PSA set to encapsulate "TYPE" Photographs & Signed photos as well...

[prewarsports]

My question is always with back stamp dates. They are a great tool in so many ways, but can also be very deceiving. I have seen type 1 photos from Bain and others that were stamped decades later by news services and archives. I have then seen other similar photos stamped a few years after the publication date that are absolutely type 1 photos that were simply stamped by a library or archive when they got the photo. So a 1910 photo that was made in 1910 and not date stamped could have been given to a different archive that stamps their photos in 1918 and all of the sudden it is a type 2 because of the date stamp.

I have said before and I will again, the 2 year thing a totally arbitrary and random number which means absolutely nothing. A photo expert can tell whether a photo is of the right time period or not and very few will have the right documentation to certify them as original type 1 photos.

As a side what will happen once Type 1 photos start selling for huge premiums are
1. Fake Back Stamps and date stampings
2. Obliteration of legit stampings that might be 3-4 years later to pass a photo within the 2 year period
3. Additional photo alterations to try and cash in on this 2 year timeline.

I like the idea but hate the 2 year limit for a type 1.

Rhys

[LEIDEMEG]

Just got this Sugar Ray signed photo back. I was impressed by the holder

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

My question is always with back stamp dates. They are a great tool in so many ways, but can also be very deceiving. I have seen type 1 photos from Bain and others that were stamped decades later by news services and archives. I have then seen other similar photos stamped a few years after the publication date that are absolutely type 1 photos that were simply stamped by a library or archive when they got the photo. So a 1910 photo that was made in 1910 and not date stamped could have been given to a different archive that stamps their photos in 1918 and all of the sudden it is a type 2 because of the date stamp.

I have said before and I will again, the 2 year thing a totally arbitrary and random number which means absolutely nothing. A photo expert can tell whether a photo is of the right time period or not and very few will have the right documentation to certify them as original type 1 photos.

As a side what will happen once Type 1 photos start selling for huge premiums are
1. Fake Back Stamps and date stampings
2. Obliteration of legit stampings that might be 3-4 years later to pass a photo within the 2 year period
3. Additional photo alterations to try and cash in on this 2 year timeline.

I like the idea but hate the 2 year limit for a type 1.

Rhys

You are spot-on Rhys and I completely agree with you that Two years is cutting it too thin. Common sense would tell me that a print off the original negative in 1907 is really no different than one in 1917. Same process, like paper, and most likely developed by the same photographer.

So, I would like to see a staggered system in place. For instance, photos from 1900-1920 would have a TEN year window. 1921-1935 a 5-7 year window. I drew the line at 1935 due to the advent of wire photo machines came into use in 1935. 1936-1960 it would be 3-4 years, and 1961-1980 2-3 years as laser photos took over from there.

Now this is just off the top of my head but I'm sure you get what I'm driving at.

Regardless, it's nice to see this long overdue step being taken by PSA.

I would love to hear everybody's take on this...

[GrayGhost]

On some photos, minus date stamps or captions etc. I still don't know how you could tell say a "blank photo" as a "type 1". This whole thing to me is confusing, but I guess it matters a lot to those who collect for value or deal in them, and obviously for rarity in some cases.

[Exhibitman]

CGC was experimenting with a similar endeavor for vintage photos a few years ago, with a softer holder similar to a thick Card Saver but sonically sealed. They did a big experimental job for Jay Parrino's The Mint then dropped it. I contacted them to try and get some of my stuff encapsulated and was told that they'd decided against the service. Too bad, since it was nice to have the photos in a thinner holder instead of a monster slab.

Regardless of the photo typing thing it does seem like a needed service and a rather nice way to display and protect autographed photos. I might just send them some of mine. What is the cost?

[sphere and ash]

Am I alone in thinking that slabbing photographs is an awful idea? I pray no one ever 'slabs' an Ansel Adams or a Walker Evans print; and I pray no one slabs a Horner or a Conlon. There is a good reason this has never caught on in the vintage photography market: it is not a good way to store prints, and it inhibits subsequent examination and appreciation (does your framer frame the slab?).

There are fantastic archival materials available to store prints (try Talasonline.com) and people with far more expertise at very reasonable prices who can answer questions about your print if you have reason to be concerned.

A slabbed photo will always be worth less to me--I have to pay someone to take it out of the slab.

Apologies to anyone in the thread who has an economic interest in PSA.

[steve B]

I'm very much on the fence about slabbing photos as well. I've gotten used to it for cards, but still feel that too many of the cards get slabbed.

I also have some concerns about the slabbing from an archival perspective. Preserving photos is somewhat complex, and I'm not sure the slab is the way to go. And for some cards, I think it may actually be damaging in the long run. It looks like the holder in in contact with the photo surface, something I usually try to avoid with any better photos I've got.

Steve B

[perezfan]

I'm completely against it as well. I collect these things for their aesthetic beauty and interesting subject matter. To me, a well composed photo and a PSA Bar Code will clash, and in no way compliment each other.

I fully understand the opposing stance of those who like it and feel it's necessary to the hobby. I am just not one of them. Neither side is "right or wrong"... it's simply a personal preference.

[jbsports33]

I will most likley give this try at some point, always like new ideas in the hobby

Jimmy

[53Browns]

Hi gang, I am very new to the forum and also new to vintage collecting. Can someone please tell me what a "type" photo is and also what the difference between a "type 1" and a "type 2" is? Thanks in advance!

[mr2686]

Well Jimmy, I shouldn't have said nothing ever leaves...for the most part, that is correct though. However, with all the opportunities to trade and sell on this board to upgrade important parts of my collection, I have found that my philosophy on that is slowly changing. It's obvious from your remarks that you
are heavily in favor of slabbing and it's no secret that you have a large collection of Type1's, so whether for collecting or investments, that would obviously work well for you. With that said, if you think that slabbing for authenticity is where it will stop, I think you're wrong. But no matter, if everyone wants to try and get all gem mint 10 type 1 photos just because some organization, that probably has less experience than you says so, well than go for it. I'll just take my little pat on the head and go collect raw photos like a good little boy.

[sphere and ash]

To answer your question: there is no such thing as a Type I or Type II photo. You can spend an entire lifetime working in the photography department at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, MOMA or the Getty and never once hear those words uttered.

All you need to know is whether a photograph is 'vintage,' which is to say that it was printed around the time the negative was produced. There is no specific time limit--it could be within 1, 5 or 10 years of the negative. There is usually no way to date a print so precisely; materials just did not change that quickly. The point is that the print should have been made close enough in time to have been printed with the same materials and artistic intention as a print done contemporaneously.

[Lordstan]

I think it's a no brainer for autographed photos of moderate worth.

I have a couple of issues primarily for press/news photos.
First is cost.
I am not, by any means, a whale in the collecting community. To spend $20-$30 per pic can cut into the actual collecting budget especially if you have a lot of pictures. Granted this is offset for pictures above a certain value, but what should be the cutoff? It is worth encapsulating a pic worth $100, $200, $500, $1000?
Second is the whole to slab vs not to slab discussion that seems to be renewed every year or so on the card side. Does a picture lose some of its charm if you can't hold it to appreciate it's physical characteristics like "game use", or texture of the paper, etc?
Third is a question about the slugs.
Part of the enjoyment if being able to read the story about the picture from the slug. For many pictures the slug is facing out, wholly attached to the back. The problem, is that on many, the slug is attached in an offset way where is hangs off the picture facing either direction.
Will they put the pic in a larger size holder so the flap is unfolded and readable? If so, how will they assure the picture doesn't slide all over the place in the holder?

Mark