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

[travrosty]

its just another revenue stream for them. they have to think up new ways of separating people from their money.

they came up with half grades so they can tell everybody to send in their cards to them AGAIN so they can make another round of fees from people.

everybody thinks their psa 8 sandy koufax might make 8.5 so they pay AGAIN and send them in. psa keeps trying to find new ways to make money off of items they alredy made money off of once.

pretty soon they will be grading the color of the color photographs, they will have separate color designations, brilliant, dazzling, and *'ing unbelievable. of course thats for an extra fee also.

crazy nonsense.

[Lordstan]

There are 2 separate issues.
First is the classification issue. Second is authentication. I think the only connection between the two is that the TPA's use the classification system to offer a service to make money.

The book, A Portrait in Baseball Photography, co written by Yee, Fogel, and Oser, that first proposed the "Type" classification, was printed in 2005. Considering PSA and Becket only started offering authentication in the past year or so, I don't think there is any nefarious connection between the book being written and authentication services being offered.

As far as the 2 years conundrum is concerned, I don't think there is an answer that would satisfy everyone. No matter what time frame is chosen, someone will come up with a rational argument for why it should be different, but I think there should be some cutoff to allow more structured classification.

The argument that 2 yrs is arbitrary is valid, as it is arbitrary, but I don't think the fact that it is arbitrary really matters as much as some make it out to be. There are plenty of examples of arbitrary values being chosen as part of our society's function. For example, the ages to vote, drink, and drive are arbitrary. Another would be grades in schools. In some areas, A- is 90-92, A is 93-97 and A+ is 98-100. In others it's 90-93, 94-98, and 99-100 respectively. There are many other examples as well, but it's too late for me come up with right at this moment.

I think the real importance lies in trying to find some agreement on the actual number of years. Personally, I think a 5yr window to be considered Original or Type 1 would be reasonable. I also think it is not unreasonable to say a picture is unclassifiable, as in the case of newer photos.

drc,
I agree with you that people need to asses the picture itself to assess value. To paraphrase what they say on the card side, "Buy the pic not the slab"
You stated you wouldn't have chosen the system Henry and Marshall chose, but understand it. I'm curious as to how you would've devised a classification system.

Best,
Mark

[thecatspajamas]

Mark, +1 to everything you just said.

I think that photographs will first and foremost always be valued primarily based on their content and quality. A Type 1 photo of Ty Cobb's mother isn't going to sell for more than a Type 2 or 3 photo of Cobb himself in uniform, and a faded out-of-focus Type 1 snapshot of Babe Ruth probably wouldn't bring as much as a sharp, clear in-period wire photo (Type 3) of him in a similar pose. (I say probably, because there are always flukes). Identifying a photo as a "Type 1" does not automatically make it valuable, nor does it being a Type 2, 3, or 4 mean that it's automatically worthless or undesirable. As 'drc' said above, "collectors shouldn't judge a photograph solely by the type...categories."

The photo's "Type" isn't something that directs you to a column in a price guide somewhere, because there are no price guides for photos. Such a thing would be impossible with all the variables that go into the desirability of each individual photo. It's merely a shorthand term for defining the one aspect of photography that is not subjective. Putting a time limit on the Type 1 classification just narrows the field down more than calling a photo "original" or even "1st generation." If you don't like the parameters given for the classification, just don't use the "Type" terminology. And please, if you don't know what the terminology means, or whether it truly applies to your specific photo, don't use it in describing something you're selling. That's where you can get into trouble, and where I see the most (apparently innocent) mistakes on eBay and elsewhere.

[David Atkatz]

It's not that it's an arbitrary system, Mark. It's that any system with sufficiently fine temporal resolution to divide the interval between a photo's being taken and being printed into "meaningful" (and financially lucrative) categories is absolutely unenforceable. Except in rare instances where the technology changed overnight, or the photo paper is labeled and thus can be dated, there is no way to reliably determine whether a photo was printed within one year, or two years, or three years, or... of being taken.

[thecatspajamas]

David A, I think that's a pretty gross generalization to say that no photo can reliably be dated as to when the print was produced. There are plenty that are ambiguous to be sure, but if you see a news photo with original dated paper caption on the back that says, "Here's the boys in the game yesterday," you can be pretty sure of when the photo was taken and when that particular print was produced. That's not to say that you can assign a "Type" category to EVERY photographic print, but there are many that you can with a reasonable degree of certainty. For the ones you can't, you just can't, and you shouldn't try to or expect any TPA to be able to. That's when you fall back on more generic terminology, which in many cases is just as good.

