Charles Conlon Fakes, Baseball Magazine Stickers & A Brief Tutorial

[prewarsports]

With so much discussion about fake Charles Conlon stamps lately and the recent frauds in the photo industry, we felt it important to get the facts straight and help educate the general public about what is going on and how to protect yourselves and help preserve the integrity of this great hobby. I spoke to some advanced collectors and had several lengthy conversations with Ben Weingarten to make sure we all had the facts straight and were on the same page and here are the conclusions that have been reached after compiling all the information available so on behalf of myself and Ben, I am publishing here on the forum a brief synopsis of what has happened in the past, what you can do now to protect yourself, and what needs to happen in the future.

Fraud and History: The photo industry (with particular regard to press photography) is an incredibly safe way to collect items of historic significance when an educated buyer is purchasing from a trustworthy and educated seller. No other area of collecting provides so much authentication inherent in the items. Date stamps, handwriting, file marks, publishers stamps, photographic paper, style of photography etc. all lend a helping hand in determining what a photo is, who made it, who is pictured in it, and when it was made. With so many options for authentication, there are also multiple ways in which a person could potentially deceive. An industry still in its relative infancy allowed for individuals to take advantage of the small amounts of information available to the public to be used against them. With the increased money that fine pieces of vintage sports photography were generating, came the increased opportunity for fraud. If a photograph of a player was worth $50 but a Charles Conlon photograph of the same player brings $500, a small bit of handwriting, a stamp, or a sticker was all that stood in the way for huge profits. Such was the birth of the modern fraud in the photographic hobby.

Fake Conlon Stamps/Handwriting: Within the last 5-6 years it was discovered that fake Charles Conlon stamps and handwriting were beginning to appear on vintage (and non-vintage) photographs. We now know that this fraud was being perpetrated predominantly by one individual or group of individuals (we will just call whoever was doing it "the perpetrators" from here on out) who had a fake Conlon stamp made (the Blue stamp seen below). There is an almost identical reddish brown stamp that exists which is completely authentic and should never be confused with the blue one, and this was the pattern for the fake stamp (also seen below). Why would this brazen perpetrator make the stamp blue instead of red like the original? It is speculated that in trying to copy the original that it would be easier to discover that there were subtle differences. By creating a slightly different stamp and having it in a different color, it could be presented as a new style and any differences stylistically could be discounted because it was a different version. Aside from the stamp, the perpetrators also tried (pretty poorly) to fake Charles Conlon's handwriting on the back of photographs as well. Again, they did a poor job and often times left out key details (like the team notation) and usually paid little attention to the style of Conlon's signature which although sloppy, was very consistent throughout his life.

Baseball Magazine 1996 Stickers: The question that has been asked often regarding the source of the fake Conlon handwriting and stamps is how many ended up on photos from the 1996 Christies Baseball Magazine Sale with the hologram on the back as that sale happened nearly 20 years ago. The answer? It is believed that he perpetrators also had fake baseball Magazine Stickers made to accompany their fake stamps and handwriting! So, we are looking at a situation where the perpetrator went to great lengths to fool the public. Again though, they were either extremely brazen or sloppy (or both) as the stickers they had made have issues that can be easily spotted with a ruler and a trained eye.

Other potential Issues: The same perpetrators reportedly also had other fake stamps made similar to the Conlon. While it is unknown at this time if these were ever used, we have heard that other stamps from Paul Thompson, and some of the News Services were also made at the same time (or approximately the same time) as the Conlon stamp. If issues regarding these other stamps comes to light, we will try and keep the public educated as to their appearance and availability. It is our belief that these were made but were either too poor to pass off or the opportunity never presented itself to actually put these into circulation (thank God) as at this time only the Conlon is known to have been in circulation extensively. Lets hope that remains the case!

How to Protect Yourself: It is important that individuals are aware of the fact that the Blue Conlon stamp is bad. Often this was placed on legitimate vintage photographs, maybe even original Conlon Photographs to add provenance, but that does not always mean the photo is bad. It means be very careful. On Conlon photos with nothing but handwriting on the back, compare it to known authentic Conlons (there are thousands with both the handwriting and authentic stamps for comparison). Be VERY careful of anything being touted as a "restrike from Conlons Studios" with nothing to go off of but handwriting, especially where his negatives still exist! With regard to the Baseball Magazine Hologram, break out your ruler! The original stamp is EXACTLY 1 inch across and the fake is a bit larger (and not as clear). This is the easiest of all of the frauds to detect. If any issues arise submit them to PSA (Henry and Marshall are very educated on this issue) or David Cycleback for a paid analysis, or e mail me through RMY Auctions and I will take a quick look. You can also drop a line to Ben or other educated Collectors and Dealers, or post them on the forum for analysis (like on the autograph section of the forum) to get a larger audience. We are ALL trying to build this hobby up the right way and are all on the same page regarding cleaning this issue up and making sure things like this do not happen again!

Conclusion: The photo industry is a wonderful emerging market that provides the excitement of baseball cards and autographs with the opportunity to see something new every single day. With the maturation of the industry will come bumps, but it is important to remember that fraud exists in any industry where money flows. In the vintage photo industry, there are more safeguards than any other area of Sports Collectibles. Do your homework, take advantage of those who have extensive knowledge, and buy from reputable sources. Over time it is VERY easy to become an expert yourself and hopefully with the efforts of this community we can clean up this hobby of the recent fraud that has taken place and prevent anything like it from happening again. The sharing of knowledge for the betterment of all is what it is all about. I was happy to be able to come together with Ben and help make this issue a bit more clear about what is going on and how we can all protect ourselves.

