When and how do you decide to have photos PSA-certified?
 

I asked this question in my post-Jackie Robinson photo, what is it?
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=359423
In the post above the question about the Mystery Photos I have was SOLVED, in March 2025, after 57 years from when the photos were discovered. To see that story please go to the link above.

I also posed this question before, in “Jackie Robinson, photograph used to produce the 1952 Berk Ross Baseball Card?”
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=314690

And again in, Vintage baseball photographs:
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=314302

Ok enough background. Question: When and how do you decide to have photos PSA-certified? I have a few over 100, I have been thinking about having some of them PSA-certified. But I ask this about the Jackie Robinson photo. I have re-posted that question here.

Taking the information I have discovered on the Jackie Robinson photo…It could be only one of three known to exist. Question- should I have the photo…PSA-certified. I do not like the certification process for photos, but in this case who knows? The photo was taken in 1946, look at the scoreboard, and it was the one used to produce the 1952 Berk Ross baseball card, and there are some modern reprints that use the same image. The problem is I have seen photos like the ones I have, (not the same) certified as type-1,2,and 3. In the case of the Jackie Robinson photo the type could be 1 or 2. The truth is there is no way anyone can tell if the image was made within two years of it being taken. John

The first image is of the photo with a Berk Ross baseball card, the others are cards in my collection.

Buy this book and save yourself some money.

A portrait of Baseball Photography

I have plenty of graded photos, but plenty raw that I know are type 1. I protect them and if I were to sell I will let the auction house decide with me.

I have some currently at auction and they did get several done which all came back type 1.

Depends whether or not you're looking to sell, or keep within your own collection. If the lettering on your Jackie photo is embedded within the image (not sitting on top of the emulsion) it will return as either a Type III or Type IV example. This is due to the fact that in order to create multiples of that image with the lettering embedded they would have created a copy neg by shooting an existing photo with the lettering applied. What you have there is a second generation photo at best.

This image actually hails from a 1947 preseason series against the Yankees just prior to Jackie’s official debut.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...449abb4f1c.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you- TCMA Andrew Aronstein:
 

Thank you- TCMA Andrew Aronstein:

I am no expert, I believe you are right, but I was in printing for many years, I know you can make a print from the original negative and add names to a new print in black or white, right from the original negative, if it was in white, it would be called a knockout, all that means is the white part of the photo paper would come through, as white type, (name).

There would be no need to make a copy from a print to do so. But that is in printing, I do not know how it was done with the old photos. But as you said it would be easier to make a photostat from the original negative, and use that to make a new negative to mass produce photos with the names on them.

As you know a copy from a print (photostat) would have less quality, then to make a second negative from that photostat you lose even more quality, I do not not see that in photos I have. You can see this in the images I have posted. I used my phone to take the images, and you can see the poor quality. Not to mention the photo paper used on the photos looks to be from the 1940s, I guess a type 3 or 4 could still be from the 1940s.

I do not know. I thank you for your help. I have no plans to sell, but to keep them in the collection, They have been in the family since 1965. I was just thinking how valuable they could be, and have that information in my files so if they get passed down, the family member would have some idea of what they have.
Thanks John.

In photography you could add the text with use of an overlay on top of the original negative but it is FAR more likely they were creating copy prints. I say this largely because the chances they had access to the original negatives is next to zilch - also we have evidence of how National Sports Photos, Inc. was working as provided by this photo that sold through LOTG and the copy print of same image shown in the advertising below:

https://bid.loveofthegameauctions.co...e?itemid=31181

https://bid.loveofthegameauctions.co...81_3_86193.jpg

Fantastic collection!

The best bet here is not trying to get PSA to grade them with a type designation. But to get psa to recognize them as an actual period release/issue.

You stole my thunder, I am puting together my next post, it has to do with period release/issue. I did have a question, so I will just ask it here...How do you go about getting PSA to recognize the images on the photo are actual Period issue date. I will be posting what proof I believe I have to prove the photos are actual period pieces. John

Maybe I missed the answers to these questions but:

1) Are all the photos the same size?
2) Do any have stamping on reverse?
3) Are all of the written names embedded within the images, not added on TOP of the images?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, but typically not nearly as rare or valuable as the corresponding
"Type 1" photo... in my opinion.

