NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. When you click on links to eBay on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
T206s on eBay
Babe Ruth Cards on eBay
t206 Ty Cobb on eBay
Ty Cobb Cards on eBay
Lou Gehrig Cards on eBay
Baseball T201-T217 on eBay
Baseball E90-E107 on eBay
T205 Cards on eBay
Baseball Postcards on eBay
Goudey Cards on eBay
Baseball Memorabilia on eBay
Baseball Exhibit Cards on eBay
Baseball Strip Cards on eBay
Baseball Baking Cards on eBay
Sporting News Cards on eBay
Play Ball Cards on eBay
Joe DiMaggio Cards on eBay
Mickey Mantle Cards on eBay
Bowman 1951-1955 on eBay
Football Cards on eBay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Main Forum - WWII & Older Baseball Cards > Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-09-2011, 01:33 PM
jgmp123 jgmp123 is offline
James Graham
James Gra.ham
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Greenwood, Indiana
Posts: 1,855
Default Difference between Type 1 and Type 2 Press Photos...

I am new to photo collecting and was just wondering if someone could please help me out in by explaining the difference between Type 1 and Type 2 Press Photos.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-09-2011, 01:56 PM
thecatspajamas's Avatar
thecatspajamas thecatspajamas is offline
L@nce Fit.tro
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Franklin, TN
Posts: 2,433
Default

Simply put, Type 1 photos were printed from the original negative within 2 years of the photo being shot. Type 2 were printed from the original negative more than 2 years of the photo being shot.

There has been a great deal of debate in another string of posts here recently about whether 2 years is too restrictive or not, but that is the cut-off as it currently stands. Obviously, if you're selling a Type 2 photo, you will want to provide more info than just the Type. If you had an original 1920's negative, you could technically produce an unlimited number of Type 2 prints tomorrow, but those would obviously be less desirable than a 1930's print that fell just outside the Type 1 timeframe.

Hope that helps.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-09-2011, 03:05 PM
David Atkatz's Avatar
David Atkatz David Atkatz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 3,099
Default

The problem, of course, is that a) unless the image itself is easily datable, and b) the photo is date-stamped as to when it was printed, no one can really tell whether a photo is type I or not.

But there's no shortage of "experts" willing to sell their "expertise."
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-09-2011, 04:48 PM
Ladder7's Avatar
Ladder7 Ladder7 is offline
Steve F
St.eve F@llet.ti
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Atlantis
Posts: 2,030
Default

730 and 731 days
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-10-2011, 05:38 AM
Scott Garner's Avatar
Scott Garner Scott Garner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midwest
Posts: 6,624
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ladder7 View Post
730 and 731 days
Funny!! Sad, but true!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-10-2011, 06:49 AM
RichardSimon's Avatar
RichardSimon RichardSimon is offline
Richard Simon
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New York City
Posts: 5,425
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ladder7 View Post
730 and 731 days
Maybe they sprinkle it with DNA dust and can divine the 730/731 divide from that.
__________________
Sign up & receive my autograph price list. E mail me,richsprt@aol.com, with your e mail. Sports,entertainment,history.
-
Here is a link to my online store. Many items for sale. 10% disc. for 54 members. E mail me first.
www.bonanza.com/booths/richsports
--
"I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure."- Clarence Darrow
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-10-2011, 07:42 AM
murphusa murphusa is offline
Jim Murphy
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,144
Default

what happens when there is a leap year?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-10-2011, 09:13 AM
Lordstan's Avatar
Lordstan Lordstan is offline
M@rk V3l@rd3
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Allentown, PA
Posts: 3,828
Default

The "Type" system was proposed by 2 collectors Henry Yee, also a seller, and Marshall Fogel around 2005 in the book "A Portrait of Baseball Photography." The system attempts to categorize and organize pictures by date printed as compared to the date the picture was actually taken.

This is an excellent book, as beside the system, it goes into great detail into various topics about collecting pictures including news company stamps and the time frames they were used, great photographers and their histories, as well as general collecting topics.

About a year ago PSA/DNA and Beckett started offering a service to authenticate and even slab pictures using the system. This has caused an uproar as there is a large anti "Third Party Authenticator" faction in this group of experienced collectors, especially when it come to PSA.

There are many who don't like the system and many who do, both for various reasons detailed in another recent thread. Without getting into this debate again, here are the official guidelines for the different types in the classification system.

Type I - A 1st generation photograph, developed from the original negative, during the period (within approximately two years of when the picture was taken).
Type II - A photograph, developed from the original negative, during the period (more than approximately two years after the picture was taken).
Type III - A 2nd generation photograph, developed from a duplicate negative or wire transmission, during the period (within approximately two years of when the picture was taken).
Type IV - A 2nd generation photograph (or 3rd or later generation), developed from a duplicate negative or wire transmission, during a later period (more than approximately two years after the picture was taken)

Unfortunately many sellers misdescribe the photos they sell, some for nefarious reasons and some because they just don't know. The best advice is this. Buy the picture, not the authentication or seller description, whether they use the type description or not. Good pictures are good pictures regardless of how they are classified or described.

Good luck and welcome to the hobby.
Mark
__________________
My signed 1934 Goudey set(in progress).
https://flic.kr/s/aHsjFuyogy

Other interests/sets/collectibles.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/96571220@N08/albums

My for sale or trade photobucket album
https://flic.kr/s/aHsk7c1SRL
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-10-2011, 10:38 AM
drc drc is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,621
Default

The simplest thing to remember is Type 1 is original, and the other types are something different. The label also gives the date (date range-- ala 1960s) when the photo was made, so you should know how old is the photo.

In general, if you want to pick up a photo of Ty Cobb or whomever, you'll want to put your hard earned dollars on the Type !s-- the original. Makes sense. Originals are good, right? There's nothing wrong with picking up a type 2 or 3 or whatever, but obviously they won't be the originals nor valued as originals. For the non-type 1s, I would consider who made the photo (AP, George Brace stamp on back, etc), the quality/aesthetics and when it was made (should be listed on the label).

I'm not telling anyone what to do-- but in most any area of collecting, original is the most desirable type. Also, as the originals were made from the original negative, the image will usually be of superior quality. Copies and copy negatives and reprints usually are of lesser quality, often much lesser quality.

Last edited by drc; 07-10-2011 at 11:59 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-10-2011, 01:18 PM
Ladder7's Avatar
Ladder7 Ladder7 is offline
Steve F
St.eve F@llet.ti
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Atlantis
Posts: 2,030
Default

David,

Perhaps at the Approximate two yr point, older negatives lose clarity, fade or otherwise degrade? thanks
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-10-2011, 03:40 PM
David Atkatz's Avatar
David Atkatz David Atkatz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 3,099
Default

Yeah.

And pigs might fly.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-11-2011, 08:35 AM
olsport olsport is offline
Paul
member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cali-"Paradise"
Posts: 143
Default Type I vs others

I in no way claim to be an expert in this field, but I have found that Type II or later wire photos have the caption written in the photo itself, vs a Type I that may or may not, have a glued captioned piece of paper attached to it.
Also, many TypeII's and later seem to have inferior clarity and quality. Many of the Type I's seem to be almost printed from the original negative.
__________________
"Variety is the Spice of Life!"
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-11-2011, 09:07 AM
thecatspajamas's Avatar
thecatspajamas thecatspajamas is offline
L@nce Fit.tro
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Franklin, TN
Posts: 2,433
Default

olsport,
You've got a common mix-up in terminology there. A "wire photo" is a photo that was actually sent over the news wire and developed by the machinery on the other end. As you said, the caption for a wire photo is typically embedded in the image on the front (actually part of the image). The wire photo on the receiving end is considered a Type 3 photo if it is within the 2-year period, or a Type 4 if it's in a later period. As you said, the wire photo will almost always be of inferior quality to the original, though some still come out very nice.

The original photo on the sending end is not considered a "wire photo," though this is a common mistake. It could be called a "news photo" or "press photo," but the term "wire photo" should be reserved for photos that actually travelled over-the-wire and were produced by the machinery on the receiving end. You could say that all "wire photos" are also "news photos," but all "news photos" are not "wire photos."

The photo on the sending end would typically be a Type 1 or Type 2, and the one on the receiving end would be a Type 3 or Type 4.

Also, by definition, ALL Type 1 and Type 2 photos were printed from the original negative.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-25-2014, 07:59 AM
Drift Drift is offline
member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 58
Default

I thoroughly enjoy reading old threads like these.

I wanted to bring up a question on pricing of original type photographs.

With such variance in types how does one price a photo when considering a purchase?

Are major auction house sale results a good indicator of price?
If I were to buy a photo through Heritage auction house could I count on selling it for the same 5 years down the road?

With what I call "niche" categories of collecting I always find that a particular item can be sold multiple times throughout the years and the final sale prices can vary to a great degree. Does this seem to hold true for original type photo's?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-25-2014, 08:07 AM
Drift Drift is offline
member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 58
Default

One last question.

Approximately when did news agencies start stamping dates on the back of their photo's?

For the baseball photo's ive seen I found it common for photos Circa early 1900's to have their first stamp dated in the 1930s or 1940's. Could it mean this is a later type original? How would you try to date the photos type in such a case.

If anyone can direct me to some books that cover the subject i'd appreciate that.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-25-2014, 10:57 AM
JoeyF1981 JoeyF1981 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 609
Default

In some cases there are no type 1's known to exist of a certain photo so sometimes a type 2 what you have to settle with. I have some type 2's that have way better clarity than most of my type 1's. It all depends and like everyone said buy what you like. Theres alot of sellers out there who are representing their photos as type 1's but have not done the research or have a clue what to look for. My best advice is if you find a photo youre interested in post it here so we can help you out. The best book to buy is yee/fogels book for any information you need regarding stamps, paper and everything else.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-25-2014, 11:02 AM
prewarsports prewarsports is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,550
Default

Most dates on the backs of press photos are secondary file marks. Most of the issuing agencies did not date stamp their photos (except on the paper slug) which makes it tricky if those incriminating slugs happen to "fall off"
__________________
Be sure to check out my site www.RMYAuctions.com
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-25-2014, 11:08 AM
drcy's Avatar
drcy drcy is offline
David Ru.dd Cycl.eback
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,475
Default

I've seen date stamps before the 1930s.

As far as pricing goes, it depends what you buy and what you pay. People overpay and underpay for photos, so I can't promise anything on a specific theoretical photo. If, in a bidding war, you pay $500 for a $50 photo, I'm certainly not going to guarantee it's worth $500 in five years. A sad fact of today's hobby is people shill their auctions, and prices are realized prices are too high right now. Show me a specific photo and I'll tell you if I think the price was good. Buy quality originals at good prices. Don't jump on bandwagons (as with everywhere else, the hobby has fads), buy quality, know quality. You learn quality and rarity and pricing by following auctions and looking at photos. It's not something you can learn in a five minute lesson.

I think some stuff goes too high these days, but I also see many quality photos that I think are good bargains today. Some old display photos and display composite photos I think are undervalued or at least at good fair prices. Don't look just at news photos-- look into cabinet cards, panoramas, early display photos, tintypes, etc. News photos are plentiful, while the other areas contain many rarities. I thought many photos in the Legendary Dreier auction were undervalued.

I think the majority of collectors are undereducated and myopic, and simply follow hobby trends and fads. There are rare items that are undervalued because the majority of collectors aren't educated or experienced enough to realize the rarity. Collectors don't get wealthy from artifact investments by following latest trends and fads, but by knowing buying quality and rarity before the rest of the hobby realizes the quality and rarity.

I do think, looking overall at all the photos and not zeroing on one or two, past auction house results are a fair indicator of price. As I said, a specific photo may have been bought at a bargain while another went too high, so look overall at all the photos.

My guide to photos pdf ebook (long download time)

Last edited by drcy; 04-25-2014 at 11:54 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-25-2014, 11:41 AM
Drift Drift is offline
member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 58
Default

Thanks for the replys gentleman.

I guess I have no choice but to post the photo in question. I apologize to anyone who might currently be looking to acquire this particular item. It is not my intention to draw attention to it. I just need some experienced advice on the particulars.