Rhys Yeakley
&
Ben Weingarten

[Econteachert205]

This was exactly what I was looking for. Thank you both so much for this.

[horzverti]

Thanks Rhys. Well done.

[horzverti]

Originally Posted by horzverti

Thanks Rhys. Well done.

You too, Ben.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

It is important that individuals are aware of the fact that the Blue Conlon stamp is bad. Often this was placed on legitimate vintage photographs, maybe even original Conlon Photographs to add provenance, but that does not always mean the photo is bad.

Rhy, great article, but let's quit using the word 'maybe', as you and I have both sold original Conlon prints recently that had the blue stamp on the back (the mounted Wheat and Alexander photographs). Yours even had the forged Conlon signature that you have said sometimes accompanies the bad blue stamp. So we both know that the 'perpetrator' most definitely placed the bogus stamp AND the forged Conlon signature on the backs of original Type I Conlon prints.

If any forum member has a mounted print with the stamp (such as the example shown below), and you feel certain the print is an original Conlon, you can remove the print from the mount and you will most likely find evidence that it is a Conlon. If you have such an item and feel uncomfortable messing with it, mail it to me.

[Runscott]

Respecting Ben's wishes to continue the stamp discussion over here...

Originally Posted by drcy

Dennis, a photo expert or seasoned collector doesn't look just at the stamp to determine the originality and age of a photo. Photos with no stamps or marks can be identified as Type Is due to their physical qualities. Many original photos have no stamps.

It is very refreshing to see someone else express this publicly. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Forever Young

DING DING DING... However... stamps are/can be one of the smoking guns.

PLEASE SEE THE THREAD BELOW REGARDING FAKE CONLON STAMPS GOING FORWARD. I want to post on here so everyone will be directed to it.
Thanks again for all the comments and questions.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=194436

And you as well

Here are the pics of my Wheat removed from its mount (verso rotated as Conlon flipped the print). I'm not out to entrap anyone:

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Respecting Ben's wishes to continue the stamp discussion over here...



It is very refreshing to see someone else express this publicly. Thank you.



And you as well

Here are the pics of my Wheat removed from its mount (verso rotated as Conlon flipped the print). I'm not out to entrap anyone:

HEE HAW! NICE SCOTT! No wonder why you were happy getting that one back. Let me guess..... no longer for sale?? Awesome photo with ORIGINAL CHARLES CONLON handwriting.

This was published ONLY in effort to better the hobby. Both Rhys and I felt it was necessary to come together on this. I hope this helps clean things up a bit. People attempt to forge anything and everything in order to make a buck.. photography is no exception. It is important to work together to protect the hobby that we love .

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

HEE HAW! NICE SCOTT! No wonder why you were happy getting that one back. Let me guess..... no longer for sale?? Awesome photo with ORIGINAL CHARLES CONLON handwriting.

Nope. An original Conlon print is an original Conlon print, regardless of what some jacktard does to the back of it for his own nefarious reasons. But I am definitely grateful that you pointed out the blue stamp - once I knew what it was, it had to go

[Lordstan]

Taking Scott's lead on continuing the discussion over here, I cut and paste a question I have below.
Also thanks to Rhys and Ben for coming together to create a very nice summary.

Originally Posted by drcy

Dennis, a photo expert or seasoned collector doesn't look just at the stamp to determine the originality and age of a photo. Photos with no stamps or marks can be identified as Type Is due to their physical qualities. Many original photos have no stamps.

David,
I have a question about this statement. I agree that one can tell an original/vintage photo by the physical characteristics, but how can anyone say a photo is a type 1 when the rules of the type system have a set time duration? A photo produced in 1932 would certainly have most, if not all, the same physical qualities of one made in 1929, but if the photo was taken in 1927, the 1929 photo is a type 1 and the other is not.
Personally, it is with the multitude of unmarked photos that I feel the Type system has some limitations. Ben has often noted that he would much rather had a photo of 1915 Babe Ruth image produced in 1915 than the same image produced in 1919. He backs up these words by paying quite aggressively for those 1915 images. So if the physical qualities of the 2 prints are the same and there are no markings, how can one really tell?

Mark

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

Taking Scott's lead on continuing the discussion over here, I cut and paste a question I have below.
Also thanks to Rhys and Ben for coming together to create a very nice summary.



David,
I have a question about this statement. I agree that one can tell an original/vintage photo by the physical characteristics, but how can anyone say a photo is a type 1 when the rules of the type system have a set time duration? A photo produced in 1932 would certainly have most, if not all, the same physical qualities of one made in 1929, but if the photo was taken in 1927, the 1929 photo is a type 1 and the other is not.
Personally, it is with the multitude of unmarked photos that I feel the Type system has some limitations. Ben has often noted that he would much rather had a photo of 1915 Babe Ruth image produced in 1915 than the same image produced in 1919. He backs up these words by paying quite aggressively for those 1915 images. So if the physical qualities of the 2 prints are the same and there are no markings, how can one really tell?

