I am new to the forum and joined primarily because of the wealth of shared information that is contained in discussions such as this one. From the tone of some of the responses it appears that the "Type" classification system for photos has already been discussed and debated.
I don't want to raise inappropriate issues, but would simply like to add that I have been collecting vintage baseball photographs for over 30 years now and have found the Fogel, Oser and Yee book extremely helpful even though there are clearly prints that "fall between the cracks" of their classification format.
For what it is worth, the Ruth photograph does not appear to me to be a first generation print (lack of clarity and full tonal range) but, as many here have stated, that does not diminish in any way it's significance.
Whereas I believe collectors should accumulate what appeals to them, I would caution those who ignore the rarity of true Type 1 photographs. As I have seen repeatedly, the number of fully documented Type 1 prints for a given image can often be counted on one hand and in many cases only a single example has survived. In that context, I do not see why anyone would have an issue with what is the ultimate quest in vintage photography.
|
09-15-2011, 03:35 PM
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode