Type 2 vs 3 Photos Values

[Bicem]

Curious as to whether people would rather a type 2 photo printed from the original negative say 10-20 years after the photo was originally taken -or- a type 3 photo printed around the same time as originally taken but less clarity since off a duplicate negative.

Which would you rather have? Which should be worth more?

What % of value vs the type 1 version should each be?

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Bicem

Curious as to whether people would rather a type 2 photo printed from the original negative say 10-20 years after the photo was originally taken -or- a type 3 photo printed around the same time as originally taken but less clarity since off a duplicate negative.

Which would you rather have? Which should be worth more?

What % of value vs the type 1 version should each be?

It all depends: Many variables to consider-the actual clarity difference, difference in numbers of the two(how many of each exist), the format of each(size /what type of paper compared to type 1/which one is more similar), How far removed is the actual type 2. I don’t think there is a definitive/simple answer. At least there is’t in my mind.

[perezfan]

Tough question Jeff...

Variables aside, I'd definitely rather have a Type 2 from the original negative with better photo quality and clarity. Just my personal preference, as the central image is what matters to me the most.

"Type 1" obviously performs far better in auctions and sells for much more, as that's what most people want. So it's hard to state what the Type 2 value should be when looking at it as a percentage of Type 1. It's difficult to separate personal preferences from market value.

The already established prices realized and potential resale are such big factors in assessing value. If I had to put a personal number to it, maybe 35-40% (Type 2 as a percentage of Type 1). But even that depends upon the photo quality and subject matter.

I like to collect those early Composite display-type photos, which technically do not receive a Type 1 designation. So that muddies it up even more for me.

Sorry for the rambling non-answer!

[bgar3]

Jeff, not as big a photo collector as years ago, but I Agree with a Mark, especially as it pertains to clarity. When I collected there were no type designations, but we all looked at the image quality, photographer etc. whenever possible I much preferred contact prints even though smaller in size.

[T206Jim]

I agree that the answer depends on so many factors. I generally collect only Type 1s, but there are a few Type II and Type III photos I have that I still really enjoy. To me a good type II doesn't feel too modern, it must retain the warmth and clarity of a Type I. This circa 1930 Type II of Cobb at the 1907 World Series fits that bill for me.

Cobb.jpg

On the other hand, look at this 1911 stamped photo of Baker taken by Conlon. I love the 1911 stamp just after the famous World Series where he belted his namesake home runs and the image is relatively good for a Type III, but it is still missing the warmth of the Cobb Type II above.

IMG_0636.jpg

As I have not seen Type Is of the above images I am thrilled to have each, but still they they are worth a small fraction of what Type Is would bring. Type II and Type IIIs each have winning attributes, but it is tough to beat the combined warmth, clarity and moment in time aspect of a true Type I gem.