vintage Ruth wire photos

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by billyb

Scott, you and the others within that thread made one point that I agree with. No matter how many editors marks are on that photo, I will never allow any of those photos to be touched up for sale. That would be the collectors who buy them to clean the photo if they wish.
I would ask for several more to post, but my cousin will be busy making copies for HYEE to view in Jan.

billyb

Billy, whether or not you take my advice is not important - I have no horse in this race and have the skill to authenticate my own photos If you would like to pay someone to tell you whether or not your photos are real, then you should do so. It's a very popular route to go these days. Good luck.

[billyb]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Billy, whether or not you take my advice is not important - I have no horse in this race and have the skill to authenticate my own photos If you would like to pay someone to tell you whether or not your photos are real, then you should do so. It's a very popular route to go these days. Good luck.

Scott
I know where you are coming from, I truly do, but I am more afraid of selling a photo that was not a true type 1 or 2, I do not have that skill to judge, and I know that other experts like yourself would know the difference. But if even one photo was misgraded or somehow slipped though and graded incorrectly, than the rest of the collection could loose its luster with the collectors. Or what if a novice collector were to buy that error, and not know the difference. I feel confident with anyone of you, who have responded, and would feel comfortable with anyone of you, but the common denominator seemed to be Mr. Yee.
Scott, thank you for all you information, and by the way, my son who lives in Houston said "Dallas who???" That's not from me, I am still trying to root for the Lions, just visiting in Houston for now. I have Texas grandchildren.
billyb

[drc]

The common denominator was not Mr. Yee. That he has a spirited cheerleading squad doesn't make him a common denominator. However, he's competent with your types of photos and would do a fine job identifying then.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by drc

The common denominator was not Mr. Yee. That he has a spirited cheerleading squad doesn't make him a common denominator. However, he's competent with your types of photos and would do a fine job identifying then.

Henry and Marshall also invented the classification system which you and others regularly plagiarize and use with no credit given. I admit I use their terminology too but I don't get paid for my services. Just something to think about. And I should add, if that Type 1-thru Type 4 system was used before they put it out I would like to know so I can be as correct as possible, but I believe what I am saying is true.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Leon

Henry and Marshall also invented the classification system which you and others regularly plagiarize and use with no credit given. I admit I use their terminology too but I don't get paid for my services. Just something to think about. And I should add, if that Type 1-thru Type 4 system was used before they put it out I would like to know so I can be as correct as possible, but I believe what I am saying is true.

I don't think anyone is taking credit for having invented Henry's terminology. If someone was quoting him without giving him credit, that would be plagiarism. Also, he receives tons of accolades for his type system, here on the board, and it indirectly results in money in his pocket, so I doubt he has too many complaints when it is used.

Definition of plagiarism: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by billyb

Scott
I know where you are coming from, I truly do, but I am more afraid of selling a photo that was not a true type 1 or 2, I do not have that skill to judge, and I know that other experts like yourself would know the difference. But if even one photo was misgraded or somehow slipped though and graded incorrectly, than the rest of the collection could loose its luster with the collectors. Or what if a novice collector were to buy that error, and not know the difference. I feel confident with anyone of you, who have responded, and would feel comfortable with anyone of you, but the common denominator seemed to be Mr. Yee.
Scott, thank you for all you information, and by the way, my son who lives in Houston said "Dallas who???" That's not from me, I am still trying to root for the Lions, just visiting in Houston for now. I have Texas grandchildren.
billyb

Billy, you make good points.

[drc]

They put out the Type I terminology first. That doesn't make it worthwhile terminology. I'm sure I could put out a color coded system.

I describe photos using the English language: Original, original printed later, later generation. Unlike with Type I, I never have to explain to a collector what original means.

Sorry if I say my (and everyone else's in the photo world who doesn't collect PSA or Beckett), the English language system, is the superior system. It's known as describing a photo in words people know and understand. I will be bold and say that using common English words is 10x better than using some convoluted type system. I didn't say the Type system was incorrect, just a pointless and pointlessly confusing. It's a gimmick for graded card collectors.

People come on this board often and say "What does Type I mean?" Does anyone every come on this board and say "What does original mean?" I've never had to explain to anyone what an 'original' painting means.

When I worked for Beckett, they used the Type system, but that had nothing to do with me. I wasn't a fan of that system then, didn't use it, but Beckett decided how to label things not me.