1-2) All photos are 8x10 black and white nothing on the backs; No stamping.
3) All photos but a couple have the names within the images, not on top. The names are in black or white.
But a couple are different, in the script that is on the photos. I have provided images of photos that are different.
4) The photos have been in the family since 1965-68. When discovered they were kept in photo albums that were circa 1940s. When found, the photos were aging, you could tell they were in those albums a long time at least 10-20 years. By aging I mean…they look like they were already looking as if they were "vintage," or "antique”. They had a nostalgic and classic feel. I guess the proper term would be to say;that had a tone that gave the photos a vintage look. John

Type 1,2,3,4 photos versus Period issues photos!
 

Note: This post will run long therefore I will post in segments.

To tell you the truth, the only reason I have ever considered the PSA certification process…Because of the family. I hope to pass them down. I want the person who inherits the photos to know what they have. Especially if there is monetary value in them. How many times has someone just sold or disposed of a collection, all because they did not know what they had.

First off I should disclose-I do not like the certification process for photos on type only. Second, we are having a conversation here, I take everybody's opinion and give it consideration. Please do the same. Most of the people posting know a lot more about the photo certification process than I do. In fact I have never used it, not sure how it works, that was the reason for the original post.

As I understand the process, there are photos like the ones I have that the certification process does not help, in fact it could do more damage to a collection, ie- authentication on when there were issues, value etc. In this case PSA certification does not improve on the photos or tell us what they are, but impairs the facts because all the system is interested in is how long between when the negative was made and the print was made.

However, in the historical area which most baseball collectors are involved in, age itself is an essential quality. Not - if the print was made within two years from when the negative was developed. With many vintage collectors of baseball (memorabilia) historical items, age has always been an essential quality. I myself have alway be more interested in the origins and age of the memorabilia.

You can have a photo that is old and original but not be considered or certified as a PSA 1 photo. You and I both know the value of a piece is not in the type, because a type 3 photo could have more value then a type 1, it just depends on the image and when it was issued.

I may be wrong but a type 1 or 2 photos have more value then a type 3, because of the systems. With the system as it is- you can have a type 2 made 20 years after the first print was made and it would still be a type 2 because of how the system is set up. My point is this… take a photo say it is a type 2 circa 1920- then say the same photo was made as a type 3 - in the 1940s, and then the same photo ( original type 2 negative) is re-made as a type 2 1n 1970s. What is worth more to you the 1940s type 3 or 1970s type 2? And would you say the type 3 is not an original, but the type 2 is an original? No, I would still call the type 3 an original, how about you? To my point a type 3 photo could be rarer then a type 1 or 2 photo, which makes the type 3 more valuable. John

No doubt, there are board members here with extremely high levels of knowledge when it comes to photography dating, paper stock, printing process, etc. Far more knowledgeable dealing with photos than I will ever be. That being said, the maybe oversimplified answer to the OP’s question is if the photography subject is nearly impossible to find as a type 1 specimen, types 2, 3 & 4 will be far more valuable than those types of a common subject, even if the common subject is Babe Ruth, Jackie Robinson, etc. At Hakes Auctions, we have recently sold a number of PSA authenticated type 2’s, 3’s and especially 4’s, that brought four figure prices because the more desirable type 1’s of those subjects do not exist or are so scarce that prices would be unaffordable in many cases. In this situation, it can certainly be feasible to pay for PSA to authenticate these knowing full well that they are not type 1 photos. Examples would be 1937 Ciudad Trujillo team photos with Josh Gibson, Satchel Paige and Cool Papa Bell and Jackie Robinson in his Kansas City Monarches uniform. You don’t need a lot of technical knowledge about photographs to make this work.

Interesting that you mention Satchel Paige, he is one of the photos I have thought to have PSA certified. I did some digging into (Love of the Game Auctions) and came across a Satchel Paige Wire photo Type 1- Lot #19574. I notice it is the same photo I have; only the athlete's name is added in the photo I have. Oh they did crop the man out of the picture. It is just like the Cleveland photo. Both photos were Wire Photos, then it seems National Sports Photos, Inc. reissued the photos with names on them circa 1940s.

