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

[Leon]

I am posting this for Henry. I have known Henry for years and have always known him to do the right thing.....Everyone makes mistakes and of course it's how we handle them that makes all the difference.



"Dear fellow collectors, I am having Leon post this message as I do not participate on chat boards.

This is in regards to the 1951 Yankee Stadium photograph that was authenticated and sold as a PSA, TYPE I, period, exemplar by my company on eBay.

The first poster is 100%, absolutely correct. I have indeed made an error and admit to the oversight in misdating this photograph. After looking at this photograph once again, the photograph should have been classified as a TYPE II. The "image" is from the early 1940's period but the photograph itself is a re-strike, made and issued in a later period by Acme Newspictures, in this case, 1951. I apologize for any confusion this might have caused.

With that said, I have already contacted the high bidder of the photo that an error was made. Since the photo has already been paid for and shipped from my office last week, I have instructed the buyer that upon receipt, the photo be returned to me for a full refund including all shipping charges. The PSA letter will be destroyed and a new PSA COA with the correct, TYPE II designation and dates will be assigned to it.

I and PSA as well, take much pride in striving to being 100% accurate in the photograph examination and authentication process. Nothing less should be acceptable. However, I, like everyone, am human and if, and when an error or problem is made, I will always do my best to address the issue swiftly and immediately.

If anyone has any further questions on this or any other matter, please, never hesitate to contact me directly at hyee@mindspring.com. I will be attending the National in Chicago this summer and I will also stop by Leon's annual Network 54 dinner (as he knows I owe him several shots of his favorite). I will be there to mingle and look forward to discussing collecting vintage photography with anyone who is interested in this wonderful genre of our hobby. A great summer to you all !

Best Regards
Henry Yee
hyee@mindspring.com"

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[Hankphenom]

...in my opinion. And what exactly is the "Type I photo BS" that we are supposedly laying to rest here? If this is the best example of a misclassification that can be presented, then that's the best endorsement of the system I can imagine. This is a beautiful first generation vintage photo of Yankee Stadium, and neither the tag nor the LOA claim that the image in the photo represents a contemporary event. This is a terrific vintage collectors item, and anybody who picks this up for the typical $5-10 price of a type II photo is getting a steal. As a collector and dealer in vintage photos, I find the Yee/Fogel classification system, though not perfect, invaluable. Slabbing and grading are another matter altogether.
Hank Thomas

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

...in my opinion. And what exactly is the "Type I photo BS" that we are supposedly laying to rest here? If this is the best example of a misclassification that can be presented, then that's the best endorsement of the system I can imagine. This is a beautiful first generation vintage photo of Yankee Stadium, and neither the tag nor the LOA claim that the image in the photo represents a contemporary event. This is a terrific vintage collectors item, and anybody who picks this up for the typical $5-10 price of a type II photo is getting a steal. As a collector and dealer in vintage photos, I find the Yee/Fogel classification system, though not perfect, invaluable. Slabbing and grading are another matter altogether.
Hank Thomas

What are you talking about, Hank? It is not a "first generation" photo; as Henry says above, it is a restrike.

And if PSA cannot correctly date a photo to within two years in this extremely simple case, how do you suppose they do it with a blank-backed photo? Photo printing techniques and materials did not significantly change from the late teens through the thirties. No blank-backed photo can be dated to within a two-year period in that range of years.

[thecatspajamas]

If I'm understanding him correctly, he's saying "first generation" because the photo was printed from the original negative. "Re-strike" also implies it was printed from the original negative, but in a later period. A "second generation" photo would be printed from a duplicate negative, not the original negative. The terms "first generation" and "Type 1" are not synonomous. All Type 1's are first generation, but all first generation are not Type 1's. I hope that makes sense.

David, can you give an example of a blank-backed photo authenticated as Type 1 by PSA? I was just scanning through Yee's completed listings (since they have a high concentration of PSA-authenticated photos), and the only ones designated as Type 1 that I saw were news photos with various stampings and captions on the back.

