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

[Jersey City Giants]

Here is a question I have been pondering even before this photo. If something is printed later but is not dated and the era of the paper is the same how do they tell? Take this photo. it is labeled 1914 but that is incorrect as the uniform is from 1913 (the only year they used Cubs on the road when he played with them) and its the Image from his 1914 Fatima. However, how would anyone know when the print was exactly made? Was it 1914, 1915, 1920, 1930??? And if the production is in doubt (assuming paper checks out for period) how could anyone render an opinion at PSA or anywhere for that matter in terms of its Type? It could be a Type I or Type II but definitively putting one of those labels on it seems just a guess to me. Again, I am just talking about the Type designation not anything else.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by Jersey City Giants

Here is a question I have been pondering even before this photo. If something is printed later but is not dated and the era of the paper is the same how do they tell? Take this photo. it is labeled 1914 but that is incorrect as the uniform is from 1913 (the only year they used Cubs on the road when he played with them) and its the Image from his 1914 Fatima. However, how would anyone know when the print was exactly made? Was it 1914, 1915, 1920, 1930??? And if the production is in doubt (assuming paper checks out for period) how could anyone render an opinion at PSA or anywhere for that matter in terms of its Type? It could be a Type I or Type II but definitively putting one of those labels on it seems just a guess to me. Again, I am just talking about the Type designation not anything else.

That's a complicated question and you look at photo by photo and instance by instance. You can be sure a photo is period by looking at a number of qualities and things, and also the circumstances.

With news photos, they were news so, if the photo is identified as old, you can very fairly assume it was made very soon after the news event. Beyond the later re-issues (which are identified by the paper, blacklight, etc), 99+ percent of newsphotos were made within days after the image was shot, as they were meant to document the current news for the newspapers. That's the nature of news photos. Happily, news photos often have date stamps, tags and captions that also help date the photo precisely. Most wirephotos have the date it was made in the caption.

But there will be photos that you know are original (clarity of image showing it was made from the original negative, paper, process, signs of aging and often even the photographer's or studio's stamp), but you don't know the exact year it was made. This is why many photos are sold as "circa 1920 studio photo" or "1930s George Burke photo."

With 1800s photos you can be certain it was made in the 1800s, in major part because they used a long since defunct process (albumen), but you regularly don't know the particular year it was made. The cardboard mounts help you identify the timeframe as styles changed. Though you may not know the exact year, you can identify a cabinet card or CDV as being from the 1860s or 1880s or 1890s by the mount-- and of course the image itself gives help.

So there will be photos where you don't know the exact year it was made, and you don't say you know.

The perfect example for you is George Burke's photos. He reused his negatives of Ruth, Dimaggio, etc over the years. Due to the distinct paper, stamps and changing addresses he used, you can identify his vintage photos from the 1930s, but not know what exact year within the 1930s it was made. Could be 1933, could be 1935 or 1937. This, of course, says that these photos can't be defined by the PSA Type system because you don't have enough information to know where a particular photo fits within the their '2 year' rule. As for me, I call them "vintage 1930s George Burke" photos-- notice the lack of the word original. If someone else wants to label them original, that's a matter of opinion and definition. The 2 year rule was PSA's pick for their system. Someone else may say it should be 1 year, 3 year, 5 year or period. The first time I heard the 2 year rule was when PSA used it. The 2 years is arbitrary, but I also understand PSA wanting a specified rule/standard for their cataloging system. Any labeling or cataloging system is going to be imperfect, with artibrary and artificial choices-- though that says there are limitations of all labeling and cataloging systems.

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

There are lots of paintings in museums-- by Michelangelo, Da Vince, Vermeer--, where they know they are originals, but don't know the exact year it was made. This is complicated because some paintings too more than a year to make. Look at the labels at museums and you'll see all sorts of guestimates as the timeframe when something was made.

There are also baseball card issues that we know are real, but there are ongoing debates when they were exactly issued.

[Jersey City Giants]

Guys I really appreciate the great back and forth. My next question is if PSA does not know what year something was produced do they just return the photo or just slap on a Type 2 rating? I have never submitted a photo (I own one but bought it graded) but am curious.

[drcy]

I believe they will a photo return ungraded if they can't formed an opinion, such as with some blank back photos.

[joshleland]

PSA "authentication" of photography is a beginning, not an end. It should not be a wall, but a step to take us to the next level. The "Type" system as simplistic and damning as it is has caused some great benefit. It has opened the gates for new collectors (and old) to enter with a certain level of comfort and the result has been increased interest, increased prices at the high end, a flood gate of new material coming in for us to ooh, ahh and bitch about and an increased sophistication to build on. And this convo is perfect for that build.

