Charles Conlon Fakes, Baseball Magazine Stickers & A Brief Tutorial

[Lordstan]

Taking Scott's lead on continuing the discussion over here, I cut and paste a question I have below.
Also thanks to Rhys and Ben for coming together to create a very nice summary.

Originally Posted by drcy

Dennis, a photo expert or seasoned collector doesn't look just at the stamp to determine the originality and age of a photo. Photos with no stamps or marks can be identified as Type Is due to their physical qualities. Many original photos have no stamps.

David,
I have a question about this statement. I agree that one can tell an original/vintage photo by the physical characteristics, but how can anyone say a photo is a type 1 when the rules of the type system have a set time duration? A photo produced in 1932 would certainly have most, if not all, the same physical qualities of one made in 1929, but if the photo was taken in 1927, the 1929 photo is a type 1 and the other is not.
Personally, it is with the multitude of unmarked photos that I feel the Type system has some limitations. Ben has often noted that he would much rather had a photo of 1915 Babe Ruth image produced in 1915 than the same image produced in 1919. He backs up these words by paying quite aggressively for those 1915 images. So if the physical qualities of the 2 prints are the same and there are no markings, how can one really tell?

Mark