Mark

Well, first off.. the Type system says APPROX 2 years. This was done so a 1919 or 1920 restrike of a rookie babe Ruth or a 1954 mantle vs 1951 rookie or not equals. The two year window was created for this reason. HOWEVER... GEO. BURKE is a perfect example of approx two years is flexible. If A BURKE photo was made in the30s with a 30s stamp.. it will be deemed a type 1 as it was made off orig neg and at the approx time and hard to distinguish within 2 years(burke used same paper in house for example/why hard)..
Many things can be determined by the paper other than stamps through fluorescents in paper and exemplars( to name a couple).
The “apprx” 2 years things seems to be a hang up to some. It isn’t for me. Probably because I know that it is not used to willy nilly authenticate. PSA actually goes out of their way to be as exact as possible in photo authentication. They actually go a little too extreme sometimes if you ask me. i.e. not authenticating bains on mounts or real photos if it has a fake stamp. They will actually say they don’t know if they do not know. I understand why they do these things though. I believe the photo authentication division has learned from authenticating mistakes(other genres) of the past.

Originally Posted by Lordstan

So if the physical qualities of the 2 prints are the same and there are no markings, how can one really tell?

If they were the exact same.. they would have probably been printed at the same time

[Exhibitman]

That's true, Mark.

Now, to expand the issue slightly, are there incidents of other stamps being forged, like the NEA/date stamps that are seen on so many vintage photos? I ask because I have seen some plainly original photos with seemingly inconsistent stamps on them.

Another question: Many archive liquidators are putting bar code or other modern pressure labels on photo backs. Personally, I remove them when I can because I hate how they look, but what is the consensus on that practice? Is it worse to have the modern sticker or to remove it?

Another question: I have heard that some collectors will 'clean up' messy photo edges on the thought that the newspapers often cropped photos in their archives. What is the consensus on that practice? Is it akin to trimming a card or is it acceptable?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Another question: I have heard that some collectors will 'clean up' messy photo edges on the thought that the newspapers often cropped photos in their archives. What is the consensus on that practice? Is it akin to trimming a card or is it acceptable?

I don't think collectors trim edges - it's the sellers who are trying to make the photos look like they are in better condition, so they can get more money for them. Most collectors hate the trimming, as you need the edges for matting. Also, I don't think the newspapers actually cut that many photos - they marked the area that would not be included, but there wasn't any need to cut much. The extra area on the print gave them more room to make notes on the back.

What I used to do to improve a photo's sale potential, was to show what the print would look like with the edges matted out. No need to cut a vintage photo!

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Well, first off.. the Type system says APPROX 2 years. This was done so a 1919 or 1920 restrike of a rookie babe Ruth or a 1954 mantle vs 1951 rookie or not equals. The two year window was created for this reason. HOWEVER... GEO. BURKE is a perfect example of approx two years is flexible. If A BURKE photo was made in the30s with a 30s stamp.. it will be deemed a type 1 as it was made off orig neg and at the approx time and hard to distinguish within 2 years(burke used same paper in house for example/why hard)..
Many things can be determined by the paper other than stamps through fluorescents in paper and exemplars( to name a couple).
The “apprx” 2 years things seems to be a hang up to some. It isn’t for me. Probably because I know that it is not used to willy nilly authenticate. PSA actually goes out of their way to be as exact as possible in photo authentication. They actually go a little too extreme sometimes if you ask me. i.e. not authenticating bains on mounts or real photos if it has a fake stamp. They will actually say they don’t know if they do not know. I understand why they do these things though. I believe the photo authentication division has learned from authenticating mistakes(other genres) of the past.

Originally Posted by Forever Young

If they were the exact same.. they would have probably been printed at the same time

Ben,
I understand what you're saying here and I don't disagree with your logic. My concern is that by having this ambiguity of interpretation, it creates confusion and the possibility of the appearance of uneven application of the rules. By no means am I saying that they are playing favorites, but the more strict the rules are, the more even it appears.

Your explanation of the Burke photos is exactly the type of example that creates confusion. Nowhere in their book or on PSA's website do they say that all Burkes with a 30's stamp are type 1. Understand that I don't think this decision is unreasonable, but being that this sort of information is published nowhere, how are photo collectors or sellers supposed to know this?

By having this sort of unknown rule, what you're saying to people that it's not OK to call a 1919 original negative re-strike of 1915 Ruth a type 1, because it's over 2yrs, but it is OK to call an original negative restrike of a Burke image a type 1, even if if could've been produced 6 or 7yrs later. Can you see how this can create confusion?

If I understand it correctly, the paper's fluorescence and many other physical characteristics aren't likely to be significantly different from the 20s through the end of the 30's. This is why I asked the question.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

By having this sort of unknown rule, what you're saying to people that it's not OK to call a 1919 original negative re-strike of 1915 Ruth a type 1, because it's over 2yrs, but it is OK to call an original negative restrike of a Burke image a type 1, even if if could've been produced 6 or 7yrs later. Can you see how this can create confusion?

If I understand it correctly, the paper's fluorescence and many other physical characteristics aren't likely to be significantly different from the 20s through the end of the 30's. This is why I asked the question.

Mark, Burkes are special only in the sense that there is a larger year range of prints where you can't tell what part of the range they were printed in. If there was no type system, as a photo collector you would treat all such prints the same. Same for the Ruth photos - how are you going to know that the 1919 print is actually a 1919 print, and not a 1915? In essence, both examples are treated the same - it's just that with Burkes it is more likely that you will call something 'Type I' when it was actually printed outside the 2-year range.

I don't think I have ever actually written 'in essence'.

[Runscott]

Also, I realize you weren't talking to me, but I figured Ben would appreciate a non-PSA guy saying something positive.