Sometime back I discovered that the photo of Satchel Paige is of him at Yankee Stadium in uniform as a Black Yankees 1941. Photo is in Bettmann/Corbis archives history photos Collections. No matter what type the photo would be, it is a very rare photo. John

First photo is: (Lot# 329: c.1940's Grover Cleveland Alexander (HOF) Type 2 News Service Photo. Second photo: Lot 19574 of Satchel Paige. Third photo: is my photo.

I am all but certain that National Sports Photos was affiliated with National, a New York photo company that was one of the three big studios that shot publicity photos for boxers and entertainers (with Apeda and Cosmopolitan). Here is a Marciano publicity photo by National:

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...20Marciano.jpg

Same approximate era and style.

My theory is that NSP was National cashing in on its image archive.

But I digress...

I see no reason to grade photos unless you plan to sell. They are a PITA to store and very costly to slab. I will buy an exceptional one but prefer not to do it for my PC. When I sell, or when my daughter sells, I assume they will end up slabbed. Until then, they stay in mylar in albums

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...trait%201.jpeg
https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi.../large/001.jpg
https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...%20Art%201.jpg
https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...%20Ramones.jpg

I like your thinking but would this account for the photos of other sports sold by National Sports Photos? Also, we have seen two examples thus far of original news service photos with the cursive writing sitting on top of the emulsion. Both examples have credit stamping from International News on reverse. Either way, I feel as though PSA would treat the National Sports Photos prints as "souvenir photos," which they will not render an opinion on. There is no official stance from PSA online about these but really any commercially available photo are treated as such. Best example I can give are modern photographic prints from Photo File (aka TV Sports Mailbag in the early days) that can be found all over ebay.

[QUOTE=Exhibitman;2506975]I am all but certain that National Sports Photos was affiliated with National, a New York photo company that was one of the three big studios that shot publicity photos for boxers and entertainers (with Apeda and Cosmopolitan). Here is a Marciano publicity photo by National:



Same approximate era and style.

My theory is that NSP was National cashing in on its image archive.

But I digress...

I see no reason to grade photos unless you plan to sell. They are a PITA to store and very costly to slab. I will buy an exceptional one but prefer not to do it for my PC. When I sell, or when my daughter sells, I assume they will end up slabbed. Until then, they stay in mylar in albums

__________________________________________________ ____
Thank you, great advice, I agree with everything you said. Do you think NSP had the original Negatives? I do have an up coming post on this, I believe they did.

Thanks John

Part two-Type 1,2,3,4 photos versus Period issues photos!
 

Type 1,2,3,4 photos versus Period issues photos!

Photographs are complex, and have many layers or subtle details that require careful consideration to fully understand them, they can't simply be defined by a type system. A number system to define a photograph is No use on limited editions print photos or one of a kind.

Unless there is a date or stamping on the backs of photos, how can you tell me how long between when the negative was made and the print of the photo. I am sure on some photos this can be done, but there are many more no one can say how long between the original negative being developed and when the print was made.

Not to mention some dates and stampings are not accurate. Take a photo that was developed right after the negative was made, say 1940, but never used… but then that photo was used for some project in the 1960, the date stampings would be 1960s. In most cases this would be a type 2, but the truth is it would be a type 1. I could be wrong about that, tell me if the scenario I pose is correct.

Let me pose a scenario on the photos I have. Most professional photo “experts” in baseball memorabilia I have talked to over the years have said, the photos are not worth much and there is not much interest in collecting them. Now get this because of the names on the photos. Most of these “experts” did not even consider the age of the photographs but what type they thought they would be classified as.

I have been told because of the names on the photos and writing on them, they would be classified as a type 3 or 4, and that there is not a big market for them. But each one said they would take them off my hands. Let me be clear, I have come across some damn good experts who put me on the right path.

Now we did discuss this a bit, but not in detail. I would always ask, why is that? The answer went something like this: it’s how the names were put on the photos. I do agree that in most cases the process used to put the names or writing on many photos makes them a type 3 or 4. But the truth is you can not put every photo with names or writing on them under the umbrella of type 3 or 4.

