SGC sister company grades vintage photos

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>I saw a couple of these on ebay yesterday. Apparently CCG (the comic grading wing) is authenticating and grading vintage photos. Their web site doesn't mention it but the product is out there.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rhys</b><p>I have bought several of these graded photos off ebay, and in each instance I cut the holder open to get the photo out. The service is useless because they do not differentiate between first generation and later copies of the photos. SO, as long as the photo is somewhat old, it will get graded. I bought a Knute Rockne photo in uniform as a player and after receiving it I quickly discovered it was a 1940's era photo and not from the original publishing date. Nice idea, but they need to state the type of photo and approx age on them.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Julie Vognar</b><p>WHO would THINK about grading photos without taking into account--whether they're original or not? How old the print is?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>I've seen this around for a while. A saw a number of photos labelled as original that clearly were not. For example, a Jack Johnson in the ring photo that was made decades later. All the photos I saw appeared to legitimate press or similar photos, and many were original or otherwise vintage-- so I'm not suggesting they are computer reprints or made in someone's basement. It's just that their own definition of their photos is that they were made from the original negative soon after the image was shot and many of the photos did not fit their their own definition.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>David Davis</b><p>There is only one initial seller of these graded photos, which is JP The Mint. If you look on the CGC web site, there is not mention of a photo grading service. It's my understanding that Jay Parrino was one of 3 people to purchase the Culver Pictures archive, and I guess he thought grading them could enhance their value, even though he makes not mention of the archive in the ads.<br /><br />I primarily sell photos for a living and can tell you from experience that the grading will have zero impact on the value. So many original photos, while maybe not one of a kind, are seen so infrequently, that condition has very little impact, unless it is badly damaged.<br /><br />BTW, for the price that many of the photos sell for, I hope his cost is minimal on the grading/encapsulating, because anyone of moderate means would soon be out of business.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>To the extent the grading service would distinguish between a first and second generation print, grading would have some usefulness -- a bit like the usefulness of saying whether a card has been altered or not. With that said, though, unless the grading service has in its employ some photographic superstar, I would be reluctant to give much weight to what the grading company says. More than any other factor, whether the photo is first or second generation will have the biggest bearing on its value. Answering that is not always so clear cut, and I for one would be more comfortable getting an opinion from an INDIVIDUAL recognized as an authority in that area, as opposed to from a grading COMPANY.<br /><br />Other than opining whether the photo is first or second generation, anything else the grading company would say in my view is worthless. It is just too subjective an area to set grading standards. I for one put tremendous stock in photo contrast and resolution, and to that end am very tolerant of abuse to the mount. Others might prefer a better mount with a somewhat lighter photo. There is no right or wrong and it is nonsensical to assign a photo a numerical grade when there is such a broad range of opinion as to the condition criteria.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>In my opinion, Leland's has some fine baseball photos in their first section.