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

[thecatspajamas]

David, PSA bash all you want. I am not advocating for or against PSA finding another certification field to add to their services. If you want to bash PSA for mis-classifying a photo, go ahead. Show a specific example, and the group will either affirm or deny it based on the evidence. That's how this thread started off, and it had the positive effect of exposing a mistake that was quickly rectified by Mr. Yee.

Just don't think that PSA has a lock on the term "Type 1" any more than they do on "gem mint," "authentic," or "certified." The system and the reasoning behind it is out there for anyone to use.

At this point, I will refer back to Mark's summary in post #64, as I think I have exhausted anything additional I could possibly add on this subject for now without having a specific case to look at. Good catch on the photo in the original post. Looking forward to "goofs" you may uncover and the ensuing discussion.

Lance

[Lordstan]

OK I'm home.

David,
A baby's due date is calculated by usually one of two methods, sometimes they are used to corroborate one another. The first method is to use the first day of the mother's last period and count forward 40wks. This is how it is calculated initially. All mothers will have at least one ultrasound during their pregnancy. If the mother is high risk, a higher definition ultrasound is done. Age of the fetus can be calculated fairly reliably by the basic US and very reliably by the Higher Def one.
When the 40wk, or full term, date is calculated, if a child is born one day prior to the 37th week, they are considered and officially classified as premature. Can the dates, even with the more detailed US, be off by a day or two, or three? Absolutely!

This is actually a very good analogy to compare to the type photo classification system. You wrote "Just as it's impossible to determine whether a newborn is one day, or two days premature, so is it impossible to determine if a blank-backed c. 1920s photo is type I or not." It is true about newborns age being off by a day or two, yet despite that the medical profession hasn't scrapped the way they measure the dates or classified the newborns. OMG, I think we need to write them and tell them they need get rid of the system, because it's obviously not accurate enough for something of such importance. We should definitely go back to the days of using phrases like "the kids a little early" or "you're delivering right on time." These really communicate to people the detail needed to asses risk for newborn complications upon delivery. After all that is why the system exists. Perhaps we should also rail against Obstetricians, as like PSA does with pictures, you have to pay them to evaluate the pregnancy and give you those dates.


I have to say, David, that I reread the entire thread and I still can't figure out what is so upsetting to you.

In the original post you begin with "can we finally put the Type BS to rest?" This implies you are upset with the system itself.

Then in post 35 you state
"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."
This implies that the involvement of a TPA is what you dislike most.

Then in post 55 you state:
"Lance, my complaint is not with PSA per se; it's with the impossibility of anyone's dating a photo to within two years. "Type I" photos are offered at every major sports auction, many with no date information. Go, for example, to the Heritage Auction site, and check their past auctions. You'll find many, many photos, all offered as type I (and many certified by PSA), with no date info on the reverse. "

So you're not upset with PSA. You're upset again with the flaws in the system.

Lastly in post 74 you state:
"Fine, Lance. It's a useful system. If the photo bears date information, I'll send it to PSA to read it for me. If there's no date information--the situation where I'd really like to know when the photo was printed--no one can really tell. (But they'll be happy to guess, and then attest to it in writing. They won't call it a guess, though; they'll call it a certification.) "

So now you're upset with PSA again.

After reading this stuff, I have to wonder if you're just playing Devil's Advocate here.

Despite all this, you still haven't answered the question I asked at least twice previously.
So because the type system is not fully unambiguous, it is worse than using terms like original, vintage, period,etc, which are even more ambiguous in their success in classifying/identifying picture ages/generations?

1) We all agree that the "Type" system is not perfect.
2) We all agree that there are huge number of pictures than can be classified correctly with the system.
3) We agree that there are a huge number of pictures that cannot be classified correctly by the system
4) We all agree that it costs nothing to use the Type system to classify photos that you can, on your own, if you put just a little effort in to learning the rules.
5) We all agree that PSA and Beckett are opportunistic companies who have taken advantage of this classification system as they have with pretty much all the other classification systems in sports collecting from cards to autographs.


Ok so we all agree.
See how easy that was.
Best,
Mark

[David Atkatz]

I agree with all five of your final points, Mark. We differ, though, in our interpretations of what those points imply.

To me, the system is useless. Either a photo was obviously printed within x years of being taken, or else, no one really knows. In the first instance, all one needs say is "here's a photo of Tony Lazzeri taken just before the 1926 World Series, and news-service dated 28 September 1926." In the second instance there's nothing to say, except, perhaps, "it was likely printed between 1926 and 1930," or something similar. The problem is that no one is saying anything like that. What they are saying is "it's a type I." Unfortunately, all your "Point 3" photos--those that the system cannot , with any accuracy, apply to--are nonetheless being classified, and such classification is meaningless.

Judge an item on what it is, what you can learn about it, and the joy it affords you.

[Lordstan]

David,
To me. the difference is that I think the system is a useful method for enhancing ease of communication and providing some order to the photo collecting community. I acknowledge that improvements should be made to account for weaknesses within the system.
You feel that the system is entirely useless and should be scrapped instead of attempting to improve it.

On this we will agree to disagree.
Best,
Mark

[Ladder7]

Perfect, no. What is?

Everyone of us does it. If people want to spend frivolously, let him. Like cards, one day accurate photo knowledge will be widespread. 'Til then, I'll take my chances on Henry's or David's opinion on that graded example.

Who wants "Pappy left us Reprints" for a legacy?

[Exhibitman]

While I prefer raw items I am not enough of a luddite or control freak to say that others cannot use a grading system. What I object to is the all too commonplace practice in this hobby (not just at PSA) of stating assumptions as facts. Admittedly it is a fine distinction at times, but a critical one when money [I know, I know] creeps into the mix. PSA should not be assigning a Type designation to photos it cannot classify beyond a reasonable doubt. Problem is, that runs up against the financial interest of the company and its customers in getting stuff into slabs. If PSA rejected a high percentage of items as unclassifiable, I doubt that its service would last for long.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

If PSA rejected a high percentage of items as unclassifiable, I doubt that its service would last for long.

Doing my best to not sound like I'm trying to shoot the messenger...

That quote makes me laugh for multiple reasons.

Doug