Its just like cards. The new era goes beyond the slabs. "Interpretation of the slab" which is in its infancy. "Buy the card not the slab" is a credo of increasing velocity. How ironic it would be where the hobby is in reverse and the slab is relevant? Essentially, we go to slabbed raw.

I know it hurts. When you have an image you know is great, really great, and it is weighed down by this (figurative) slab, and when you know more than the slabs or its slabber (?). But in the short term, you live by the slab, and you die by the slab. In some you have benefited (hopefully) and some you have lost (unfortunately and in your mind unfairly).

But have faith. Ultimately, the truth rises to the top. Hopefully in our lifetimes.

[Exhibitman]

I collect and deal in boxer self-issued promo photos. One of the biggest frustrations for me with the PSA system is that these are usually treated as Type III under the PSA roof even though they are more desirable than a basic (Type I) photo of the boxer from some news service. This is the sort of photo i am talking about:



The other underserved type of photo are the head to head or composites made to promote specific fights:

Dempsey-Tunney II:



An example of the "tale of the tape" style that is still used today:



This came out of the press kit for the Thrilla in Manila:



None of them are 'type I' because all of them are composites, yet they are the best available items for these fights.

While I appreciate that the people who blindly follow PSA will undervalue photos like this, it is annoying as hell for the reasons everyone else mentions.

[sphere and ash]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I collect and deal in boxer self-issued promo photos. One of the biggest frustrations for me with the PSA system is that these are usually treated as Type III under the PSA roof even though they are more desirable than a basic (Type I) photo of the boxer from some news service. This is the sort of photo i am talking about:



The other underserved type of photo are the head to head or composites made to promote specific fights:

Dempsey-Tunney II:



An example of the "tale of the tape" style that is still used today:



This came out of the press kit for the Thrilla in Manila:



None of them are 'type I' because all of them are composites, yet they are the best available items for these fights.

While I appreciate that the people who blindly follow PSA will undervalue photos like this, it is annoying as hell for the reasons everyone else mentions.

I don’t understand enough about how the self-issued promo photo is made to know why it isn’t a vintage print. Can you explain the arguments for and against?

I wouldn’t have any trouble accepting the composites as vintage, but I understand the other side of the argument.

[sphere and ash]

Originally Posted by joshleland

But have faith. Ultimately, the truth rises to the top. Hopefully in our lifetimes.

Either you believe, as I do, that the plain language “vintage print” is better than “Type 1,“ or you don’t. And either you believe that the definition “one made roughly the same time as the negative by the photographer himself or by a person or procedure satisfactory to the photographer” is better than “one made within two years of the date of the negative” or you don’t. What do you believe?

This is a change PSA could make in a day. Why talk about lifetimes?

[joshleland]

Originally Posted by sphere and ash

Either you believe, as I do, that the plain language “vintage print” is better than “Type 1,“ or you don’t. And either you believe that the definition “one made roughly the same time as the negative by the photographer himself or by a person or procedure satisfactory to the photographer” is better than “one made within two years of the date of the negative” or you don’t. What do you believe?

This is a change PSA could make in a day. Why talk about lifetimes?

What do I believe Paul Reifers*n? I believe that the Wilcy Moore 1927 Yankee Road Jersey from the Halper Trunk Find that you sold me at the National about 25 years for $8,000 was a wonderful piece.

As for my beliefs on photography authentication, I will answer sometime after my auction which closes tomorrow night.

[Jersey City Giants]

Originally Posted by joshleland

PSA "authentication" of photography is a beginning, not an end. It should not be a wall, but a step to take us to the next level. The "Type" system as simplistic and damning as it is has caused some great benefit. It has opened the gates for new collectors (and old) to enter with a certain level of comfort and the result has been increased interest, increased prices at the high end, a flood gate of new material coming in for us to ooh, ahh and bitch about and an increased sophistication to build on. And this convo is perfect for that build.

Its just like cards. The new era goes beyond the slabs. "Interpretation of the slab" which is in its infancy. "Buy the card not the slab" is a credo of increasing velocity. How ironic it would be where the hobby is in reverse and the slab is relevant? Essentially, we go to slabbed raw.

I know it hurts. When you have an image you know is great, really great, and it is weighed down by this (figurative) slab, and when you know more than the slabs or its slabber (?). But in the short term, you live by the slab, and you die by the slab. In some you have benefited (hopefully) and some you have lost (unfortunately and in your mind unfairly).

But have faith. Ultimately, the truth rises to the top. Hopefully in our lifetimes.

I have yet to send a single photo in to slab but did purchase one slabbed. I will not be sending in my photo I linked as I think at best they would send it back as unknown at worst a Type II (I think the accurate way to describe it is a period print done by the photographer himself). I am just trying to educate myself on photos and as you can see had many questions. Again, I appreciate everyone's input here.

Happy Collecting,
Jason