Confusion with Type Photos on PSA Site

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by steve B

With photos though, to me it becomes a bit arbitrary.

This I would still disagree with. Much of what you give as examples to follow this statement speaks to the utilitarian nature of the photos as carriers of a desired image. If the rare image, or the use of such for publication is the primary desire, then I agree that it matters little whether a fresh modern print is produced off of the original negative vs an original print produced from the negative within the same period in which it was shot. In fact, a digital scan of the image from the negative might be even more desirable if the intent is to reproduce it in some form of print.

However, most photo "collectors" are not buying photos in order to re-use the image it contains. The print itself is what is being collected, and the closer that print is to being produced from the original negative within the period in which is was shot, the more desirable it is. Which is not the same as saying that all Type 1 photos are automatically desirable, or that all Type IV photos are worthless for any purpose. Worth less, all else being equal, but not worthless.

Originally Posted by steve B

Now in cycling photos, that's not a big deal, it's "original" . But if it's a baseball photo, it's not a type I, but a type II. And probably worth less, even if there really aren't any type I examples.

If it's a baseball photo, it is also "original" in that scenario. Even among cycling enthusiasts though, I would be very surprised if there was zero premium placed on a print produced from the original negative in the period it was shot vs. an identical print produced from the same negative a decade later. Offered both, side by side for the same price, I cannot imagine any collector choosing the later print. All else being equal, the Type 1 photo is more desirable than the Type 2. As you observed, there may not be Type 1 prints of a particular shot available, but then that is not an "all else being equal" scenario. Please keep in mind also that "less desirable" is not the same as "undesirable."

In the end, photography covers such a broad spectrum of subjects and formats that there is really a niche for every collector to find. If you are equally-satisfied with Type 4 photos vs Type 1, then by all means, pursue Type 4's and save a few bucks. As with any area of collecting, each collector should determine for themselves what aspects they place more value in, and pursue their collection accordingly. With or without the Type system though, all other factors being equal, "vintage original" has always carried a premium price point over a modern reproduction, even if the word "Type" is never used in the description.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

This I would still disagree with. Much of what you give as examples to follow this statement speaks to the utilitarian nature of the photos as carriers of a desired image. If the rare image, or the use of such for publication is the primary desire, then I agree that it matters little whether a fresh modern print is produced off of the original negative vs an original print produced from the negative within the same period in which it was shot. In fact, a digital scan of the image from the negative might be even more desirable if the intent is to reproduce it in some form of print.

However, most photo "collectors" are not buying photos in order to re-use the image it contains. The print itself is what is being collected, and the closer that print is to being produced from the original negative within the period in which is was shot, the more desirable it is. Which is not the same as saying that all Type 1 photos are automatically desirable, or that all Type IV photos are worthless for any purpose. Worth less, all else being equal, but not worthless.

The examples were just something I used as examples of how the photos were used. I do understand the attraction of originality and how production closer to the taking of the picture is more desirable.

What's always puzzled me is the 2 year limit. Why 2 years instead of 1 or 3 or even 5. (which is right out ) That's the bit I think is arbitrary.
Rarity could actually be the reverse, a photo of a famous event would be really popular right after, maybe less so more than 2 years later.


To me it's mostly about the image, and if it's remotely original. The 2 years doesn't really do much for me. I don't like scanned and printed copies of anything unless they're really well done and on archival paper. And even then.... I've only bought a couple as gifts. Not that I have a huge photo collection in sports. I probably have more that aren't sports, just images that I found interesting.

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

If it's a baseball photo, it is also "original" in that scenario. Even among cycling enthusiasts though, I would be very surprised if there was zero premium placed on a print produced from the original negative in the period it was shot vs. an identical print produced from the same negative a decade later. Offered both, side by side for the same price, I cannot imagine any collector choosing the later print. All else being equal, the Type 1 photo is more desirable than the Type 2. As you observed, there may not be Type 1 prints of a particular shot available, but then that is not an "all else being equal" scenario. Please keep in mind also that "less desirable" is not the same as "undesirable."

In the end, photography covers such a broad spectrum of subjects and formats that there is really a niche for every collector to find. If you are equally-satisfied with Type 4 photos vs Type 1, then by all means, pursue Type 4's and save a few bucks. As with any area of collecting, each collector should determine for themselves what aspects they place more value in, and pursue their collection accordingly. With or without the Type system though, all other factors being equal, "vintage original" has always carried a premium price point over a modern reproduction, even if the word "Type" is never used in the description.

Cycling collectors are just plain weird. I can't recall ever hearing any discussion of when an image was created aside from that one huge collection. And most don't collect photos at all. Even with the guys that collect the bikes, a popular one is always worth way more than one that's actually rare. Sometimes... And for most, it has to be in exactly the size they ride.

Aside from cheap reproductions, most Cycling photos are probably type 1. There are events from the 1980's that I haven't been able to find any image of at all. Not even in books and magazines, and I'm talking about fairly major international contests. And only a handful from the 1930's and before would be all that interesting even a short time after they were taken.