[GKreindler]

Bravo to both of you, Rhys and Ben. Wonderful thread that I'm sure is going to be SUPER helpful to a lot of people.

Graig

[T206Jim]

Good work Ben, Rhys and Scott; all very enlightening. I raised the question about Conlon stamp dating and unintentionally hit upon the issue of fake stamps.

I purchased the Wheat photo from Scott at a good price for a Conlon, but a poor price if not. Rather than remove the photo from the mount to look for further identifiers, and risk damaging the photo, I opted to return it. Congrats to Scott for taking that chance and reaping the satisfaction of discovering the Conlon handwriting, I'm pleased for him and know he will cherish the photo all the more.

Jim

[prewarsports]

In my opinion the older the photo the more often it was trimmed. Pre WWI, you see A LOT of trimmed photos. In some archives as much as 80% of the pre WWI images are trimmed at some point by the newspaper editors or even the photographers by themselves. It has a lot to do with photographic processes at the time. Many collectors resort to the thinking that if it was trimmed before and has left a wavy inconsistent edge, cleaning it up a bit by trimming it nicer is not a sin, but touching a border that is original just to improve its condition is not acceptable. Similar to the philosophy of strip cards on the baseball side. If the card was already ripped or trimmed, most people don't care if you clean it up a bit. If you take an untouched sheet of strip cards and trim them all to make mint condition cards for grading, your going to have some detractors. After WWII you rarely see trimmed images with the exception of wire photos where newspapers often took off the captions and glued them to the back so they would not show up in publication.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

In my opinion the older the photo the more often it was trimmed. Pre WWI, you see A LOT of trimmed photos. In some archives as much as 80% of the pre WWI images are trimmed at some point by the newspaper editors or even the photographers by themselves. It has a lot to do with photographic processes at the time. Many collectors resort to the thinking that if it was trimmed before and has left a wavy inconsistent edge, cleaning it up a bit by trimming it nicer is not a sin, but touching a border that is original just to improve its condition is not acceptable. Similar to the philosophy of strip cards on the baseball side. If the card was already ripped or trimmed, most people don't care if you clean it up a bit. If you take an untouched sheet of strip cards and trim them all to make mint condition cards for grading, your going to have some detractors. After WWII you rarely see trimmed images with the exception of wire photos where newspapers often took off the captions and glued them to the back so they would not show up in publication.

Agree with all of this. There will be people who trim after the fact no doubt. It is unfortunate but nothing can really be done. If you like an image that is trimmed, buy it knowing many were trimmed but it is possible it was done later.
As far as value goes... a full image will always be better than one trimmed with everything else equal. HOWEVER... many images are 1-5 of a kinds particularly pre-ww1 so really, it doesn't detract it at all. Particularly if Rhys' 80% rule is close. Do the math... beggars can't be choosers if they want a particular image and A trimmed version is all that is available..

Originally Posted by Runscott

Mark, Burkes are special only in the sense that there is a larger year range of prints where you can't tell what part of the range they were printed in. If there was no type system, as a photo collector you would treat all such prints the same. Same for the Ruth photos - how are you going to know that the 1919 print is actually a 1919 print, and not a 1915? In essence, both examples are treated the same - it's just that with Burkes it is more likely that you will call something 'Type I' when it was actually printed outside the 2-year range.

I don't think I have ever actually written 'in essence'.

Thank you for your objectiveness Scotty. To set the record straight... IDK what PSA DNA does exactly here. It is just what I have gathered by different paper and stamps burke used coupled with the authenticated examples I have seen. These(burke) were open to the public(not news photos) and obtained directly from burke studios. Therefore, they are a different animal all together.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Thank you for your objectiveness Scotty. To set the record straight... IDK what PSA DNA does exactly here. It is just what I have gathered by different paper and stamps burke used coupled with the authenticated examples I have seen. These(burke) were open to the public(not news photos) and obtained directly from burke studios. Therefore, they are a different animal all together.

Hey, I have plenty of love to pass around. Yep, agreed about the Burkes. We have at least one Burke stamp expert on the forum, so I'm sure there are plenty of times where the range can be narrowed.

Unfortunately I can't agree about the trimming. If your vintage print has the photographer's or journalist's notes trimmed partially off on the edges, it was most likely a modern seller trying to increase his profits. The argument that it was done 'back in the day' is an old and oft-heard one, but why in the world would a photographer or journalist trim their own notes off the edges of their photograph?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by T206Jim

Good work Ben, Rhys and Scott; all very enlightening. I raised the question about Conlon stamp dating and unintentionally hit upon the issue of fake stamps.

I purchased the Wheat photo from Scott at a good price for a Conlon, but a poor price if not. Rather than remove the photo from the mount to look for further identifiers, and risk damaging the photo, I opted to return it. Congrats to Scott for taking that chance and reaping the satisfaction of discovering the Conlon handwriting, I'm pleased for him and know he will cherish the photo all the more.

Jim

Thanks Jim!

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Hey, I have plenty of love to pass around. Yep, agreed about the Burkes. We have at least one Burke stamp expert on the forum, so I'm sure there are plenty of times where the range can be narrowed.

Unfortunately I can't agree about the trimming. If your vintage print has the photographer's or journalist's notes trimmed partially off on the edges, it was most likely a modern seller trying to increase his profits. The argument that it was done 'back in the day' is an old and oft-heard one, but why in the world would a photographer or journalist trim their own notes off the edges of their photograph?