[David Atkatz]

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.

[Hankphenom]

...is that "first generation" is a print made from the original negative, which this certainly looks like. That says nothing about WHEN it was made, which is why I added "vintage," which this certainly also is. As for blank-backed photos, unless there is something on the front or some other provenance that proves to me it is a vintage photo, I would never buy it and certainly not sell it as such. Just because there's a system at work in the marketplace, it shouldn't lull anybody into abandoning their own expertise and common sense. "Buyer beware" still applies here as everywhere else. But Henry's system and book brought some much-needed organization to this area of the hobby, and until someone comes up with a better one, it will continue to be followed. Just because you can find an example or two where it was misused doesn't negate it's usefulness in many thousands of other instances. And if you don't agree with somebody's classification, don't buy it. Simple as that. That's what I'm talking about.
Hank Thomas

[David Atkatz]

Pardon my misuse of the jargon, Hank. My mistake. But I'll contend that unless you've seen it printed, you can't be absolutely certain it was made from the original negative. You can categorize all you want, but filling those slots--type I, first generation, etc--is no more than a guess. Sometimes educated, sometimes not.

[Hankphenom]

...sometimes it's a guess. Actually, a lot of times it's a guess, and you really have to look them over carefully front and back and take your best shot. As a collector, if I'm satisfied then that's enough. As a dealer, however, I don't ever want to misrepresent and risk losing credibility. But The Yankee Stadium photo would have fooled me, a reminder that there's always more to learn. It's still a great photo, though, and there's no way I'd let it go at the price of a typical Type II print made long after the event.

[thecatspajamas]

I'll say it again: you have to consider each photo on its own, whether it's for desirability, value or Type classification. The Type classifications will NOT work for every photo. I have rarely seen them used (at least, not correctly) outside of the area of news photos, primarily because of the supporting information that is so often present in the form of back-stamping, paper captions, editor's notes, etc. I still haven't seen a blank-backed photo slabbed as a Type 1 (not saying they're not out there, but just haven't seen them), and I think David correctly states that it would be very difficult to verify such a thing without first-hand knowledge of its production.

That said though, there are PLENTY of circumstances where you can apply the Type classifications, Type 1 included, without having to have stood behind the photographer yourself as he was developing the print. The evidence may not be enough to convince David, and that's fine, he is certainly welcome to base his purchases on whatever he wishes. But to dismiss the entire Type system as a load of BS because it can't be applied in every single case is over-zealous to say the least.

If you don't like the terminology, don't use it. If you find it to be a useful short-hand to be applied in appropriate situations, then go ahead and use it, but do so correctly. Either way, if you are collecting photos, you should know what the terms mean so that you will recognize what is being said about the photo. If you only collect fine art photography, you will probably never run across a Type being stated, but if you're collecting sports-related news photos, you almost certainly will.

[GrayGhost]

Henry is a class act indeed. The "type one" etc stuff makes me crazy, but hey, to each is own. To some, the classification system may be a "leap of faith", like autographs are, in some ways.a

Collect what you like, call it an old photo, or whatever. In the end, pay what YOU think is fair for the item and enjoy the hobby.

[prewarsports]

I have never met Henry in person but have bought many things from him. I have heard nothing but good things from him and about him. I think the "type 1" v. "Type 2" classification system is a good attempt at providing some classification system to the Wild Wild West of photos, but I just think that the 2 year thing is too arbitrary for me. Why is a 1922 photo about the 1919 Black Sox Scandel considered a "Type 2", the same as a photo used in 1972 to talk about the same event? I think it should be 5-10 years as long as the paper stock is the same as was used when the item was originally shot but that is just me.

[doug.goodman]

David - I understand what you are saying, and completely agree with you. The concept of a classification system works well for the "grade everything" mindset, but in the real world, where it's impossible to get enough info about most pictures to use the system as defined, it is maddening to see people use the classification system with apparent disregard for the system they are claiming to use.

