PSA photo authentication - a suggestion

[Runscott]

This photo has obviously had the printer crop marks carefully removed. That should be noted in the certificate. I have blindly missed stuff before, so if it's there and I'm missing me, someone let me know and I'll kill this post.

Joe Jackson Type I Photo

[drcy]

That's an interesting issue, because, whether or not stuff was removed, it is still a Type I photo. Unlike with trading cards, I don't believe PSA/DNA grades photos (Poor 1 through Mint 10), they just identify what type of photo it is. An altered T206 Honus Wagner is still a T206 Honus Wagner. Trimming and touching up of a card usually falls under grading, not identification. A trimmed T206 Honus Wagner is still a T206 Honus Wagner, it's just that it should be graded (if graded) as Authentic or Poor. PSA doesn't assign grades to photos.

A modern ballpoint pen ink mark or pencil mark removal on the front of a 1973 Topps Mike Schmidt rookie card doesn't make it not a Mike Schmidt Rookie Card. It's still a Mike Schmidt Rookie Card. The ink and erasure mark only changes the condition grade. PSA/DNA photo services don't assign a condition grade, they just tell you whether or not the card is or is not an authentic '1973 Topps Mike Schmidt baseball card.' Clearly, I'm speaking figuratively and mixing cards and photos to show my point. Mixing my metaphors, so to speak.

A topic worthy of discussion. Though if you expect PSA/DNA to examine photos for missing ink and paper, you'd better expect their fees to rise accordingly. There's no way PSA/DNA can determine or guarantee that no ink, paper or glue has ever been removed from a photo. The combined minds of Svengali and Albert Einstein couldn't guarantee that. If you're talking about noting obvious alterations (such as here, or if a photo is obviously trimmed or has modern writing on the back), that's a different issue-- but, still, if you want those things added to their photo identification services, you should expect higher fees. More time and work = higher charges.

In summary, I think all PSA/DNA does as far as photos go is tell you what kind of photo it is. Judging grade, condition and alterations is not under the parameters of their services. They handle baseball cards and photos differently.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by drcy

A topic worthy of discussion. Though if you expect PSA/DNA to examine photos for missing ink and paper, you'd better expect their fees to rise accordingly.

My thoughts are that most people who submit prints to PSA/DNA, do not have an adequate understanding of them. Note - I said "most", not "all". I do realize that some like PSA/DNA because they like getting things certified, either for themselves or for re-sale value (wow, that was a lot of disclaimer )

Given the above, I think that noting tampering (either by pressmen or otherwise) would be valuable to such collectors, and would help them avoid surprises when they receive an item that is more or less than what they thought it would be based on the certificate or slab. Not just crop-marking, but also handwriting, pinholes, mark removal, coloring, etc. Trimming would be impossible to note for obvious reasons, unless writing on the back has been cut off, in which case 'trimmed' might be an appropriate note.

The fee increase doesn't concern me

[drcy]

Here's my imaginary conversation between a collector and PSA/DNA:

Collector: "Is this photo a wirephoto?"
PSA/DNA: "Yes, it is a wirephoto."
Collector: "Is it altered?"
PSA/DNA: "Yes. It appears pen marks have been removed from the back."
Collector: "Then why didn't you say in the first place say "it is a wirephoto and it is altered' instead of only saying "it is a wirephoto'?
PSA/DNA: "Because your first question was only 'Is it a wirephoto?' You didn't ask for our opinion about alterations until the second question. "
Collector: "Okay, I guess I understand that. You can't answer a question before it's asked. So, how much do I owe you for your services?"
PSA/DNA: "$45 $30 for telling you it is a wirephoto, and $15 for telling you it has been altered."
Collector: "But I only want to pay $30."
PSA/DNA: "Then you shouldn't have asked if it had been altered."

Asking a paid expert (lawyer, authenticator, accountant) for more answers is like ordering extra toppings on a pizza. The more extra toppings on your pizza the higher price for the pizza, and the more questions you expect answered from an expert the higher your charge. If you're only willing to pay one-topping price, don't order a pizza with five extra toppings. If you only want to pay your lawyer a one legal opinion rate, don't ask him for three legal opinions. This is especially true when it takes the lawyer four hours of extra research and consultation with other lawyers to answer your second two questions.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by drcy

Here's my imaginary conversation between a collector and PSA/DNA:

Collector: "Is this photo a wirephoto?"
PSA/DNA: "Yes, it is a wirephoto."
Collector: "Is it altered?"
PSA/DNA: "Yes. It appears pen marks have been removed from the back."
Collector: "Then why didn't you say in the first place say "it is a wirephoto and it is altered' instead of only saying "it is a wirephoto'?
PSA/DNA: "Because your first question was only 'Is it a wirephoto?' You didn't ask for our opinion about alterations until the second question. "
Collector: "Okay, I guess I understand that. You can't answer a question before it's asked. So, how much do I owe you for your services?"
PSA/DNA: "$45 $30 for telling you it is a wirephoto, and $15 for telling you it has been altered."
Collector: "But I only want to pay $30."
PSA/DNA: "Then you shouldn't have asked if it had been altered."

Asking a paid expert (lawyer, authenticator, accountant, physician) for more answers than spelled out in the original agreement is like ordering extra toppings on a pizza. The more extra toppings on your pizza the higher price for the pizza, and the more questions you expect answered from an expert the higher your charge. If you're only willing to pay one-topping price, don't order a pizza with five extra toppings.

Here's what the two voices in my head are saying:

Collector: "What is this?"
PSA/DNA: "Type II"
Collector: "Anything else you can tell me?"
PSA/DNA: "send me $30"

[glchen]

I don't know if this can be really expected from PSA for photo authentication. Photos are a lot different from cards in that there are a lot of different things going on in photos, so you can very rare expect pristine conditions like you do for cards. There are editorial marks everywhere, clipping, trimming, all of that is just to be expected. This is why I don't think there will ever be any demand for providing number grades or even qualifiers to photos since it would be pointless.

[thecatspajamas]

Scott,
I understand where you're coming from, but I think those kinds of notes regarding condition, marks, removal of marks, etc should be stated by the seller, not the authenticator (for the reasons David mentioned above).

I also think that whoever removed those crop marks should have either finished the job or left well enough alone. (I'm saying that under the assumption that the white marks that are left are white paint that was around whatever marks or framing was removed). As it is now, if the new owner decides to go ahead and complete the "clean-up" job, the photo will no longer match the image on the LOA

[mybestbretts]

Craig,I couldn't agree with you more. The amount of information
on the back of the photo is important to me. Also, each time I
come across a new photographer I try to find as much information
about that photographer as possible.

I actually slab them for protection of the photo as much as anything. I won't
be doing it any more since PSA raised their rates, but I will watch and
hope for specials.

[drcy]

If you apply trading card standards to everything, a Pablo Picasso signed original lithograph grades Fair or Poor because it has writing on the front. Same with a Babe Ruth signed photo. Same with a Charles Conlon where Conlon wrote a caption on the back and stamped the date.

A card collector at the Louvre:
"How can the Mona Lisa grade an ExMt? It's got paint all over the front. And someone scribbled in the corner."
"Uh, that scribbling is Da Vinci's signature."
"Still, according to my Beckett Baseball Card Monthly, it can't grade higher than VgEx with two dinged corners. With two dinged corners, I'll give you $25 for it, but only if that includes shipping. Is there a refractor version? I'd pay $35 for that."
"Sir, we must please ask that you leave the museum. And, even better, the country."
"Okay, fine. Is Denny's anywhere around here?"

A PSA card collector after a date:
"Oh man, I think she's the one. Her gloss appears original and her corners untouched."
"Don't fool yourself. Rumor around town is she's a double print and had gum stains removed."

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by drcy

If you apply trading card standards to everything, a Pablo Picasso signed original lithograph grades Fair or Poor because it has writing on the front. Same with a Babe Ruth signed photo. Same with a Charles Conlon where Conlon wrote a caption on the back and stamped the date.

A card collector at the Louvre:
"How can the Mona Lisa grade an ExMt? It's got paint all over the front. And someone scribbled in the corner."
"Uh, that scribbling is Da Vinci's signature."
"Still, according to my Beckett Baseball Card Monthly, it can't grade higher than VgEx with two dinged corners. With two dinged corners, I'll give you $25 for it, but only if that includes shipping. Is there a refractor version? I'd pay $35 for that."
"Sir, we must please ask that you leave the museum. And, even better, the country."
"Okay, fine. Is Denny's anywhere around here?"

A PSA card collector after a date:
"Oh man, I think she's the one. Her gloss appears original and her corners untouched."
"Don't fool yourself. Rumor around town is she's a double print and had gum stains removed."

David, my comments were related to the fact that PSA/DNA is slabbing both photos and cards. To my knowledge, they are not slabbing Picassos.

[Runscott]

I just realized I'm sort of being a hypocrite. I have a Mel Ott photo for sale that I removed some of the crop marks from. Don't think I have a 'before' shot.

...but it's not slabbed and marks are obvious, so not sure if maybe I'm just a pseudo-hypocrite.