I am interested in the photo for the pure collectors interest. I own several modern prints of cobb and I think it'd be wonderful to own one of the original vintage prints.

It is advertised as from the "Detroit Press" archives, not sure who the photographer was. It was last sold for $1175 in 2010, it's back up for bid.

The earliest stamped date on the back shows May of 1938 (stamped upside down, faintly hidden behind the attached piece of paper)





So who can tell me what type it is? If there are any definitive labels or signs to prove it's origins.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-25-2014, 11:50 AM
JoeyF1981 JoeyF1981 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 609
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drift View Post
Thanks for the replys gentleman.

I guess I have no choice but to post the photo in question. I apologize to anyone who might currently be looking to acquire this particular item. It is not my intention to draw attention to it. I just need some experienced advice on the particulars.

I am interested in the photo for the pure collectors interest. I own several modern prints of cobb and I think it'd be wonderful to own one of the original vintage prints.

It is advertised as from the "Detroit Press" archives, not sure who the photographer was. It was last sold for $1175 in 2010, it's back up for bid.

The earliest stamped date on the back shows May of 1938 (stamped upside down, faintly hidden behind the attached piece of paper)





So who can tell me what type it is? If there are any definitive labels or signs to prove it's origins.
My guess would be a type 2 but im not 100% sure. Since thats the earliest stamp on there and im sure you know the photo wasnt taken in 1938 then it more than likely is a type 2 since the clarity is still very nice. Theres other indicators such as paper type which could help pinpoint around when it was developed
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-25-2014, 11:52 AM
billyb's Avatar
billyb billyb is offline
Bill Boyd
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Gladwin, Mi, (God's country)
Posts: 1,074
Default

Drift,
The value of photos is all over the place, that is what makes collecting original press photos interesting and fresh. No price guides to go by.
In Fogel and Yee's book, they mention the 4 C's, Content, Clarity, Contrast and Condition. Good adivice to follow. Drcy also has a lot of information on his web site.
As some say at buying photos, it is whatever you are willing to pay for it, and makes you happy.
__________________
Norm Cash message to his pitchers, the day after one of his evenings on the town. "If you can hold em till the seventh, I'll be ready"
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-25-2014, 11:55 AM
JoeyF1981 JoeyF1981 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 609
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billyb View Post
Drift,
The value of photos is all over the place, that is what makes collecting original press photos interesting and fresh. No price guides to go by.
In Fogel and Yee's book, they mention the 4 C's, Content, Clarity, Contrast and Condition. Good adivice to follow. Drcy also has a lot of information on his web site.
As some say at buying photos, it is whatever you are willing to pay for it, and makes you happy.
I agree! There is no price book on photos and like you said if you love the photo then thats all that matters. Everyone has their opinion on what they think a photo is worth but its really all about what someone is willing to pay for it like anything else. Buy what you like.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-25-2014, 12:06 PM
drcy's Avatar
drcy drcy is offline
David Ru.dd Cycl.eback
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,475
Default

The Cobb image is great, especially with Frank Baker being the other guym but for $1100 I'd want better condition and no image markings. But there's no question it's a great, clear image.

In person, a 1909 photo will be on noticeably thin paper, so you should be able to tell if you get in hand. I'd have to see it in person to tell you if it's original or not, though the image is crystal clear which is a good sign.

There are many original Cobb photos on the market, so you will be able to get an original sooner or later.

I know where the photo is, by the way. I would assume the seller is reliable about identifying originals.

I think it's fair to use the previous sale as a valuation marker.

Last edited by drcy; 04-25-2014 at 12:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-25-2014, 12:48 PM
drcy's Avatar
drcy drcy is offline
David Ru.dd Cycl.eback
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,475
Default

I forgot to add that date stamps can be added years after, so a photo can be older than the earliest stamp.

Last edited by drcy; 04-25-2014 at 12:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-25-2014, 01:05 PM
Drift Drift is offline
member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 58
Default

Thanks again, DRCY are you saying you know who currently owns the photo? If it is in the hands of an experienced photo collector id also assume the photo is worthwhile.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-25-2014, 01:11 PM
drcy's Avatar
drcy drcy is offline
David Ru.dd Cycl.eback
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,475
Default

No, I meant I saw what auction it is in. I don't know who is the consigner.