Yes on Burkes! Boo on trimming
I am confused what you are not agreeing on in regard to the trimming?
Rhys is correct in most were already trimmed and I said that no doubt peeps will trim more at times to make look better. The fact of the matter is.. a large amount of them were trimmed "back in the day".

As far as your example goes.. who knows. Maybe they(news service) wanted to put it is a smaller folder after writing was put on, maybe they trimmed to send in mail, maybe they trimmed down to exact publication size after writing was applied. As you know, many photos were used numerous times so it could have been trimmed by someone other than the guy who made original markings. Or.. maybe it was trimmed recently like you stated. Point is.. there are no absolutes. That said.. many photos were ABSOLUTELY trimmed during the course of publication.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Yes on Burkes! Boo on trimming
I am confused what you are not agreeing on in regard to the trimming?
Rhys is correct in most were already trimmed and I said that no doubt peeps will trim more at times to make look better. The fact of the matter is.. a large amount of them were trimmed "back in the day".

As far as your example goes.. who knows. Maybe they(news service) wanted to put it is a smaller folder after writing was put on, maybe they trimmed to send in mail, maybe they trimmed down to exact publication size after writing was applied. As you know, many photos were used numerous times so it could have been trimmed by someone other than the guy who made original markings. Or.. maybe it was trimmed recently like you stated. Point is.. there are no absolutes. That said.. many photos were ABSOLUTELY trimmed during the course of publication.

Hey, nothing wrong with two people disagreeing. Neither one of us was around to see any of the trimming. Sure, anyone with a pair of scissors could have trimmed any photo; however, for the reasons I have already stated, I think it is mostly modern sellers doing it to increase profits. You are right - there are no absolutes - but as long as we are talking about this thread being something to help us move forward to make the hobby better, it can't hurt to encourage today's sellers to put their scissors away - from the looks of some of the large groups of photos now making their appearance in the hobby, it's apparent that the trimming is still going on. Sure, it doesn't kill the value to the collector to clean up the edges, but I'm fairly sure most collectors would rather it wasn't done.

Maybe we should start a poll?

[prewarsports]

I think one thing people forget is that in the case of press photos, these were functional tools of an industry. Much more similar to game used bats and equipment than baseball cards but because they are flat and have images of baseball players, people want to treat them like the latter. These things were ripped, trimmed, die-cut, cut out, painted, drawn all over, traced and rubbed by engravers and used over and over again for an endless number of purposes to fit whatever the newspaper or publication wanted. Often times it was a space issue, other times the images were trimmed and laid out to create a composite and then returned to their folders. Also, when dealing with pre-WWI images, many of the images that look trimmed were actually broken off. Silver gelatin photographs from the era were very brittle and if a photo got folded over in a file cabinet it didn't crease, it broke at whatever angle it was folded at. many of these images were also taken by staff photographers and maybe their budget only allowed for a certain amount of photo-paper so they might have been trimmed before the images were even developed onto them. These variables and the functionality of early photography ad to the appeal for me and many collectors. You are holding something in your hand with inherent history (the person photographed) but also a piece of American publishing history with a unique story to tell all on its own!

[drcy]

Newspapers and magazines did trim photos, but if you see them in their vintage trimmed state you know they didn't do it for aesthetic reasons. They're often cut crooked, at strange angles and obviously not to please the eye. Be more than suspicious of an antique news photo that has perfect, mint edges-- that's more than probably a modern trim job. Old news photos very rarely to never have Gem Mint corners and edges. And real photo collectors don't give a shit if a photo is ExMt versus Nrmt-- that silliness is for baseball cards collectors and their anal retentive ways. Only idiot graded card collectors are looking for a Gem Mint 10 news photo of Ty Cobb. I've been a photo fan and collector for years and have not once done that graded baseball card collector thing of taking a loupe looking for hidden surface wrinkles or touches to the edges. Most Gem Mint 10 collectors should be on some sort of psychiatric meds and/or receive some form of cognitive-behavorial therapy. Forget trimming photos with scissors, I'm not sure they shouldn't even be allowed to hold anything sharp.

Seriously, the baseball card grade 8,9, 10 numbers game is a just way to somehow differenciate between baseball cards mass produced in the thousands if not tens of thousands. It gives grown up children a way to say "My 1992 Donruss is better than your 1992 Donruss." With a 1920 news photo, where perhaps three or four at most exist, that stuff doesn't matter. Condition and aesthetics do matter, but that a 1920 photo has a touch to the corner or a minor wrinkle to a edge really doesn't matter. A serious photo collector simply won't pay more or less if a rare photo is Ex or ExMt. That's why trimming a photo to gain perfect edges should be pointless.

As I've said for years, a new collector should be very wary of Gem Mint antique news photos. The Gem Mintness usually means it's either a modern reprint or has been trimmed. For that reason, collectors should actually find Gem Mint photos undesirable and that's why the Gem Mint craze should never catch on as it has with trading cards.

A problem with many baseball card collectors is they treat everything as if they're baseball cards, and not everything is like a baseball card. And that includes most photos worth collecting. The Mona Lisa is not a baseball card. Even within baseball cards, serious Old Judge collectors regularly complain that card graders are oblivious about clarity of the image, when OJs are little photos (literally) and serious OJ collectors greatly value (including in financial terms) the clarity of the image. Trimming down news photos to get 'Mint edges and corners' is just a horrid byproduct of baseball card collectors entering the genre. As I said, sincere and serious photo collectors don't give a shit about Mint edges. Only graded baseball card collectors care about that idiocy.