If I have my facts right, This would be the process for type 3 and 4. In photography, type 3" and "4" refer to the generation of a photograph. From a negative.

A type 3 being a second-generation print developed from a duplicate negative of the original negative, the duplicate negative is then used to make the print with the name on the photo.

Type 4 being a second or later generation print from a duplicate print or original, which does not include the original negative. A new negative is made from the old print and then a duplicate negative is made to make a new print with the name on the photo.

Ok, but a photo can have the name or writing on it and still be a type 1 or type 2. In this case the original negative is used to make the print with the name on the photo. If this is done within 2 years it is a type 1 and if it is done after 2 years it is a type 2.

In the case of the photos I have with the names on them, no one can say with absolute certainty what process was used in producing the photos I have. There is a lot of speculation and theory on which process was used. You may have an opinion on the facts and I have mine. Your best guess is as good as mine.

PSA can not give a type on the photos I have, at best they should come back unclassified, but they should be able to pin pin the issues date. Thereby give a period when they were issued. This would be more helpful than to just give the photos a type of 3 or 4 classification that may not be accurate. John.

Great info

The cursive writing sitting on top of the emulsion.
 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please explain what you mean by the cursive writing sitting on top of the emulsion. I understand what it means in printing terms, but how are you applying it here? In the case of printing the cursive (name) was added to the print after it was made, thereby it is sitting on top, if you were to flip the photograph over you would see an indentation, impression on the back. Meaning it was not part of the imaging process.

If you would use a Printers Loop on the photo you would see the ink or whatever was used to put the cursive on top of the photo. You can tell it is on top of the emulsion and not part of the emulsion. If I am correct, the cursive was added after the photo was made/printed. Do I understand correctly? John

If PSA/DNA will not render an opinion on these photos and consider them souvenir photos then maybe the best route is to submit info to PSA for them consider grading them as a "card" issue.

Pretty sure he posted above about the cursive writing a couple of days and you agreed with him and thanked him for his observation.

The issue there is these are uncatalogued and nobody really has a handle on exactly what they are quite yet. According to their advertising, National Sports Photos would even take requests to obtain images of athletes not on their stock list. So, a complete checklist is probably not something that is likely to surface.

Thank you, but I think I am getting confused, It would be nice to have it spelled out from me. Sorry if I am repeating myself. John

Correct. That is what I mean by "on top of the emulsion." A photo with the cursive writing applied on TOP of the emulsion would presumably then be photographed, thereby creating a copy negative, from which multiples could be created with the lettering embedded WITHIN the image itself. If that makes sense.

The whole type thing is f***ng stupid anyway. Every team issued photo with printing would be a Type III, as would any composite made up for a news story. I personally prefer a photo that carries its back story right in the image and doesn't rely on somebody guessing the generation of the image or when it was made. MJ's rookie year team issue is a Type III? Silly.

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...ize/image.jpeg

Ah, well I stand corrected. They DID Render an opinion on this one, deeming it a Type IV: https://www.ebay.com/itm/235250487091

Stay with me it is geting crazy for me to take it all in:
 

That makes sense, But at the same time I am more confused. For now lets stay with the Grover Cleveland Alexander, Type 2 News Service Photo.

I did write up this post on Grover Cleveland Alexander, Type 2 News Service Photo, before we started talking about the emulsion and name on top. Therefore I am posting what I wrote before and then I will explain why I am more confused.: Stay with me it is get crazy for me to take it all in: John

The "Summer, 2023 Premier Auction- (Love of the Game Auctions.)

I want to discuss the "Summer, 2023 Premier Auction- (Love of the Game Auctions.) Lot # 329: c.1940's Grover Cleveland Alexander, Type 2 News Service Photo.
https://bid.loveofthegameauctions.co...e?itemid=31181

If I understand the auction, the original photograph, image was from the “Mid-1920's. It is a photo of pitcher Grover Cleveland Alexander at the Cubs spring training facility on Catalina Island in California.

The image or photo for auction Lot # 329: is a 6.5x8.5 print and was developed during the 1940's and served as a "proof" for a company known as National Sports Photos, Inc.