Doug

[Leon]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

I think it should be 5-10 years as long as the paper stock is the same as was used when the item was originally shot but that is just me.

Good point about the stock. As a very novice collector of just a few photos, but having seen a great deal more, especially with all of the large acquisitions and subsequent sales recently, I prefer the photos that are on the older stock..not the ones that are on a "too white looking" type of paper. They might be fine but I prefer ones where the stock is old looking (brownish?). How's that for technical photo talk?

[Lordstan]

So if I am reading and understanding correctly, David A and Doug, you both would prefer the elimination of the "Type" classification for photos because

1) Not all photos can be classified by the system.
2) PSA and Beckett are opportunistic companies that are seeking to profit from the system.
3) Some use the system incorrectly.
4) Classification systems are only for the "grade everything" crowd.
5) The Type system will somehow skew the values of pictures

Number 1...
So not all photos can be accurately classified, but a lot can. Simple fix just say you can't classify a specific picture because of lack of date or newspaper stampings, but you believe it to be printed around the time it was taken.

Number 2...
Nobody is forcing either of you, or anyone else for that matter, to pay to use the system. Anyone can use the system for free, by reading. For those who lack even amateur reading skills or the patience to read a book or two, there is a service available. Neither using nor not using the system costs anybody anything.

Number 3...
Is this really a problem with the system or with those who implement it.

Number 4...
Classification systems have nothing to do with the grade everything mindset. Classification systems are part of how we structure our lives. It starts with newborns who are classified as premature vs full term, underweight vs overweight, and even boy vs girl. (Editor's note: While at one point I would graded my daughter a 10, since she has turned 13, 2 months ago, I think she has lost a few points)Now back to our regularly scheduled diatribe...
None of these are value judgements or grades on the worth of the child, just as Type designation isn't a value judgement of the worth of a picture. It is an attempt to classify and identify to all when the picture was created in relation to when the image was actually taken.
Do we throw out the ACC classification system for cards because it promotes grading? Even if you eliminated card grading with numbers, using the old school terms Mint, ExMT, Ex, VG,etc is still a classification system.

Number 5...
Obviously this is wrong as evidenced by the recent results in Henry's auction. There was a $356 winning bid on the Type 2 of the 1915 Red Sox pitching staff with Ruth, the $172 winning bid on the Type 4 of Nat Fein's Ruth Bows Out, and the $135 winning bid on the 1939 Williams type 2 by Dorrill. These all got higher prices than the Type 1 of Gehrig in the 1938 WS that I won for $61 and 2/3 beat the price I paid for the Gehrig and Ott type 1 at $164. No matter what you call them, the prices will always be, in great part, about content.


Do you really think it is better to go back to using terms like original, vintage, old, first generation, second generation, re-strike, etc? These terms can mean so many different thing to different people, that it is even more confusing than the type system, IMO. Heck, even just a few posts prior to this one Lance jumped in to help clarify David's and Hank's usage of the terms first generation vs second generation vs re-strike. I think the old way of doing things could be just as confusing and was just as misused as the Type system.

Now, if it were up to me, I would change Type 1's from around 2yrs to 5yrs and perhaps even add a fifth category for Unclassifiable with perhaps a date range modifier based upon what is known of printing types, uniforms worn, etc. So it could be Type 5-30 for a pic not classifiable to within 5 yrs, but likely produced in the 1930's. Or something to that effect.

Great Debate.
Best,
Mark

[David Atkatz]

Mark, a classification system is useful only insofar as the objects considered can unambiguously be classified, and said classification has real consequences (beyond prices realized.) Premature vs. full term? Can a newborn be one day premature? No. A week premature? Perhaps, but it would make no difference. A month premature? Absolutely, and medical measures in all likelihood must be taken. Male vs female? Chromosome tests can unambiguously determine that (and some other categories as well), and certainly said classification has real consequences.

Type I vs. Type II? Ummm... not so much. (Sorta like one day premature.)

[doug.goodman]

What he said.

