The PSA Type System: Should it follow the photography market?

[sphere and ash]

PSA’s photo type system was meant to replace the system that has long been used in the larger photography market, where people buy and sell works by the likes of Walker Evans, Edward Weston, and Cindy Sherman. The photography market has shown no signs of taking it up, and that is because the photography market’s methodology is more flexible and superior, as the following two examples will reveal.

The first thing a visitor to Nat Fein’s house saw was a 16x20 print of the image he called Three Bows Out. He considered it his ur-print, the representative example by which he wanted you to know his work. But that very print that was displayed by Fein’s front door will never be designated Type 1 by PSA because of the limitations of the Type system.

There is a 16x20 print that was probably printed around 1948—at the very least, we know it was unlikely to have been printed after around 1954 because there are no chemical brighteners in the paper, which would cause it to fluoresce. In the photography market, the print would be considered a vintage print, which is defined as one made at roughly the same time as the negative by the photographer himself or by a person or procedure satisfactory to the photographer. Occasionally, you will see a time limit of five years placed on what may be considered a vintage print, but the looser “at roughly the same time” is more common. That is because specific dates for exhibition or fine art prints are rarely known; unlike news photographs, they are not stamped with dates.

Let’s consider the 16x20 print from 1948-1954. Is it really worth less than one printed in 1950 if printed by Fein on the same paper and with the same methods? PSA believes the possibility of a 1954 dating makes it worth less than the 1950 print, though there is no possible explanation why.

PSA will never be able to “Type” an exhibition print like the one Fein had by his front door at all, because exhibition prints, lacking time stamps, can only be dated imprecisely. So a 16x20 vintage print from 1948-1954 will sell for one-third of an 8x10 from 1950 certified by PSA. That certainly seems like an opportunity to me.

Charles Conlon never printed for exhibition, but we do know that his house at 189 Alden Place in Englewood, NJ, where he lived during the 1920s and 1930s, was outfitted with darkroom sinks and that Conlon printed there. The Alden Place prints are the highest quality Conlon prints that exist. I own many. The paper was specifically made for contact prints from glass negatives. They greatly surpass the prints Conlon had made by third parties—including presumably the photo department at The Evening Telegram—which vary greatly in quality.

The problem for PSA is that Conlon printed some of his earlier negatives—Ed Walsh’s spitter from 1913, for example—while at Alden Place. So, under the PSA system, a print by Conlon himself from the early 1920s, on the same paper specifically made for contact prints that he would have used in 1913, is not a vintage print; it is a Type 2. Meanwhile, a print made in 1915 by someone in The Evening Telegram’s photo department, printed without detail or any aesthetic consideration because it was for halftone reproduction, is a vintage, or Type 1, print. I believe that the Alden Place prints, because they are by Conlon himself and are of the same type of paper he would have used in 1913 are vintage prints.

As a net buyer, I welcome these anomalies, but the same anomalies also frustrate me as an occasional seller. PSA should adopt the larger photography market’s methodology.

[prewarsports]

Conlon used different paper sizes and types throughout his career and as far as I know, those are not used in dating. I have also seen his earlier stamps re-used on later paper making a definitive dating even more difficult. I tried for a few years to make a catalog of these for more accurate dating, but he made it pretty difficult!

[sphere and ash]

As someone with a highly educated opinion, I would like to draw you out on the question at hand: does the PSA Type 1 definition improve or impair the definition used in the larger photography market?

Originally Posted by prewarsports

Conlon used different paper sizes and types throughout his career and as far as I know, those are not used in dating.

I think the use of various papers is consistent with Conlon frequently not doing his own printing. Also, when a third party is printing for halftone reproduction, the choice of paper barely matters. Whatever is there will suffice.

Originally Posted by prewarsports

I have also seen his earlier stamps re-used on later paper making a definitive dating even more difficult. I tried for a few years to make a catalog of these for more accurate dating, but he made it pretty difficult!

Are you saying that Conlon would use a stamp for 111th St. while living at, say, 118th St.? If so, I would love to see an example.

[prewarsports]

I have not seen address changed used after he moved, but I have seen earlier Evening Telegram and Spalding stamps used on later productions. This might have something to do with who actually made the prints and what stamps/ink was available at that office at the time.

I think the PSA system has helped draw attention to the photo industry and helped bring in a bigger audience for sure. I dont have anything negative to say about them and they do a good job at sticking to the parameters they have set. As someone who also deals in autographs and cards I can say I have never seen anything nefarious looking authenticated by PSA that made me think anything shady was going on in their photo authentication. I think it was a melding of the photo industry and the baseball card market and trying to bring them together to create a bigger audience. For that, it has absolutely worked!

[drcy]

It could be argued that the PSA system is a cataloging system for identification purposes, and valuation is a second question. I'm not a great fan of the system, and agree that the 2 year rule is arbitrary, but I don't believe anywhere does PSA say collectors and dealers have to value a photo strictly by how it fits in the system.

If you say a 1950 image printed in 1954 should worth the same as one printed in 1952, PSA no where says you shouldn't. It's just that it won't be cataloged as "Type 1" in their system.

Though I agree that it is a problem if collectors value and judge a photo just by how it fits in the PSA system-- and I'm sure many do.

My one big personal gripe with the systesm is calling an original photo "Type 1" is dumb. The word original is, and always was, self-explanatory and plain language, and it was pointless to change it to a number, color code of Egyptian hieroglyph. To me, the number system was like color coding animals, when the words 'cat,' 'dog' and 'eagle; were perfectly good and understood. Photography is my area of expertise and I have to look up what type II, III and IV signifies-- and I have no intention of memorizing it. Of course, that's just my personal sentiment, and if a Net54 says he likes the numbers, I won't say he's wrong-- but I will still think the hobby saying "Type 1" instead of original is dumb.

[sphere and ash]

Originally Posted by drcy

It could be argued that the PSA system is a cataloging system for identification purposes

I would argue it is a cataloging system for news photographs only, and not for exhibition prints.

Originally Posted by drcy

Though I agree that it is a problem if collectors value and judge a photo just by how it fits in the PSA system-- and I'm sure many do.

Isn’t it inevitable? You’ll struggle in vain to find one auction result not in accord with the classification system. As a net buyer, I have to keep reminding myself that this works to my benefit.

Originally Posted by drcy

My one big personal gripe with the systesm is calling an original photo "Type 1" is dumb. The word original is, and always was, self-explanatory and plain language, and it was pointless to change it to a number, color code of Egyptian hieroglyph. To me, the number system was like color coding animals, when the words 'cat,' 'dog' and 'eagle; were perfectly good and understood. Photography is my area of expertise and I have to look up what type II, III and IV signifies-- and I have no intention of memorizing it. Of course, that's just my personal sentiment, and if a Net54 says he likes the numbers, I won't say he's wrong-- but I will still think the hobby saying "Type 1" instead of original is dumb.

Amen