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

[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.

[prewarsports]

I have been saying on here for the better part of a year or two that the 2 year thing is complete crap. Most original Horner cabinets are photos glued to carboard mounts from about 1910-12 that were actually shot by Horner around 1902-05. So that would make almost all the "original" Horner cabinets Type 2 photos, but of course nobody believes that.

They should just be labeled "Vintage" and "Original Non-Vintage" instead of Type 1 and Type 2. I have a Babe Ruth photo I got a great deal on last year from Henry Yee that was originally shot in 1920 and mine is dated on the back from Spring Training 1924. He sold it as a TYPE 2! Ridiculous, but good for me because I got a $750-$1000 photo for about $150 bucks.

Rhys

[hcv123]

I agree with what seems to be the consensus - the 2 year window is/was an arbitrary measure. As the collecting of photos expands, I think the definitions will change. I guess a line has to be drawn somewhere, but I think 2 years is too tight a window (and often undetminable) - perhaps within the decade?

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by hcv123

I agree with what seems to be the consensus - the 2 year window is/was an arbitrary measure. As the collecting of photos expands, I think the definitions will change. I guess a line has to be drawn somewhere, but I think 2 years is too tight a window (and often undetminable) - perhaps within the decade?

I am a novice at this so indulge me, how is a decade any easier to determine with certitude than 2 years. You have a better chance of being right by a factor of 5 but still?