The auction particulars- National Sports Photos offered 8" x 10" glossy photo reproductions via mail order, complete with the athletes name added.” (Lot # 329: c.1940's Grover Cleveland Alexander (HOF) Type 2 News Service Photo (PSA/DNA).”

Pertaining to our conversation, notice lot# 329 has the athlete's name in white, but it is being auctioned off as aType 2 Wire photo. But in most cases this photo would be called a Type 3 or 4. Because of the name on the photo.

It seems that some company used the photo produced by National Sports Photos, Inc.(Lot # 329)- to make a Wire photo, we know this from the back of the photo.

How was the Wire photo made? It was an original photograph from the “Mid-1920's. Which means the wire photo had to be made from the original negative to be a Type 2 photo (lot# 329), otherwise it would be a Type 3-4 photo.

Another problem, but goes with what I have been saying about how you can use the original negative and add a name to a print. Making the photo a Type 2. It is a fact that you do not have to use a second negative to have a name on a photo.

How was the photo of Grover Cleveland Alexander, a type two wire photo, if the name was added to the Wire photo? The name was not on the original photo, or was it. Is it possible the name was on the original negative and print. It would be nice if someone could look that up, it is beyond me how to do that.

But for now let's just say the original photo of Grover Cleveland Alexander did not have the name on it. How did the Wire photo up for auction, then get the name on the photo. And how is it a type 2? Over and over I have been told if a name is on the photo it is a Type 3 or 4.

Since National Sports Photos, Inc. did make the print in the 1940s, and did put names on the photos, the only way they could have done this..is with the original negative, for it to be a type 2. Now thanks to Exhibitman …it seems they did have the original photos. That is if National Sports Photos was affiliated with National, a New York photo company that was one of the three big studios that shot publicity photos. If they shot the photos, they had the negatives.

One problem I see…if someone used the date stamp and markings on the back, they would tell you the image was from the 1940s, not the 1920s. Do you see how relying on marking on the backs of photos does not alway give accurate details about an image on the photo.

To my point, it would appear that National Sports Photos, Inc. had original negatives that they made photo prints from. Meaning the photos I have should be Type 1 or 2, But in almost every case they would be classified as type 3 or 4. The Type system is broken, there has to be a better system for us as collectors to use. I do believe the Type system in use today is not very well received, but for many that's all there is. John.

Simply put, the international news service (service that provided/took the photo and had the negative) created a type 2 in the 1940s with the added name for national sports photos to use to make reproductions.

I think you're getting confused thinking that national sports photos had anything to do with any original negatives or photos, they had no part of that. Only making reproductions. Therefore every single national sports photo issued is a type 4.

So translating that into value if you were to send say jackie to psa and it gets a type 4.
Type 4=Almost valueless. And you probably lose money on the submission price.

While on the other hand if it was labeled as: National Sports photo ca 1950s and added to Jackie robinsons set registry, you would be talking thousands easily.

Type III is not a "negative" connotation, it simply explains the reality of what a piece is. If collectors choose to value a Type III at a lower level than Type I that is what they/we (collectively) have chosen to do.

When the Type system first came into use many collectors did not understand what Type III meant and it got a bad rap.

If you look at pricing on quality images it generally holds up to a relative level at this point (meaning Type III image can be considerably valuable) but again, that price is relative. A Type III photo is not a Type I. Printed in the period, yes. But it is not the same as a Type I. That is the reality. To clarify, that Jordan image in Type III will near 100% of the time sell for less than the Type I equivalent. But it is made from a duplicate negative. If someone took pictures of a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle and used that negative to make a new printing plate in 1952 and then printed more Mantles on the same card stock are they "original"? To some, maybe. But i would want a real "original" if that is what my collecting tastes dictated.

Incidentally - I do like that Jordan piece and if I collected basketball I would like to own it. Regardless of Type.

I do want to apologize if I am repeating myself or if the question has already been answered. I make notes on the post that everyone has posted, thanks, and post or ask questions based on those notes. Therefore sometimes the question has already been answered or maybe I repeat myself, because I am not fully understanding the information provided. Thanks for being patient, I just want to understand the information provided. In the past before I found net54, it was hard to get information or even have a conversation. A lot of people for some reason or another just did not give out information. Thanks John.