I'd be confident in the auction house as far as identifying it as original. They handle a lot of baseball photos. If they say it's original, I'd assume it's original.

Last edited by drcy; 04-25-2014 at 01:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-25-2014, 02:01 PM
prewarsports prewarsports is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,550
Default

For what its worth, the Culver archives had several examples of press photos from both the Gilliams Press Syndicate, Brown Brothers and Bain with pre-1910date stamps. The oldest date stamp I have personally seen on a press photo is 1906. However, it was not common practice to start dating images until the 1910's and even then it was up to the individual paper. In fact we know EXACTLY when the Detroit Free started date stamping their photos because the images in their archive not date stamped before 1919 have a "filed before 1919" stamp on the back. I would image some were not stamped but it is an interesting piece of photographic history to see that stamp. That Cobb photo looks like it "could" be original, but it is impossible to tell from a scan and easy to tell in person.
__________________
Be sure to check out my site www.RMYAuctions.com
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-12-2024, 04:25 AM
Neal's Avatar
Neal Neal is offline
Ne@l K
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: US
Posts: 1,589
Default

Trying to decide if this is worth sending in to get slabbed

I believe this to be a Type I
Attached Images
File Type: jpg LAboundDodgers.jpg (82.1 KB, 224 views)
File Type: jpg LAboundDodgers2.jpg (77.3 KB, 226 views)
__________________
Neal

Successful transactions with Peter Spaeth, Phil Garry, Don Hontz, JStottlemire, maj78, bcbgcbrcb, secondhandwatches, esehobmbre, Leon, Jetsfan, Brian Van Horn, Brian Dwyer, MGHPro, DeanH, canofcorn, Zigger Zagger, conor912, RayBShotz, Jay Wolt, AConte, Halbig Vintage and many others
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-12-2024, 09:22 AM
perezfan's Avatar
perezfan perezfan is offline
M@RK ST€!NBERG
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,622
Default

Yes it's Type 1. But no need to slab, unless for some reason you feel compelled to do so, and incur the costs.
__________________
Be sure to subscribe to my YouTube Channel, The Stuff Of Greatness. New videos are uploaded every week...

https://www.youtube.com/@tsogreatness/videos
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-12-2024, 10:48 AM
EddieP EddieP is offline
Member
Ed.gar Pim.entel
 
Join Date: Mar 2022
Posts: 369
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lordstan View Post
The "Type" system was proposed by 2 collectors Henry Yee, also a seller, and Marshall Fogel around 2005 in the book "A Portrait of Baseball Photography." The system attempts to categorize and organize pictures by date printed as compared to the date the picture was actually taken.

This is an excellent book, as beside the system, it goes into great detail into various topics about collecting pictures including news company stamps and the time frames they were used, great photographers and their histories, as well as general collecting topics.

About a year ago PSA/DNA and Beckett started offering a service to authenticate and even slab pictures using the system. This has caused an uproar as there is a large anti "Third Party Authenticator" faction in this group of experienced collectors, especially when it come to PSA.

There are many who don't like the system and many who do, both for various reasons detailed in another recent thread. Without getting into this debate again, here are the official guidelines for the different types in the classification system.

Type I - A 1st generation photograph, developed from the original negative, during the period (within approximately two years of when the picture was taken).
Type II - A photograph, developed from the original negative, during the period (more than approximately two years after the picture was taken).
Type III - A 2nd generation photograph, developed from a duplicate negative or wire transmission, during the period (within approximately two years of when the picture was taken).
Type IV - A 2nd generation photograph (or 3rd or later generation), developed from a duplicate negative or wire transmission, during a later period (more than approximately two years after the picture was taken)

Unfortunately many sellers misdescribe the photos they sell, some for nefarious reasons and some because they just don't know. The best advice is this. Buy the picture, not the authentication or seller description, whether they use the type description or not. Good pictures are good pictures regardless of how they are classified or described.

