Opinion on this Jimmy Foxx photo

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

Who came up with the arbitrary (2-3 years after the photo was first taken) rule to be a Type 1? I have some really nice Ruth images with 1923-24 stamps on the back and are they REALLY considered Type II because the original photo was taken by the photographer in 1920 and this one has a date stamp of 1923 on the back? It makes sense for Post WWII images, but in the infancy of News Service photographs right around WWI, this seems like a needlessly harsh rule. Just my 2 cents.

Rhys

I have a lot of the same concerns. Seems a bit arbitrary to me. Vintage photos do not fit the same strict classifications as cards.

Keep in mind these are simply the guidelines Mastro/Legendary/Yee use for their own photos. Sometimes I wonder how accurately they are using their own guidelines when I look through their catalogs. Actually looking through the last Legendary catalog they don't mention "Type's" in their descriptions at all.................although they attribute the book from which all these definitions apparently originated from in the foreward.

Unless the images are "Radio or Sound" photos, I don't think the value of yours is affected very much if at all by these definitions if they were direct from the negative. The dates on yours may simply specify when the photos were re-used..........or developed, set aside, and used at a later date.

That said, I thinks it's more of a feel then anything with photos.

The photo market is much harder to gauge then cards are. A lot of different factors are involved. Clarity, age, subject, aesthetics, Wire or Press, later generation, etc., etc., Most "vintage" photos are equally "rare". It's mainly what people like at that particular point in time.

As I've said before, I've had what would be considered Type III Wire photos sell for much more then other, what I would consider superior Type I Press photos of more interesting subjects, and I just scratch my head sometimes.

There's no VCP for photos..........and I don't think that would ever be any kind of a realistic undertaking.

As far as the Grading companies handling photos. I'm fine with it as long as they stick to "Authentic", "Non-Authentic", or deciphering the actual age of the photo. If they start slapping numeric grades on photos, I think I might have a heart attack. These are not cards and never will be.

[drc]

The 2 years is an arbitrary number for a general idea. The idea is fine, but you don't have to take the specific number as gospel. To me, 2 is an okay enough number, but 1 and 3 would be fine choices too.

Also, the type I, type II etc is a practical guide assembled for grading and labeling. It's an okay guide, but shouldn't be taken as the ultimate definer especially when you get past Type I. It has distinct limitations, as most people who study it figure out, and probably even the makers would acknowledge.

Personally, I don't use the PSA guide or terminology. I'm the photos adviser for Beckett-- which doesn't mean I physically examine anything, but give outside advice usually concerning problematic photos--, and whenever Beckett's director of grading says Type II or Type III I have to go to the PSA/DNA page and re-remember what that means. By the next day, I've forgotten again.

[mr2686]

I am not a Type1, 2, 3 expert and never will be. But I have been in to photography for almost as many years as I've been alive. For me, as long as it's from the original negative, I'm happy. For that matter, I wonder why people don't collect the negatives themselves. That, to me, is what would really be worth the money.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by mr2686

I am not a Type1, 2, 3 expert and never will be. But I have been in to photography for almost as many years as I've been alive. For me, as long as it's from the original negative, I'm happy. For that matter, I wonder why people don't collect the negatives themselves. That, to me, is what would really be worth the money.

I love negatives and they are collectible. Legendary has a ton of them on Ebay right now.

I think prices are kept down on them because they are usually very fragile, maintenence can be a pain and shelf life can conceivably be much shorter then an original print.

Also, you can't really display them.

Fortunately, there are great scanners out right now which can create wonderful prints from original negatives for you, given a lot of patience and a little bit of a learning curve, especially on larger format and glass type negs.

Just a few years ago I had a hard time finding a photo developer in my area willing to handle glass negs, and it would cost a bit when you did. Now I can develop them on my own, digitally.