Can we finally lay the "Type I" photo BS to rest?

[19cbb]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

It's a scam that most people follow along behind, just like grading.

Doug

Well said Doug, well said!

[Ladder7]

1941 Series, only off by one digit.

[drc]

It's an interesting example.

Most N172 Old Judges aren't type 1 photos, as the images aren't technically first generation. But their collectibility is in their being antique baseball artifacts from the 1880s, not the generation of the image. That's just a side note, not a grand moral statement about news photographs. In ways, baseball cards and original baseball photos are apples and oranges. Most, or at least many, know the image of Honus Wagner used on his T206 Honus Wagner was shot several years earlier. That knowledge clearly hasn't affected its collectibility. But, as I said, a baseball card is different than an Ansel Adams photograph. Baseball cards, by definition, were mass produced commercial items for kids. One would be goofy in the head to assume that every Goudey was hand painted and every Topps was an original photograph. They were sold with gum for in grocery stores, after all

[HRBAKER]

I don't think anyone is maintaining that photos aren't collectible. It is not the collectors that are trying to spoon/force feed these items into categories to enhance their value/collectibility based on when they were shot and printed is it?

[thecatspajamas]

I don't think the issue is (or at least, shouldn't be) the use of Type 1, Type 2, etc. designations for photos. I actually think it is good for photo collectors to have more specific terms to refer to the photos than "modern" vs. "vintage" or "original" vs. "reprint", which can be pretty ambiguous, especially when coming from someone not accustomed to dealing with photos. I would liken it to having specific terms for grading cards like "Very Good," "Excellent," "Near Mint," etc vs. describing them as "pretty nice," "good for its age," "well worn," etc. Nothing wrong with having specific short-hand terms with specific meanings when dealing with photographs. Sounds like most of the backlash though is over the "third party authentication" aspect of it where you're paying someone else to tell you what you should be able to research and determine yourself, which is an age-old argument that seems to extend to every corner of collecting.

Personally, I can see some merit in the holders that PSA uses for the "slabbed" 8x10 photos as they do protect the photo, are much thinner than other photo slabs I've seen, and can actually be matted and framed. Much more appealing to me than the early BGS slabs I got in a mixed lot that are about 3/4" thick and feel like they would kill my dog if I accidentally dropped one on him. I don't much like the idea of having an extra piece of paper to keep track of along with the photo though (as in the sticker + LOA arrangement).

As for this particular "oops" on identifying the photo as a Type 1, I think it's probably just a mistake. Bound to happen sooner or later, and one which I feel sure Mr. Yee would rectify in whatever way necessary.

Just my 2 cents since we seem to be taking up a change collection.

Lance F

[Ladder7]

I hear ya Lance, When I break out the BVGs, my Emma wears this,