's a fun composite:



From Rawhide; Lou Gehrig's head stripped onto the stuntman's body.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

And here I thought I was the only one who saw Schrodinger's cat lurking in this thread...

I did almost bring up Kurt Godel's incompleteness theorems.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by drcy

I did almost bring up Kurt Godel's incompleteness theorems.

I would have, but was stuck in a strange loop.

[71buc]

Originally Posted by Econteachert205

.............."with Henry's permission in response to my email inquiry, I am copying his response below"............

For a composite photo to be a true TYPE I, it would have to be one made off multiple "negatives". The negatives themselves would have to be original negatives as well and not dupe/copy negatives. A photo editor (or photo clerk) would have to actually take these negatives, cut out the desired sectionals which are then joined together and developed to form the composite photo. This practice is rare.

From my experience in what I have seen and in working with archivist of major news photo libraries, most TYPE I composites date to the post WWII-era. Very few joined-negative "proofs" of these composites (made of original negatives pasted together) exist from any era. But there are quite a few photo montage proofs (original photos pieced together mounted on an editorial board).

This a very informative thread. When I first started collecting photos the first composite photo I picked up was this 1931 opening day photo of Hack Wilson. It is made of two photos pasted together. The background image has editorial inks on the infield and shading around the cut out Wilson image. As can be seen on the reverse Wilson’s cap and the end of his bats were clipped off at some point in time.

Shortly after picking the Wilson photo up I obtained the 1923 Pie Traynor. Based on the Wilson photo I assumed that the Traynor would also be comprised of multiple images pasted together it was not. The Wilson image has the newspaper clipping attached to the reverse. Does this mean that it is a montage photo proof, or were such images occasionally not re-photographed to make a Type III image for publication like the Traynor photo?

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by 71buc

This a very informative thread. When I first started collecting photos the first composite photo I picked up was this 1931 opening day photo of Hack Wilson. It is made of two photos pasted together. The background image has editorial inks on the infield and shading around the cut out Wilson image. As can be seen on the reverse Wilson’s cap and the end of his bats were clipped off at some point in time.

Shortly after picking the Wilson photo up I obtained the 1923 Pie Traynor. Based on the Wilson photo I assumed that the Traynor would also be comprised of multiple images pasted together it was not. The Wilson image has the newspaper clipping attached to the reverse. Does this mean that it is a montage photo proof, or were such images occasionally not re-photographed to make a Type III image for publication like the Traynor photo?

Mike,
Based on the discussion in this thread, including Henry's response, I think that the Wilson would not only be considered a Type 1, but 2 Type 1's. As the copy that you own is not a re-photographed image, it is 2 separate photos in one. The Traynor likely started as multiple photos cut and pasted together. it was then re-photographed. As such it would be a type 3.
BTW, thanks for the nice comments on my Van Oeyen Gehrig pick up.
Mark

[71buc]

Obviously I am a bit slow. Thanks for the explanation. You'd think six years of college would indicate an ability to read. I think I'm going pursue a refund for my education.

Mike