(I'm sure there's a Casey / Mickey / Congress joke in there somewhere)

Doug


PS - I hate the entire concept of paying a company to tell me what "grade" a card / picture / etc, is. Yes, I know, everyone is free to use or not use the services. I choose to use a kitchen knife to return cards to their "raw" state. I hate everything that grading has done to our hobby. Just my humble opinion.

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Mark, a classification system is useful only insofar as the objects considered can unambiguously be classified, and said classification has real consequences (beyond prices realized.) Premature vs. full term? Can a newborn be one day premature? No. A week premature? Perhaps, but it would make no difference.

David,
First of all, allow me to enlighten you on premature births. The clinical definition of prematurity is an infant being delivered before 37wks gestation. A newborn can be one day premature. Whether or not there will be health consequences is unknown until the child is born and examined. A week premature would be 36wk gestation which, contrary to your opinion above, certainly could make a difference.

Second, you are using an example I chose to rebut Doug's comment about classification systems being only for the "Grade everything" crowd, and are attempting to show how inefficient the "Type" system is by comparing them. Well, I would certainly hope that classification criteria which could affect an infants health and well being would be more strict than one that seeks to stratify the ages of baseball pictures.

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? Many systems don't start out as perfect, but evolve over time. The hope is that this system, like all others, will become better as it evolves with time.

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

What he said.


PS - I hate the entire concept of paying a company to tell me what "grade" a card / picture / etc, is. Yes, I know, everyone is free to use or not use the services. I choose to use a kitchen knife to return cards to their "raw" state. I hate everything that grading has done to our hobby. Just my humble opinion.

Doug,
I totally get and agree with your feelings about grading, authentication and everything it has done to our hobby. What I don't get is why the ill will towards a system that attempts to help us classify and organize photography collecting, even if it isn't a perfect system. Additionally, it helps provide a common language and terminology that we can use to communicate more efficiently with each other. I would think this is an improvement over using the vague terms that were what was done before.

Best,
mark

[David Atkatz]

Tell me, Mark, how does one determine whether a newborn is one day premature? (Or do they come date-stamped with the time of conception?)

[thecatspajamas]

Pretty sure Mark's intent was not to branch off into an argument about the definition of premature as it applies to infants. Pretty clearly, that was just one minor example of how humans, by our vary nature, apply classifications in nearly every aspect of our lives. Just because some of them have fuzzy areas when approaching the line doesn't invalidate the system.

Discussion is good, but can we keep it related to memorabilia

[David Atkatz]

It is related to memorabilia, Lance. There's nothing wrong with arguing through the use of analogies.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

It is related to memorabilia, Lance. There's nothing wrong with arguing through the use of analogies.

Arguing through the use of analogies, sure, that's useful, helpful, illustrative and is done all the time. Arguing about the definition of one term used in an analogy, the term itself having no applicability to memorabilia outside of that analogy, well, that's just no fun to read.

Nailing down the definition of premature babies will not do anything to advance the argument toward any kind of concensus or conclusion. To me, it's just argument for argument's sake, and doesn't lead anywhere productive.

[David Atkatz]

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.

[thecatspajamas]

I haven't seen anybody contest that a blank-backed 1920s photo cannot fully be determined to be Type 1. You keep coming back to that, and I and others keep saying that you're right in that situation (blank-backed photos). The fact that you can't apply the term to blank-backed photos does not invalidate the entire classification system though.

The system is not meant to be universally applicable to ALL photos. It IS applicable to many news photos, and is a useful shorthand in those cases.

[David Atkatz]

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.)

[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

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

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

That quote makes me laugh for multiple reasons.

Doug

Doug,
I would have to wholeheartedly agree with you on this one!
PSA is like Las Vegas- they get you coming and going. The house always makes money....

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

Doug,
I would have to wholeheartedly agree with you on this one!
PSA is like Las Vegas- they get you coming and going. The house always makes money....

Only if you play. I haven't sent them a dime in years...PSA, that is. I make a regular donation to the craps tables at the Venetian.