As I said before, press photos aren't a terribly complicated area of photography to identify. You don't have to be Sir Isaac Newton to tackle it. Along that line, do I think Yee and PSA/DNA is competent at labeling press photos? Yes. The PSA LOA's I've seen have been accurate in their descriptions.


* * * *

"What kind of photo is that?"
"It's a Type I"
"What does Type I mean?"
"Original."
"Then why don't you just call it original?"
"Because I'm lame and stupid and girls hate me."
"Oh, okay, as long as you have a reason."

Calm down, it's just a joke. Everyone knows PSA collectors are the smoothest and hippest of the graded sports ephemera collectors. Women love a man with holograms.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by drc

They put out the Type I terminology first. That doesn't make it worthwhile terminology. I'm sure I could put out a color coded system.

I describe photos using the English language: Original, original printed later, later generation. Unlike with Type I, I never have to explain to a collector what original means.

Sorry if I say my (and everyone else's in the photo world who doesn't collect PSA or Beckett), the English language system, is the superior system. It's known as describing a photo in words people know and understand. I will be bold and say that using common English words is 10x better than using some convoluted type system. I didn't say the Type system was incorrect, just a pointless and pointlessly confusing. It's a gimmick for graded card collectors.

People come on this board often and say "What does Type I mean?" Does anyone every come on this board and say "What does original mean?" I've never had to explain to anyone what an 'original' painting means.

When I worked for Beckett, they used the Type system, but that had nothing to do with me. I wasn't a fan of that system then, didn't use it, but Beckett decided how to label things not me.

As I said before, press photos aren't a terribly complicated area of photography to identify. You don't have to be Sir Isaac Newton to tackle it. Along that line, do I think Yee and PSA/DNA is competent at labeling press photos? Yes. The PSA LOA's I've seen have been accurate in their descriptions.


* * * *

"What kind of photo is that?"
"It's a Type I"
"What does Type I mean?"
"Original."
"Then why don't you just call it original?"
"Because I'm lame and stupid and girls hate me."
"Oh, okay, as long as you have a reason."

Calm down, it's just a joke. Everyone knows PSA collectors are the smoothest and hippest of the graded sports ephemera collectors. Women love a man with holograms.

For what it is worth.. I don't collect psa and Beckett slabs nor have I submitted to them and I like system(as a collector in the photo world). It is a system that was first and defines differences. It is not hard to comprehend. Type is an English word and numbers .. Well.. they aren't too tough either. It is easy to say one could come up with something better after the fact. If you can, perhaps you should try and see if it takes. "Original" is not your system.. it is a common term that can be used for anything and not close to specific enough IMO(ambiguous term as it related to photos).
I actually believe the Type system is easy to understand. Is the type system a gimmick?? Idk.. Do they make money on it? Yes.. But it serves a purpose. Therefore, I don't care. Not everyone is as knowledgeable as you, jimmy, runscott myself.. Ect. This isn't because they are unable.. but because they haven't had the exposure. There are a lot of photo archives that have opened and a lot of room for those who are not educated to get taken. I personally like the type system and it has nothing to do with buying and collecting slabs. The only slabs I own are photos that happen to have been authenticated already when I purchased. However, if I was to ever sell my collection.. I would have all the high end photos authenticated by PSA as I believe it would attract more bidding by those who want/need the assurance. This , in turn, will most likely line my pockets with more money which women do like(so I guess you are right on that one) I also want to apologize to the board for negativity. The hobby should be fun and positive no matter what photo classification you adopt. runscott and I did have a nice convo and agree on more that we disagree. Funny how that works huh?? "Can't we all just get along"? just my 2 cents

[Runscott]

I agree with a lot of what both of you just posted. I just wrote up my own thoughts about the type system, but to prevent more angst, I have deleted it

[drc]

Knowing Scott, this is probably what he would have said: "To start, you all are a bunch of freaks and imbeciles ... " It would continue along that line until he demonstrates his God complex and speaks in tongues, takes out his gun and waves it around as talks about ACME News Photo stamping, dares us to a game of Russian roulette and when no one accepts says "I didn't think so," then ends with "And, in conclusion, I hope you all rot in Hell." In short, it would be just like a Ted Nugent concert.

No wait, my bad. That's what I'd say.