Hakes just sold a few non-type 1 photos of Josh Gibson for $6k. Here is a type 2 and I am unaware of any type 1 of this and these have sold for over multiple thousands. The system is the system. It may be interpreted differently in the future too.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...cca0765494.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...137d95b9be.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I do tend to agree that Type 3 is not a "negative" connotation, but why is it most experts- people with far more knowledge than me…all make it out to be? Mostly by placing a small monetary value on Type 3 and 4, not only that they are of the opinion there is no market for them. I said it before, I cannot say- how many times someone with a lot of knowledge told me there is not much use for the photos I have, but each one wanted to take them off my hands. But that is all changing now, it has a lot to do with net54, where we can get opinions of every kind to help us collectors make wise decisions. This post is proof of that.

I do see a trend where this negative opinion is changing, people are starting to realize the type the photo is Classified as, is not as important as the subject and date of issues, not to mention how rare (one-of-a-kind) type 3-4 photos can be. There is no debut Type 3-4 photos can be of great historical value and interest at times more than Type 1 and 2 photos. people are even realizing how cool they are to have in a collection. John

The main issue I have with the rationale presented is that there is literally no Type I of the team issued photos. There would be an original file photo somewhere on a paste-up board with the name, logo, etc., stripped onto it.

Another thing I find annoying about it is that team issues are not collected for photo clarity per se, they are all about the fact that the team issued the photo in that given year as the official publicity photo of the player. Same with publicity photos, tales of the tape (boxer head to head photos with stats), and similar. It is closer to card collecting than to photo collecting.

I (and the others who I know who are into them) prefer the 'official' Type III to some random Type I image. If the market hasn't developed for that, fantastic, I get to add more of them to my PC.

Ahh well, in the end, best to not fret over PSA's designations and just try to enjoy them. Tom and Nolan agree:

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...0Mets%20TI.jpg
https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...0Mets%20TI.JPG

I agree with you, Exhibitman. One of the reasons I thought about PSA's designations was maybe by doing so, more information would be discovered about the photos. But thanks to everybody posting here I understand that is not the case. What I have learned is that photo classification as a Type (number system) is mainly used as a catalog system - for how long the print was made from the original negative. I for one have no use in such a system, it might work on Wire photos and team issues photos.

No wait, not on team photo packs…take the 1956 Yankees Action Photo set.( See for more information on this in link) https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=359423

The 1956 Yankees Action Photo set -has a photo of Hank Bauer which is a match for the baseball card 1952 Berk Ross-Hit Parade of champions. I have the exact photo with name on it - all just like the issue pack, the Berk Ross card is an exact match to the photo…right down to the name on the photo. But the card came out in 1952, the photo came out in 1956.

But wait, that is not all I found. I discovered the photo had to be taken in 1948. I started doing some digging into the uniforms and the uniforms proves the photo is from 1948. In 1948 the Yankees wore a black armband on the left sleeve, in honor of Babe Ruth. Therefore the photo is not an original photo pack, but the 1956 Yankees photo pack used older photos. The photo is a 1948 issue or say when it was taken.

How would PSA handle the photo, they would classify it as a type, most likely a Type 3. Sadly I would miss all the historical information about the photo. No information that the image was a 1952 Berk Ross baseball card, I would not know it was a team photo from 1956, or have proof that the photo was taken in 1948.

PSA does not investigate the photos as cards, ie-evaluate the condition of the photos etc. or are concerned with issue date or historical interest. I thought PSA would be able to provide historical information, or say when the photo was issued, maybe be able to tell how old the photos are etc.

What about my Jackie Robinson photograph? If most people are right, it would be a Type 3. Despite the fact it could be very rare, I have only seen two others and they were articles on how the photo was used to make the Berk Ross card. The two linked articles- suggest the photo was used as a photostat to make the 1952 Berk Ross baseball card.

https://www.worthpoint.com/worthoped...%20would%20win

http://keymancollectibles.com/photos...4100.%2D%24200

What are we missing, this photo was taken in 1946, we know this because of the date on the scoreboard. This photo is before Jackie was in Major League Baseball.