In short Mint 10 baseball card collectors are a disease and a menace and must be stopped. You guys write your Congressmen and I'll quick start a crowdfunding campaign on facebook. With any luck, with what's left over I'll have enough money to finally make my movie. It's a prequel to Alexander Nevsky starring talking dogs.

"So, David, how do you plan on getting the dogs talking in Russian?"
"Peanut butter and dubbing."

[drcy]

P.s., if I was selling a standard George Burke photo, I'd describe it as a "circa 1930s photo" or "vintage circa 1930s." There's no need to assign it a "type I" or "original" label to it. Just describe it a what it is and what you know in plain English language.

I describe photos in language people off the street would understand, and, to be honest, if someone says "Is this a Type II or a Type III" photo, I have to go to the PSA/DNA website to look up what those terms means. I remember Type I, because that's a convoluted way of saying "original." Why people don't say "original" when that's a perfectly clear name, i have no idea.

The PSA type system is just a convenient guide that some people use. It's a fair enough and useful enough guide, has its limitations and arbitrariness, as all guides do. The only problem is some people who take it too seriously and treat it as some sort of gospel.

When people ask me "But what about the two year rule?," I say "What are you asking me for?" That's not my rule, I had nothing to do with it. Two was an arbitrary number PSA picked because they felt they had to have a 'rule' for their 'grading system.'

"All models are wrong, but some are useful"-- British statistician George E.P. Box.

In short, the PSA guide is just a convenient guide. Don't treat it as some sort of gospel. If you find it convenient and useful, great. But, as with any set of rules, it will have its limitations and points of reasonable debate. The two years rule is just the one that most often sticks out.

Some photos, such as many of the Burkes, can't be accurately labelled by the PSA type system, because you don't know when the photo was made. Doesn't make the photos any less valuable or collectible-- people have always known Burke printed and photos later--, it's just applying them to the PSA system is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Or, at least, you don't know what "type" it is. Could fall within the two years, could have been made 7 years later. But it's still a collectible 1930s photo made by George Burke.

And, returning to my first sentence, if selling a Burke photo I'd call it a "circa 1930s George Burke photo."

[drcy]

Just for the record. I got a polite PM said I was attacking the PSA system. I'm not. I called it a useful enough system and guide but with limitations, and pointed out that any rule system will limitations and arbitrariness. Which is why I think collectors shouldn't find themselves stuck to it or view photos only through its lens.

Most systems are an attempt to simplify the complex, which means, even when useful and needed, are an oversimplification of the complex. All I'm saying is the subject of a rule system is more complex and broader, and sometimes different, than the system.

[Exhibitman]

Interesting perspectives.

When it comes to trimming photos, I figure it is a lot like a strip card. When I see a photo with original borders I would want it to stay that way



but when it has already been torn or damaged, I will consider getting rid of the damaged part because I don't particularly relish the look of a photo with this sort of damage:



I haven't cut this one but I could see the reasoning, especially if you don't frame photos for display and just want it to look nice in the album.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by drcy

Just for the record. I got a polite PM said I was attacking the PSA system. I'm not. I called it a useful enough system and guide but with limitations, and pointed out that any rule system will limitations and arbitrariness. Which is why I think collectors shouldn't find themselves stuck to it or view photos only through its lens.

Most systems are an attempt to simplify the complex, which means, even when useful and needed, are an oversimplification of the complex. All I'm saying is the subject of a rule system is more complex and broader, and sometimes different, than the system.

Amazing.... Thank you for the record David.

It was I who pm'd David, who has edited his post numerous times. I am in no way hiding in a PM... It was an attempt to not derail this thread.

This thread was created to educate the mass on a large issue in the photo hobby. It was posted by Rhys to summarize our collaboration on the issue.

It amazes me that it turned into(in part) a "Type system" thread. If someone has anything positive to add for the greater good of the photo hobby in this thread, it would fit perfectly.

Also, if anyone has constructive criticism of the Type system with a solution that has any merit/advantage at all, I would love to hear it. There has been no such argument to date. Perhaps create a different thread.

"Original" is certainly simpler I will give you that. I can buy or sell an original wire photo, an original telephoto, an original photo printed yesterday, an original print created off an original dupe negative, an original print created at the time, and original print related 5 years after the original shot was taken originally.. ect ect. I am done standing on my original soapbox as it relates to original

Also, extending the two year rule 4-5 years has zero benefit other than just confusing people more and losing specific gains. It is less specific.

Those of you who are not a fan of the Type system.. maybe ask yourself "DO I have something to gain or am I educated enough in the field"?

If you do not like the type system, do not use it. If you do not like graded cards, don’t buy them. If you do not like authenticated autographs, don’t buy them.
Make your own decisions and collect what you want. If you want to collect photos but do not care what the type is, enjoy your photos without a type associated to them.

We will leave it at that for now. If someone would like to have a discussion on the Type system, create a separate thread or feel free to call /pm me.

Let's not stink up this thread with opportunistic jabs at the best system to date responsible for the current flourishing state the photo hobby. Everyone collecting or dealing photos(who are educated) have benefited from the knowledge Henry Yee has provided and countless hours of his research. EVERYONE whether they admit it or not.

Quite frankly, Rhys' post would not be entirely possible without it. Therefore, if you learned something here.. you have benefited as well(educated or not).

All of this said: I cannot say I disagree with David's statement below. It was well stated.