Good luck and welcome to the hobby.
Mark
The problem with this is that those 2 made the difference between a Type 1 and Type 2 photos only 2 years, which makes telling them apart almost impossible. People who collect non-sports photos used a 5-10 year difference. This takes in account that the type of photo paper being used when the picture was taken is no longer in circulation.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 05-03-2024, 08:05 PM
Neal's Avatar
Neal Neal is offline
Ne@l K
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: US
Posts: 1,589
Default

Are enhancements to photos viewed differently than enhancements to baseball cards? I imagine that trimming the border around the image and cleaning some smudge marks is acceptable

Comparing the two, the second is certainly a sharper, cleaner copy with better lines

Completed on eBay
https://www.ebay.com/itm/17625163860...mis&media=COPY

The current slab

https://rmyauctions.com/bids/bidplace?itemid=70144



Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
__________________
Neal

Successful transactions with Peter Spaeth, Phil Garry, Don Hontz, JStottlemire, maj78, bcbgcbrcb, secondhandwatches, esehobmbre, Leon, Jetsfan, Brian Van Horn, Brian Dwyer, MGHPro, DeanH, canofcorn, Zigger Zagger, conor912, RayBShotz, Jay Wolt, AConte, Halbig Vintage and many others
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-03-2024, 09:47 PM
Swadewade51's Avatar
Swadewade51 Swadewade51 is offline
W@de
Member
 
Join Date: May 2023
Posts: 211
Default

I have purchased a photo and removed editorial markings myself and had them removed professionally. Always disclosing the work done. Some people may prefer them and thats fine. I don't so I would've done the same. I think trimming boarders is terrible though and that ebay seller had done that before on some really beautiful pieces.


Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Last edited by Swadewade51; 05-03-2024 at 09:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-03-2024, 10:27 PM
Lorewalker's Avatar
Lorewalker Lorewalker is offline
Chase
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 1,509
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neal View Post
Are enhancements to photos viewed differently than enhancements to baseball cards? I imagine that trimming the border around the image and cleaning some smudge marks is acceptable

Comparing the two, the second is certainly a sharper, cleaner copy with better lines

Completed on eBay
https://www.ebay.com/itm/17625163860...mis&media=COPY

The current slab

https://rmyauctions.com/bids/bidplace?itemid=70144



Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
PSA/DNA does not grade photos, they are merely authenticating whether they are Type 1-4, essentially, which speaks only to the photo's generation. I don't think they take into consideration restoration or what in cards would be deemed altering, in their final assessment.

That said the seller's id sounds familiar for some reason. The eBay listing was ended by the seller (not the same as completed, which implies a sale) on 2/29 just in time for him to clean it up, get it authenticated again and get it to the auction house.
__________________
( h @ $ e A n + l e y
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-03-2024, 11:10 PM
jethrod3 jethrod3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 308
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorewalker View Post
PSA/DNA does not grade photos, they are merely authenticating whether they are Type 1-4, essentially, which speaks only to the photo's generation. I don't think they take into consideration restoration or what in cards would be deemed altering, in their final assessment.
What I was told by a couple of major auction houses now makes sense after reading what Lorewalker mentioned. Basically, at the National last year, I brought a photo to show to some of the major sports auction houses, so I could get a feel for the value of that photo. It had an uneven cut to the top of the photo but it was agreed that it was likely a Type I photo and that I should submit it and get it slabbed. It was a photo that had been used for a 1950 Bowman football card. Both of the auction house reps I visited with told me to trim the top so it looks better, before getting it slabbed, as it would also likely not affect the price I might get for it. That make sense now since there is no grading option and only just authentication that is offered.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-04-2024, 10:59 AM
Bicem's Avatar
Bicem Bicem is offline
Jeff 'Prize-ner'
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,117
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorewalker View Post
PSA/DNA does not grade photos, they are merely authenticating whether they are Type 1-4, essentially, which speaks only to the photo's generation. I don't think they take into consideration restoration or what in cards would be deemed altering, in their final assessment.

