Just noticed all this thread so I apologize for not coming on sooner. Couple of things just to make this quick as I would have preferred this had gone to me directly rather than go on a public board but its no big deal, discussions are healthy and I have no problem with anyone discussing me or my company publicly.
I will refund the money to the buyer, which I do with any photograph where this type of thing happens and re-examine the photo when it comes back as it was sold a few years ago. It is my suspicion that the (b) qualifier that we use to signify something being off a duplicate negative was simply omitted from the listing, but I honestly cant remember. It does appear from the scan to be what I would call a "Vintage 1(b)" which is a Type 3. I also used the term "in any form" in the description which is usually what I say when something is a slightly inferior example, and I graded it a 4.5/5 for clarity which again lends to the belief that is was supposed to be a 1(b). I have already e mailed the owner and offered a complete refund on the photo. I will re-examine the photo when it comes back but this is my initial thoughts on the photo. If that is indeed the case, I apologize for the situation and will make it right. As a side note, the market has improved so much over the last 2 years that even if resold as a vintage 1(b) it probably sells for more money so at least there is that
As a side note, not related to this Gehrig, I want to make a quick statement.
I have authenticated over 30,000 photographs in the last 5 years and have had a handful of returns. Less than 1/1000. I stand behind everything I have ever sold. There is not a single soul on this earth that has had an issue with a photo that has been sold by me or through RMY that was not offered a refund. Period.
Sometimes I make a mistake as stated above, sometimes it is a difference of opinion between PSA and I. I have the utmost respect for Henry at PSA but the thing to remember is sometimes PSA is right, and sometimes my opinion is the correct one. We are all learning and even after viewing approximately 4 million photographs in the last 10 years, I learn new stuff about photography every time I go dig through an archive or talk to photographers or people who worked in the newspaper industry about how photos were received and used etc. Henry and I are friends and I have spoken to him several times about this type of thing on both my end and on the PSA end as well. Photography is tricky and nobody in this world knows everything.
In my opinion, we have to admit that we all cant be perfect and we all cant pretend to know everything. To err is an important human trait. I know more about photos at the end of 2017 than I did at the end of 2016 and by the end of next year after looking at 6 new archives at least and another half million to a million photos, I will know even more than I do right now. Obviously the ball was dropped here and I own the mistake. I try to be thorough as I can, but we are a small operation and sometimes like in any business mistakes happen, especially when it is 3 in the morning and I am trying to get an auction up and running, proof reading 1100 lots as a one-man band! We do however stand behind EVERY photo we sell so if we mess up, it will get made right.
Well, that was not as short as I had originally stated, but I hope that my statements above resolve the situation around the Gehrig and also shed a little light on the authentication front. If anyone wishes to speak with me personally about the industry, its future, authentication (both good and bad) I am always available.
May we all find some kick ass photos in 2018!
Rhys