Quote:
Originally Posted by drcy
One gives one's best judgement on age. Sometimes trying to grade a photo by PSA's 1,2,3 system is like like trying to fit a round hole into a square peg. 2 years is an arbitrary number-- why couldn't it have been 1 year? or 3?-- and for some photos one doesn't know how long after it was printed. How PSA can grade as Type 1 George Burke photos, someone will have to explain to me. There's also an often used word in photography called "circa."
|
David, I know there is some long-standing bad blood between you and Henry that I don't care to get in the middle of, but I do feel the need to point out that PSA does use terms like "circa", "c.", and "approximately" on their LOA's, as in the example below.
As for the George Burke comment, though I shared your sentiment at one time, after some (actually, a lot) of careful observation, I have found that while it is not always possible to narrow a print date down to a specific year, they can be narrowed down to a reasonable time frame based on the stamping style on the verso. Certainly not every print, just as not every news photo can be nailed down based solely on the news service stamping, but taken in conjunction with the subject and other clues, the time frame of print production can be narrowed down on a surprising number of Burke photos. It does take a lot of documenting and cross-referencing of stamping styles and a large body of material to work from though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardSimon
In order to take the collector's money they have to do something with those photos. For PSA better to grade those photos as Type 1 than to give a credit to the collector (of course a refund is never considered).
|
Richard, I understand your intent, but PSA does not "grade" photos. Condition is not a factor in the Type classification system.
Joey, the simplest answer to your question is it's not possible in every case, but as with the Burke photos I mentioned above, in a great many cases the date of production can be reasonably narrowed by observation of other factors besides a date stamp. It's easy to get hung up on the presence or lack of a pinpoint identifier like a date stamp (though date stamps themselves are not infallible proof of a production date), but there are a number of other factors to consider, including those you deem to be "a stretch." Any one taken on its own may not allow definitive dating, but taken as a sum of all the information at hand, a photo's originality and date of production can often (though not always) be determined within a reasonable time frame.
PSA/Henry have chosen "approximately 2 years" as the cut-off for their classification system. Whether you or David agree with that cut-off, consider Rhys's 5 years to be better, or think the use of any specific number to be arbitrary is a matter of your own judgement. To assume that there is an attitude of "all photos are Type 1's unless there is indisputable evidence that they are not" though simply isn't correct. Type 1 is not the default classification, nor should it be. As for PSA, for those photos that are submitted to them that in their judgement can't be reasonably narrowed down, they simply do not authenticate them. What that percentage is that get turned away, I don't know, but I do know it's not 0%.
Again, I'm really not trying to stir the pot here so much as ensure accurate information is out here for any other prospective photo collectors who may happen across this thread. There is already more than enough in-fighting in all other aspects of the baseball collecting world, and my mild OCD has already tricked me into spending too much time writing up this post.