That said the seller's id sounds familiar for some reason. The eBay listing was ended by the seller (not the same as completed, which implies a sale) on 2/29 just in time for him to clean it up, get it authenticated again and get it to the auction house.
I think they are starting to refuse photos that have been restored (not counting trimming since press photos are often cut down from their original size at time of publication).

I just had a photo that was rejected due to chemicals being used to remove a secretarial signature from the front (I bought it after the restoration). It had been previously graded a type one with the signature.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-04-2024, 12:08 PM
Schlesinj Schlesinj is offline
Jamie
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: PA
Posts: 571
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bicem View Post
I think they are starting to refuse photos that have been restored (not counting trimming since press photos are often cut down from their original size at time of publication).

I just had a photo that was rejected due to chemicals being used to remove a secretarial signature from the front (I bought it after the restoration). It had been previously graded a type one with the signature.
That is interesting, I bought a photo recently and it had a distinct stamp of the original owner (I happen to own 4 others from the same collection). The photo did not have a PSA/DNA LOA, but the auction mentioned it had been previously authenticated. It was clearly a Type 1, so I had no issue with buying it.

After I received the photo, I was going to try and get a replacement LOA (it was not slabbed) and while doing some research I found the original photo from an older auction (same personal stamp location) and the photo was trimmed since it had been originally authenticated. I then looked up the authentication number and it was deactivated. I now wonder if it had been cleaned and trimmed and got rejected to get a new LOA. Maybe they have some new standards?
__________________
BST h2oya311, Jobu, Shoeless Moe, Bumpus Jones, Frankish, Shoeless Moe again, Maddux31, Billycards, sycks22, ballparks, VintageBen (for a friend), vpina87, JimmyC, scmavl

Last edited by Schlesinj; 05-04-2024 at 04:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-05-2024, 05:23 PM
Lorewalker's Avatar
Lorewalker Lorewalker is offline
Chase
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 1,509
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bicem View Post
I think they are starting to refuse photos that have been restored (not counting trimming since press photos are often cut down from their original size at time of publication).

I just had a photo that was rejected due to chemicals being used to remove a secretarial signature from the front (I bought it after the restoration). It had been previously graded a type one with the signature.
Great info and thank you for sharing. It made me go back to look at the website and read the submission form. Does not have any language about agreeing to not submit restored photos. It does make sense that in spite of their not assigning a grade the photo should be assessed for more than generation but also originality. To me trimming a photo is nothing like trimming a card but removing stuff would fall into the category of an alteration.
__________________
( h @ $ e A n + l e y
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-05-2024, 05:26 PM
Bicem's Avatar
Bicem Bicem is offline
Jeff 'Prize-ner'
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,117
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorewalker View Post
Great info and thank you for sharing. It made me go back to look at the website and read the submission form. Does not have any language about agreeing to not submit restored photos. It does make sense that in spite of their not assigning a grade the photo should be assessed for more than generation but also originality. To me trimming a photo is nothing like trimming a card but removing stuff would fall into the category of an alteration.
Agreed. Was actually happy to see the result.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-05-2024, 05:40 PM
jad22 jad22 is offline
Joe D
Joe Do.oley
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 446
Default

I would not consider removing a sharpie auto as an alteration but might feel differently about other types of ink.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I also collect TYPE 2-3-4 Photos. Here are some examples... thekingofclout Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used 9 12-17-2010 01:26 PM
Baseball - Vintage Type I Press Photos - 1930s-40s Ending Tonight Nov. 6th on Ebay D. Bergin Ebay, Auction and other Venues Announcement- B/S/T 3 11-06-2009 08:25 AM
Baseball - Vintage Type I Press Photos - Greenberg, Grove + ends Tonight Oct. 21 Ebay D. Bergin Ebay, Auction and other Venues Announcement- B/S/T 1 10-21-2009 07:49 AM
Vintage Type I Press Photos - 1936 Yankees, Carl Hubbell & Red Ruffing, 1937 NL AS's D. Bergin Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T 0 10-01-2009 12:00 AM
Vintage Type I Press Photos - 1936 Yankees, Carl Hubbell, Babe Didrikson & Jimmy Foxx D. Bergin Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T 0 09-30-2009 11:39 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:32 PM.


ebay GSB