Type I versus Type II : I'm a little confused

[drc]

Most type IIs will be be from many years after the photo was shot. Ala a 1960 photo with an image from 1930.

With press photos, the stamps or tags usually identify the ones printed later.

[baseballart]

Originally Posted by drc

Most type IIs will be be from many years after the photo was shot. Ala a 1960 photo with an image from 1930.

David

I understand distinguishing a photo printed in 1960 from 1930. I can even identify those myself.

I'm talking about how a Type II is identified from a 1910 photo when it is printed in 1920. I haven't seen anyone explain how this is done.

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by drc

Most type IIs will be be from many years after the photo was shot. Ala a 1960 photo with an image from 1930.

With press photos, the stamps or tags usually identify the ones printed later.

I am sure that is the case so why use the two year cut off? I am not sure it would matter to me if the print was made one week or three years after the photo was snapped but sans a date of some sort is there really a way to tell if a print was made within 2 years of the photo being taken?

[David Atkatz]

It is an arbitrary system, invented solely to put money into third-party pockets.

And, as stated above it is absolutely impossible to determine when a photo was printed with a two-year margin of error, which renders the system meaningless.

(Unless there's a date stamp. But then you'd hardly have to pay PSA to read it, would you?)

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

It is an arbitrary system, invented solely to put money into third-party pockets.

And, as stated above it is absolutely impossible to determine when a photo was printed with a two-year margin of error, which renders the system meaningless.

(Unless there's a date stamp. But then you'd hardly have to pay PSA to read it, would you?)

+1

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

It is an arbitrary system, invented solely to put money into third-party pockets.

And, as stated above it is absolutely impossible to determine when a photo was printed with a two-year margin of error, which renders the system meaningless.

(Unless there's a date stamp. But then you'd hardly have to pay PSA to read it, would you?)

David,
Agreed and I would add sellers as well.

Jeff

[19cbb]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

It is an arbitrary system, invented solely to put money into third-party pockets.

+2

[drc]

The "two year" window is their thing, not mine. Other then commenting on PSA's grading, I've never said anything about a two year requirement in photography.

I would imagine that many of the 1930s George Burke photos were printed more than 2 years after the image was shot. Maybe 3 or 5 or 6 years after. It would still be a collectible and antique 1930s photo of Babe Ruth made from the original negative, just maybe printed 3 years after the image was shot instead of the golden 2. If the physical photo is demonstrated to really be from the 1930s (and not a 1950s reprint), does a 2 versus 3 years delay in printing matter a lot? Not that I can see-- especially if you can't know.

[baseballart]

David

I understand what you are saying, but I am not asking about your definition of a Type I/ Type II photo, but PSA/DNA's. When the classification (2+ years = Type II) is made by PSA/DNA, I would hope they would have some ability to support their definitions. This is what I am asking about in this thread.

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by drc

The "two year" window is their thing, not mine. Other then commenting on PSA's grading, I've never said anything about a two year requirement in photography.

I would imagine that many of the 1930s George Burke photos were printed more than 2 years after the image was shot. Maybe 3 or 5 or 6 years after. It would still be a collectible and antique 1930s photo of Babe Ruth made from the original negative, just maybe printed 3 years after the image was shot instead of the golden 2. If the physical photo is demonstrated to really be from the 1930s (and not a 1950s reprint), does a 2 versus 3 years delay in printing matter a lot? Not that I can see-- especially if you can't know.

David,
I agree with what you are saying but I think by making that the "defined" terms for a Type I vs. Type II photo it is implied that it can be told and that a buyer should have some comfort that it can be and pay a difference in price based on this. And this is based upon what magic?

[David Atkatz]

No magic. Just hubris, and a good understanding of human behavior.

The emperor has no clothes.

[drc]

If people are saying the grading rules (specifically the 2 years) is more specific than their dating abilities, I agree. With many photos, you can date to the year or even day, but with many photos you can't tell if it was printed 1, 2 or 3 years after.

Duly note, I haven't followed their graded photos and can't say they've done something specifically wrong in practice. If you give me 50 of their graded photos, I might very well agree with all their conclusions.

I'm not as perturbed as others may be about this, as I don't take the 'two years' statement seriously (and I don't agree with it). Just because someone puts an arbitrary number in a set of rules doesn't mean you have to accept it. My opinion is collectors should take the number as figurative or representative number rather than something you set your watches by. As my mom would say, "Don't take it so literally."

And I sometimes wonder if PSA used the number as an example, or representative, number to explain what they're talking about, rather than a set in stone cut off.

[mr2686]

I agree with what everyone has said. I think 2 years is an arbitrary number meant to mean "of that era". The only way to know when a photo was printed, short of a date, stamps etc on the back, would be the type of paper used. Obviously if a type of paper wasn't available until 15 years after the photo was taken...yada yada yada.