[Lordstan]

David,
I agree that some pictures cannot be dated to specific interval between when it was taken and when it was printed, but I also know that many can. As we see from the recent release of The Sporting News, The Chicago Sun, and The Baltimore News archives, many, if not most of the pictures have multiple date stamps and other notations. Many of these will help date when the picture was printed. Using clues in the pictures like uniforms, stadium architecture, and even weather conditions can help date when the picture was taken.
Neither of these are absolutely foolproof, but I do think they fall within a reasonable margin of error.
I disagree that we should throw out, or not try and create, a classification system to identify photographs.

Also, I don't understand what you mean by "unenforceable." Nobody is enforcing anything. To me this system, like all other classification systems, allows people to communicate more efficiently. If I try and sell you a picture and say it's a type 1, you immediately know 2 things. First that I believe that my pictures dates from the immediate time frame of the pic being taken. Second, will be that I think the picture is more valuable than just a regular print. Both of these may or may not have an impact on what you do next. First, you will likely inspect the picture and you will either agree or disagree with my determination. Second, you will evaluate my price. If it fits into your valuation of the picture, you will buy it. If not, you won't. The "type" designation will not likely have any impact on what you do.

I don't have a problem with the system. In general, I don't care for grading and authentication as a generality, but that is not the fault of the classification system.

Interestingly enough, while It seems that people are suspicious of the financial incentives of labeling Type 1,2, etc, I think, in some ways, the system may have more of the opposite effect. Type 1's, or originals, if one prefers, will always command a premium price, regardless of labeling. An as far as mistakes go, I think the type system with year dating rules, will be more likely to date an older photograph as newer thus lessening the value, as opposed to the opposite. The picture in the original post is, obviously an exception where having the pic dated later probably increased value.

The title to the thread is "Can we finally lay the "Type 1" BS to rest?" I don't think that picture in any way speaks to the "Type" system being valid or not. I think it was a simple mistake, which might challenge your faith in PSA's ability to correctly identify/classify a photo, but doesn't undermine the classification system itself. IMO, given my new found knowledge about the year the lights were installed in the ballpark, that picture should have been labeled as unclassifiable or just vintage.

Mark

[thecatspajamas]

I agree with Mark that the photo that started this thread off probably should have been "unclassifiable" or "undetermined." I started to say that it was clearly either a Type 2 or Type 4 (a later-date print off of either the original negative or a copy negative), but then re-thought the "Stock" notation on the slug line.

It could have been a Type 1 photo that was shot and printed for no specific reason at the time, filed away in Acme's files, then pulled out later when it was needed for the 1951 story and run then. It's a bit more of a long shot to arrive at the Type 1 designation, and would require more knowledge of Acme's filing tendencies than I have (whether they typically retained negatives or prints or both for their stock photos), but could be possible. Notice that there is evidence that a second caption was previously attached to the back of the photo (assuming the one shown isn't floating loose) indicating it may have been distributed previously.

Either way though, a mistake was made (either in the Type-ing or in the dating of the photo). Just something that came to mind.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by travrosty

its just another revenue stream for them. they have to think up new ways of separating people from their money.

they came up with half grades so they can tell everybody to send in their cards to them AGAIN so they can make another round of fees from people.

everybody thinks their psa 8 sandy koufax might make 8.5 so they pay AGAIN and send them in. psa keeps trying to find new ways to make money off of items they alredy made money off of once.

pretty soon they will be grading the color of the color photographs, they will have separate color designations, brilliant, dazzling, and *'ing unbelievable. of course thats for an extra fee also.

crazy nonsense.

My collection is entirely raw.

The "crazy nonsense" mentioned by travrosty isn't that TPA's change their system and charge people "again".

The "crazy nonsense" is solely that people pay in the first place.

If I owned PSA, I would be preparig to go to a decimal system, as soon as I thought the half point system had made as much money as it could.

Couldn't get your 8 changed to an 8.5 last time? No worries, maybe it can get an 8.4 this time. Cue evil money counting grin and laugh.

I won't end by typing the phrase "what a bunch of dorks", because some might find it offensive.

Doug

[murphusa]

At the end of the day, all you got is a bunch of old photos. Type 1 only means something to a very small group. The rest of us don't care

[mr2686]

This may be apples and oranges, but...with this type of system an Ansel Adams photo of Half Dome printed in 1927-1929 would be a type 1, and anything printed after would be type 2...even though Adams would have printed it himself. I don't believe many people would care what year it was printed as long as it was from the original negative and that Adams printed it himself.

[19cbb]

Originally Posted by mr2686

This may be apples and oranges, but...with this type of system an Ansel Adams photo of Half Dome printed in 1927-1929 would be a type 1, and anything printed after would be type 2...even though Adams would have printed it himself. I don't believe many people would care what year it was printed as long as it was from the original negative and that Adams printed it himself.