Jackie Robinson signed his first National League contract with the Brooklyn Dodgers on October 23, 1945, and made his debut on April 15, 1947, becoming the first African American to play in modern Major League Baseball.

How important can this photo be, the photo actually hails from a1946- 1947 preseason series against the Yankees just prior to Jackie’s official debut. TCMA-Andrew Aronstein provided the Original photo from “getty images” see below. John

I believe these were team issued shots, so I think that is where the discussion changes and where they set the line.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...387f05c3b7.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...1fd1cc3b70.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...df0395dbe7.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can see that for items like the mantles but when the teams move to more professional artwork on the team issues the system fails IMO. My question has always been how do we know that a photo is a team issue versus something that the photographer put out? It gets really muddy when other very similar shots from the same session emerge. I have one or two like that which must’ve been shot literally second apart. These guys shot a ton of images and the client then would choose the ones to use. Without any distinguishing marks on them which are the team issues then? I don’t know but it is confusing to me. At least when the teams move to Type III style team issues you can tell which photos the team chose if the Type I emerges. Doesn’t make the Type I a team issue though.

Taken all this in, what do you say about the 1956 Yankees Action Photo set of Hank Bauer- we have the exact same image on a 1952 Baseball card,and proof it was taken in 1948- no one can say when the photo was actually issued or how long between when the photo was develop as to when the negative was develop. How can anyone, let alone PSA say the photo is a Type 3. The system as it is is broken.John

As many have stated, I have to agree that it can be impossible to tell if a photograph was produced 2 or 3 or 4 years after the image was taken from an original negative, it’s a best guess system in place and I assume that PSA does the best they can based on that. Surely not right 100% of the time. However, I believe the photo authentication process was introduced primarily to weed out the obvious fakes/later generation photographs that had been running rampant on eBay and elsewhere 10-15 and more years ago. A common target were Negro League images depicting major subjects and especially powerhouse teams, where maybe 1 out of every 10 were original type 1 quality while the rest were basically “fakes”. Some people bought into and lost some pretty big money for the day and the implementation of PSA’s photo authentication system at least provided an avenue where not so knowledgeable buyers wouldn’t have to lose their shirt. Now, a seller could be requested by a potential buyer to have the photo authenticated. Nearly all of the major auction houses have adopted this policy at this point. Just like the autograph authentication process helped to clean up that aspect of the hobby. Once again, they don’t always get it right but better than nothing that was in place before that when fakes were running rampant throughout the industry.

I agree better than nothing, but the way the system is…it is broken for most collectors. Make some tweaks to it, like knowing when the photo was taken or when it was issued. For sure change the two year window between 1 and 2 Type photos….at least 5-10 years. When doing their research they had to come across some historical information, let us know if the images were used for cards, used in publication etc. I know it would cost more, I for one would be willing to pay more for all the information.

As said the system was set up as an authentication process to weed out fakes. I believe it did a good job of doing just that, but now it is time to move on. The biggest problem with the system is the way it is misused by many experts. In my experience, and others I have talked to - all agree. These so-called experts- and many are good at when they do look down on anything that is not a Type 1, in recent years Type 1 and 2 photos is all they were interested in.

Let me explain from my point of view: I have been researching these photos in my collection for 49 years. I have talked to many people about them. When I would find an expert and tell them about how I had old photos circa 1949-1950, they would fall all over themselves begging to know more. But as soon as I said, they have names on them in script writing that was the end of the conversation. What I would hear over and over, they are Type 3-4 photos and are not worth much, basically you have nothing. I must say not all my interaction with experts went this way, but more times than not. On this post we many dam good experts who are willing to have a conversation, and take there time to explain their opinion, And I want to thank them, it can't be easy doing what they do and not upset people because of the PSA Type system. If collectors ask for changes to the system, start a petition, maybe PSA will hear us and make some important changes to the authentication process. John

Type I, Type II blah, blah
 

This business of classifying an image according to when it was printed, is something unique to sports (baseball, really) photography.