"I called it a useful enough system and guide but with limitations, and pointed out that any rule system will limitations and arbitrariness. Which is why I think collectors shouldn't find themselves stuck to it or view photos only through its lens."

[drcy]

As I've said before, I like Yee's book and think PSA does a good job at identifying photos. I've never complained about that stuff. And I've said the PSA rules are fair enough. It's that I know that many collectors will use it as an iron clad rule for judging and valuating photos.

An example of a curiosity in a system is MEARS grading system for game used bats. Many game used collectors at gameuseduniverse have noticed that the 1-10 system rules docks points if a bat is cracked or has chipping or deadwood and inevitably say "What does that have to do with whether or not the bat is game used? I thought the grading system was about determining if it's game used?" And a few others will say "What's with a 1-10 number system in the first place? A bat is either game used or it isn't. What the heck does a bat being 7/10th game used even mean? Is that like being 7/10th pregnant?""

Another example is graded baseball cards. Even avid graded card collectors will say there are "good 8s" and "lesser 8s" and one 8 should be valued better than normal because its colors are sharper or the focus is extra crisp. In other words, the grading system is a guide and no serious collector judges a card only by the number assigned. Even when the number is important to them, they also look at the card.

In short, don't take any grading or labeling system as gospel. They all have limitations, margins of error and arbitrary aspects.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by drcy

As I've said before, I like Yee's book and think PSA does a good job at identifying photos. I've never complained about that stuff. And I've said the PSA rules are fair enough. It's that I know that many collectors will use it as an iron clad rule for judging and valuating photos.

An example of a curiosity in a system is MEARS grading system for game used bats. Many game used collectors at gameuseduniverse have noticed that the 1-10 system rules docks points if a bat is cracked or has chipping or deadwood and inevitably say "What does that have to do with whether or not the bat is game used? I thought the grading system was about determining if it's game used?" And a few others have said "What's with a 1-10 number system in the first place? A bat is either game used or it isn't. What the heck does a bat being 7/10th game used even mean? Is that like being 7/10th pregnant?"

Another example is graded baseball cards. Even avid graded card collectors will say there are "good 8s" and "lesser 8s" and one 8 should be valued better than normal because its colors are sharper or the focus is extra crisp. In other words, the grading system is a guide and no serious collector judges a card only by the number assigned. Even when the number is important to them, they also look at the card.

In short, don't take any grading or labeling system as gospel. They all have limitations, margins of error and arbitrary aspects.

You make good points.

[Econteachert205]

Just to mention the trimming issue, I have come across many wire photos that were trimmed to scrapbook fairly soon after the photos were taken. In those cases the journalists notes were cut off but not recently, and the trimming wasn't done obviously as part of the news process or deceive a future buyer, just to look pretty in a 1940's-50's scrapbook. If those photos are remved and split, one would get the impression someone did so maliciously but it is not the case.

[Forever Young]

[QUOTE=Exhibitman;1326434]Interesting perspectives.

When it comes to trimming photos, I figure it is a lot like a strip card. When I see a photo with original borders I would want it to stay that way



but when it has already been torn or damaged, I will consider getting rid of the damaged part because I don't particularly relish the look of a photo with this sort of damage:



Totally get it. There is a difference in cards and photos as it relates to "mint 9 nrmt 7" as David spoke about.
This is an interesting debate. Do we, the collectors, owe it to the hobby to keep the items intact? Is it reasonable to trim to make look "pretty"? I like to frame with plastic corner squares rather than under a matte. Therefore, it is frustrating when an image is not symmetrical. However, I have made teh decision not to trim my stuff. Would I be wrong?

This is an important debate as Scott is really passionate and convinced a large percentage of photos are trimmed to sell for larger amounts of money. No doubt this has happened but should a collector who does it for himself be ostracized?

As the photo market develops, this will be an interesting topic.

Personally, I can see both sides but chose to not trim mine. HOWEVER... I will clean up a photo and have(take off grease ect) because I want to see the original image.. The image is more important to me as art(original shot the photographer saw rather than how it was changed for publication). Others like the opposite. How can one or the other be wrong???

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Econteachert205

Just to mention the trimming issue, I have come across many wire photos that were trimmed to scrapbook fairly soon after the photos were taken. In those cases the journalists notes were cut off but not recently, and the trimming wasn't done obviously as part of the news process or deceive a future buyer, just to look pretty in a 1940's-50's scrapbook. If those photos are remved and split, one would get the impression someone did so maliciously but it is not the case.

Exactly.. HOWEVER... to Scott's point, I have see the captions cut off on almost all wire photos(group) from an archive and sold by certain sellers as originals. This happens...

I am with Rhys in that pre-ww1 photos.. most are without borders for several reasons(not taken off recently).

How many bains do you see with borders?? Not many huh??

[drcy]

The interesting thing with the MEARS grading system is a bat or jersey can get to a number, say 7, for different reasons and taking different evidentiary routes. A bat can be docked points for reason that has nothing to do with game use, one bat can get +2 points for one reason, while another bat gets 0 for that but +2 for a different reason. The MEARS expert may say "It's 100% a game used jersey. It's been photo matched and was purchased directly from the player's family. But it can only get a 9 out of 10." So with that system, you really have to look beyond and into the number.

Obviously, their system is a system of calculating evidence. And I'm sure they've tweaked the system and will in the future.

Someone could write a paper on grading systems.