Exactly... and this is why this 'scam' is only being targeted to the sports collecting community.

Beaumont Newhall must be laughing in his grave with all this bullshit!

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Mark, many--if not most--of the photos being classified have absolutely nothing on the back--no slugs, no date stamps... nothing. I stand behind my assertion that they cannot be dated with the degree of precision required.

As for the ones that are date-stamped, must I send them to a third party (along with a check) to have the stamps read, or are my amateur reading skills sufficient?

I wonder how photos were collected in those antediluvian times before a few third parties figured out how to skim a bit off the top.

David,
You are correct that some don't have anything on the back. That is exactly why I do feel that 2yrs is too restrictive a time frame for the classification.
Second, who says you have to send it off for third party approval? You're mixing the issues again. The classification system was created at least 5yrs before PSA and Beckett figured a way to take your money for giving their approval.
While it may be that some think the system was created simply to make money from grading, I don't think there is proof of that. I don't know Henry or Marshall personally, so I can't comment directly on their virtues or faults, but I am left with a question for those who are suspicious. Why wait 5yrs to start charging for "authentication?"
The vitriol for the Authentication companies I totally get, as I am no fan of theirs, but I guess I don't understand the distaste for the system itself.
And to answer your question directly, NO I would never send something in to be authenticated by anyone, unless by doing so I would significantly increase the amount of money I cold make. I'm sure this is the same answer many on this board would have.

Originally Posted by murphusa

At the end of the day, all you got is a bunch of old photos. Type 1 only means something to a very small group. The rest of us don't care

Jim,
This is exactly correct! The type system just allows me to communicate with you what and when I think the picture represents in a more succinct form. That is it.

Originally Posted by mr2686

This may be apples and oranges, but...with this type of system an Ansel Adams photo of Half Dome printed in 1927-1929 would be a type 1, and anything printed after would be type 2...even though Adams would have printed it himself. I don't believe many people would care what year it was printed as long as it was from the original negative and that Adams printed it himself.

Mike,
You beat me to the punch as I was about to use this type of example. The "type" classification system, or any other system, if some has a better system to propose, is helpful because the terms "Original" can be, and quite frequently are, interpreted differently. In the world of art photography, Original usually means something very different. It means it was printed by the photographer, from their negative, themselves. There is no consideration to the time when it was created.
Could a picture of Half Dome signed and dated by Adams 1927 sell for more than one signed and dated 1970? Probably yes.
Now the Type system was proposed for Sports photography only as the timing of things is more important in the world of sports collecting. The easiest example showing this is the value of rookie cards.

Great conversation everyone.
Best to all.
Mark

[thecatspajamas]

Mark,
Great reply, and thank you for saving me a bunch of typing as you said pretty much everything that was running through my head. I definitely agree that the Type system is more applicable (and useful) for sports photography, and in particular sports news photos, than other areas of photograph collecting.

I might add that Henry Yee was providing all of the information needed to determine the "Type" of the photos he sold in his auction descriptions long before PSA started authenticating them. His auctions have always had some of the most informative write-ups of photos, particularly baseball photos, that I have seen anywhere. Once the "Type" classification system was devised, he used those terms in his auction descriptions as well, again for several years before being approached by PSA. The Type classification system definitely is NOT something that was devised by PSA or any other TPA as a money-making scheme.

[novakjr]

The one thing I don't quite get is, why does it matter whether or not a random aerial photo of Yankee Stadium is type 1? It's one thing if we're talking about a photo from it's first season or during the building process. I really don't see the difference between a photo that was printed in 1941, 1951 or 2009 as long as it's taken from the negative, when it's not of anything of major significance....Now if we're talking players or some significant event, then I could understand wanting a period printed photo, since properly dating them would almost put them on the same level as cards. At that point you're dealing with originals and reprints, and to what extent and when they were reprinted. Obviously a period piece of Satchel Paige from the '20 would be far more important and valuable than the same photo printed later on...Same for something of Josh Gibson from the 30's. Or other significantly early photos of any player.. Or photos of a perfect game, significant home run, milestone or any defining moment in a players career, or just a famous photo in general. Those I could understand wanting a period original..

To me though, random aerial photos of any Stadium or a photo of some random player scratching his junk in the dugout during his 7th season in the majors in early June after hitting a routine pop-up in the 3rd inning shouldn't matter when they're printed, because at that point they're just photos of almost no historical significance.. Good for display only..Glorified posters..

Trying to date things, just for the sake of dating things when the date really isn't significant makes no sense to me... Maybe I've oversimplified things, maybe I just don't get it though..