Great info in your last post, Mike! And yes, the Eddie Grant shot on the right is the Paul Thompson used for his T205 though the image is reversed on the card.

Is this a typo?

mike's spell check, you gotta pay attention
 

Yes, thank you. Problematic was the word I intended.

The English language, she is a cruel mistress, no?
lumberjack

Duly note the vintage photos are regularly trimmed/cut down these days. Expect many 8x10 photos to be trimmed/cut down. If there is borderless "a bit" under 8x10 photo, assume it's been cut down. Other size photos are being cut down too.

It's something I've brought up regularly on this board over the last several years, apparently to deaf ears. But I know as fact that I'm not the only who knows this is going on. It's pointless too, as PSA doesn't assign a condition grade.

There's no reason a hundred-year-old photo should have razor-sharp edges and corners. Also, many of the cuts are obviously not machine cut as the lines are uneven. Much photo paper came in factory-made standard sizes, makes trimming easier to identify. 8.8 x 9.84 inches was not a standard size, yet, strangely and considering the sharp edges and razor-sharp corners, that's slightly under 8x10 inches which was a standard size.

I don't have to give more details, as Net54ers and other collectors can do their own observations and see this for themselves. To me, and those who are observant, it's usually pretty obvious which photos have been trimmed.

This is not a comment on the REA Conlon, as I don't see anything wrong with its cut, and, according to the listing, it measures 8x10".

I whipped out the old Webster's that my grandmother and I used when we played scrabble, but it was no help...

As a follow up to my previous post, I went to the REA auction and looked at their photos. One I pulled up in a PSA/DNA holder and identified as probably trimmed. I then read the description, and REA identified it as "slightly trimmed." I look at other lots and there were a bunch of PSA/DNA holdered photos they also described as trimmed. So, to their credit, REA appears to know about and look for this.

Also, this post isn't a criticism of PSA/DNA's authentication or holdering of those photos, as they are just authenticating the photos and not condition grading them.

On a personal note, the recent trimming of these photos to give them sharp edges and borders to a degree ruins the photos in my aesthetic and photo-historian experience. As a longtime photo historian and former collector who knows what old photos are supposed to look like, it's comparable to having a vintage black ballpoint 1970 New York Mets signed baseball then getting Jerry Koosman to sign his name to it in 2020 in blue sharpie. Its sticks out like an ugly sore thumb and you can't help but grimace each time you look at the photo. Not only is the trimming usually pretty obvious and obviously artificial, but they are usually cutting away part of the image. Since there is absolutely nothing errant about rough edges to a photograph, and PSA/DNA doesn't even give a condition grade, giving the photos these artificial sharp edges and corners is completely pointless.

Maybe twenty years ago, I wrote I believe the first short guides to news photos (literally a stapled pamphlet from my home computer printer), and one of the things I wrote was (paraphrase) "If a 70 or 80-year-old news photo has razor sharp edges and corners, it's most probably either a modern reprint or has been trimmed." An interviewer later asked me why I wrote that, and I said that almost no unaltered news photos that old or older are without edge wear and damage. Perfect edges and corners on antique news photos don't look right, not unlike a game used football jersey that looks as if it was never worn.

I've always wanted a 1923 Yankees team picture with Gehrig. Lelands had one last night and and it was trimmed down tremendously. Took a pass after looking at it many times. Trimmed to 9x4.5. They disclosed it was trimmed, which was patently obvious.