[Forever Young]

Here is the before and after photo. The first is where I purchased the photo not knowing for sure if I could clean up(actually I assumed no). However, the paint was water soluble and I was able to easily remove. For the record, I did not trim but cropped out scan to show what it could look like. If I framed, this how I would frame out.
So... I am interested in what other peeps think about trimming and "cleaning up". To me, I justify removing stuff because I want to see original work of art and simply removing whAt was added later. Trimming to me is different as you are actually taking away from the original print. I am Weird...I know this Thoughts?
I wish I could find the original negative or a copy of this image anywhere as I would piece the upper corner of the copy when framed.

PS: either way, my watermark is prettier no doubt.. GOSPEL.

[Lordstan]

I think the clean up debate is very interesting. I have often struggled with whether or not to not only clean up images, but even so far as whether to send for restoration. To Ben's point, if they are pieces of art, isn't it reasonable to clean and restore them? After all, if the art world is ok with cleaning and restoring Michelangelo's, The Last Supper, why wouldn't it be OK to clean and restore a photo that is far far less valuable?
I asked a similar question earlier this year about the 8x10 Burke photo I bought. The overwhelming response was to not restore it. So far I haven't as I am spending my money on photos, but I haven't fully decided.



What about this one? What would you do?

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

I think the clean up debate is very interesting. I have often struggled with whether or not to not only clean up images, but even so far as whether to send for restoration. To Ben's point, if they are pieces of art, isn't it reasonable to clean and restore them? After all, if the art world is ok with cleaning and restoring Michelangelo's, The Last Supper, why wouldn't it be OK to clean and restore a photo that is far far less valuable?
I asked a similar question earlier this year about the 8x10 Burke photo I bought. The overwhelming response was to not restore it. So far I haven't as I am spending my money on photos, but I haven't fully decided.



What about this one? What would you do?

Mark,

I remember the thread about your photo. I believe I said or at least thought do not restore. Not because it wouldn't look awesome but because it would most likely cost a lot for your photo(more coupled with what you already purched it for than what it would be worth restored).

That said, the second photo you posted could probably be cleaned up by you at zero cost(at least get a lot of it off). That white looks like it might be water soluble and pec12 would prob take off some of the other things. Ironically, this was my photo that you purchased in hyee and I didn't remove at the time to gain money reselling I do it for me and let others decide for themselves.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/PEC-12-4OZ-F...item3ce20d77e7

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Scott,

I remember the thread about your photo. I believe I said or at least thought do not restore. Not because it wouldn't look awesome but because it would most likely cost a lot for your photo(more coupled with what you already purched it for than what it would be worth restored).

That said, the second photo you posted could probably be cleaned up by you at zero cost(at least get a lot of it off). That white looks like it might be water soluble and pec12 would prob take off some of the other things.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/PEC-12-4OZ-F...item3ce20d77e7

Ben,
Thanks for the link. I was about to ask what people used to remove the grease pencil, etc. I assume, that will take off the water soluble stuff as well?
Mark

[drcy]

I don't mind the ink, crop marks and gunk being removed from across photos. That stuff can be unsightly and masks the photo image. I can see why people do that.

If this were my Greta Garbo photo, I could see removing the grease pen crop marks.



Though I do admit I have a big thing against trimming. Call it a personal bias if you wish.

[drcy]

Duly note that I commented about the type system because someone specifically asked me a question about the type system in this thread. I posted about trimming because people were talking about trimmed photos. Whether or not they were off the subjects topics, I didn't start either topic.

Besides, half of what I post is off topic. Everyone knows that.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

Ben,
Thanks for the link. I was about to ask what people used to remove the grease pencil, etc. I assume, that will take off the water soluble stuff as well?
Mark

The ink and dirt can be removed by pec-12(not water based stuff). The efficient with water soluble stuff (use.. well.. warm water cloth). There is some grease that I do not touch.. can't remove(I don't have the patience for). Your second photo(that I owned) you can def improve the look yourself if you wanted to.

[Leon]

Rhys and Ben,
Thank ya'll so much for sharing this information with the community. It's appreciated by all.

[Econteachert205]

Is this an example of good photo bad stamp? It is blue I believe.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Eddie-Collin...item3ce8cb2d62

[drcy]

For the record, I've found Rhys's and Ben's posts on the Conlon stamps informative. I've learned from them. It's a good thing for the hobby that this info has been posted.

[thecatspajamas]

Ditto. Haven't been able to jump into the discussion b/c of work/family time, but really enjoy this kind of informative thread. Thanks guys.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Econteachert205

Is this an example of good photo bad stamp? It is blue I believe.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Eddie-Collin...item3ce8cb2d62

Dennis, all of the blue ones are bad. I don't say that from my personal knowledge, but from what Ben tells me - in my experience he has never been wrong about anything related to photo stamps. I suspect he has never been wrong about anything in his life As a 3-yr old: "Mom, it is 'bascetti' - I'll let you know when the correct pronunciation changes. Meanwhile, just get the sauce finished - I'm hungwy."

[prewarsports]

Stamp is bad on the Collins but I suspect the photo is authentic to the 1910's and possibly a Conlon anyways, the added blue stamp probably wasn't needed in that case!

Rhys

[Econteachert205]

Thanks guys!

[Runscott]

Okay, so we know why thieves add stamps to the back of a good Conlon print - in this case to 'assure' the buyer that it was a real Conlon, but why did 'the real' Charles Conlon add stamps, and what was the purpose of each particular stamp he used? (Same for his signatures)

It seems a bit random, and maybe that is the answer.