[drcy]

I don't like editorial ink marks (crop marks etc) in the images. I like the image area to be clean. Marks and notes on the white border areas are fine. But that's just my taste, and I know some like editorial marking. To me it's all about the appearance of the image and overall photo, which is judged photo by photo. In once case, editorial marks on the image may be distracting and ugly to me, while in another case it may be minor and not bother me.

As has already been said, notes, marks, crop lines, stamps and tags on the back of a news photo are good. You identify and date photos in part by that info. Charles Conlon's handwritten notes and stamp on back will add to the value of the photo, and, of course, help you identify it as an original Conlon photo. But I like the front images to be clean. Again, that's my personal taste. If a collector finds crop marks and other editorial marks in the image interesting and feels they adds to the photo as a historical artifact that is fine. I'm just saying what I like, not what others should like or not like. As is said, art is in the eye of the beholder.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by drcy

I don't like editorial ink marks (crop marks etc) in the images. I like the image area to be clean. Marks and notes on the white border areas are fine. But that's just my taste, and I know some like editorial marking. To me it's all about the appearance of the image and overall photo, which is judged photo by photo. In once case, editorial marks on the image may be distracting and ugly to me, while in another case it may be minor and not bother me.

As has already been said, notes, marks, crop lines, stamps and tags on the back of a news photo are good. You identify and date photos in part by that info. Charles Conlon's handwritten notes and stamp on back will add to the value of the photo, and, of course, help you identify it as an original Conlon photo. But I like the front images to be clean. Again, that's my personal taste. If a collector finds crop marks and other editorial marks in the image interesting and feels they adds to the photo as a historical artifact that is fine. I'm just saying what I like, not what others should like or not like. As is commonly said, art is in the eye of the beholder.

I agree 100%. To my mind, editorial markings are alterations to a photograph, and I have no qualms with undoing an alteration that someone else (besides the photographer) made if doing so enhances the aesthetics of the piece for me. If I want to see how the editor wanted the photo to look in print, I'll hunt down the printed version of the photo. Otherwise, things like crop marks and faces X'd out on the front of a photo feel like they're putting blinders on me and not letting me see the whole scene.

I also peel price stickers off of the bottom of things I buy at the store, and remove labels from my electronics touting what operating system they use or that they are "Energy Star" compliant, so admittedly, there may be a bit of OCD there...

And I don't remove the crop marks from EVERY photo I handle either, so I may be guilty of some partial hypocrisy as well. There's just some that I don't care to look at the image either way, and don't feel like spending the time to clean it up

[Runscott]

Here's a fun one (the back is basically clean and white). I had to look several times to figure it out:

[drcy]

I've never even attempted to remove marks from the front of a news photo, because a) When I owned them (I don't have any anymore) I didn't even know it could be done and b) I'm not a handy person and would fear I'd ruin the photo.

Though the general rule for all areas of memorabilia and art, restoration is okay if you disclose it at sale. In California, you are legally required to disclose any and all restoration or alteration to an artwork you're selling. Duly note the California law isn't a felony or anything. You wouldn't go to jail if you didn't realize the $1,000 painting you sold had been revarnished ten years before you bought it. It's just that non-desclosure is considered deceptive and would be considered legal reason for the buyer to return it for refund within a reasonable period of time. I think the law says the return period is one year. If the deception was intentional and significantly effected the sale price, you could possibly get an additional fine, something akin to a parking ticket. Now, on the other hand, if you sold $20 million of artwork and lied about every piece you sold, then you could get in big trouble.

If you want to avoid the above return rules and issues, simply mention that ink or whatever was removed from a photo in your sales or auction description. I don't know that the disclosure will even lower the sales price. If anything, it could raise it because the bidders see that you're an honest seller and they're willing to bid more with sellers they trust. The California law doesn't say there's anything wrong, bad or illegal with alteration or restoration, just that it has to be disclosed at sale.

And, as was the point of Scott's original post in this lengthy thread, what he thought was removal of ink to the photo was apparently not disclosed at auction. He didn't say whether he thought ink removal was good or bad, he just observed that, if there was ink removal on the photo, it wasn't mentioned.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Runscott

...but it's not slabbed and marks are obvious, so not sure if maybe I'm just a pseudo-hypocrite.

I hear if you scan it with the lid up, it can clear those right up for ya

Originally Posted by Runscott

It's good to get the philosophical photo guys discussing this sort of stuff - looking forward to Ben getting back from his wanderings.

Yeah, where is the big lug? Out roaming the earth, righting wrongs like some David Carradine of Photography? Safe travels Ben, and I hope you check in soon.