If you are involved with art photography (FSA, Paul Strand, Lewis Hine, you get the idea), there is no mention of type.

Ansel Adams shot "Moonrise" in 1941 and continued to print that image until his death in 1984. Nobody in the history of Earth has ever said, "Oh, Ansel did that in 1975, that's a Type II, I don't want that."

Today, you can get copies of "Moonrise" from the people who manage the estate of Ansel Adams. The prices of the Adams photos vary according to quality. You can buy FSA photos from the Library of Congress,
which are inexpensive.

When HYee and Fogel did there pioneering work on sports photography, an arbitrary date was set for what constituted a "vintage" photography. It wasn't selected out of thin air, but close enough. Their book was not a price guide, they were just looking for clarity.

UPI, the eventual incarnation of International News, was printing quality images from the original negatives well into the '60s. The Brown Bros. photos, which we now have a glut of thanks to Lelands, reprinted photos from the original negatives for decades.

With the Browns, we have no idea, even with the use of back stamps, when this stuff was cranked out. UPI is the same way; maybe you can be off by a decade. It matters most if you are speculating or are a photo maven.

The later copies can go for ten cents on the dollar, which is weird because they are often cleaner copies.

Perhaps the standards will, in time, change.

Ask yourself, why are you doing this, to make money or because you like the picture.

They absolutely do this. There's only so much info that can fit on the PSA label when it comes to slabbed photos. If necessary, they will provide additional information on a letter that accompanies the slabbed photo. For most photos, however this is unnecessary because there's nothing of significance to warrant those additional steps. Sometimes a 1915 photo of Al Mamaux is just that. Not every photo is Jackie Robinson's major league debut, or Babe Ruth's called shot.

"Experts" looking down on photos based on type really isn't a thing. Anyone who knows and understands the market realizes that photos are a case-by-case sort of thing and the "Type" isn't the sole determining factor in terms of value. This has been covered previously in this thread. In many cases a Type III (a copy from the era) will be more desirable than a Type II (a later print from the original neg) developed many, many decades later.

Yes, because most sellers that deal in photos know that Type I's in general hold the most value and they're looking for pieces that will sell individually for hundreds or thousands of dollars. The Type III or IV photos in your possession do not fall into that category.

In general, this is correct. They aren't worth that much, with some exceptions. Unfortunately, IF your photos are what we're suspecting them to be they will have relatively little value compared to a Type I of that same Jackie Robinson photo, for example. I do think a photo like that might even sell for a few hundred dollars but the market will decide that. You don't really get to have a say, unfortunately. Even Type I's of more common players from the 40's and 50's, like the ones in your possession, will hold very little value. Type III's? Your best bet would be to sell those as a group unless there are card images etc. Attempting to generate value from a huge collection of Type III's is a lot of work. I would guess most full-time sellers would not be willing to spend that kind of time researching, lotting, etc. They want the big names and the important photos, not Frenchy Bordagaray and Phil Weintraub.

No doubt. Some really great UPI photos out there with fantastic images right off of the original negs.

I hear you on this but I do think we can be reasonably sure in regards to when the photos were created based on paper type/size. In many cases anyway but not all. Admittedly this is more difficult without having the photos in-hand when bidding.

Absolutely.

I second this. My impression though, is that in the end he feels his photos should hold more value than what the "experts" are claiming.

That's why I love team issues from specific seasons and photos with publication usage evident. Same with mailed postcards. Very clear dating.

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...am%20issue.JPG
https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...P%20photo.jpeg
https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...arge/001_1.jpg
https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...ers%20team.jpg

Jackie Robinson photo-new info: game-changer?
 

Jackie Robinson photo-new info: game-changer?

I learned something new about the Jackie Robinson photo, and it could be a game-changer on everything I thought I knew about the photo.

Almost everybody I showed the photo to, the main interest was always in the name on the photograph in script writing. But for me it is always about the photo- who took the photo, when was the photo taken, when was the photo issued?

One thing that bothered me was the date on the scoreboard, (1946). And how was Jackie Robinson in a Brooklyn Dodgers uniform?

What I Understood about Robinson in 1946…he was a member of the Montreal Royals. As I understood the facts, the Montreal Royals were a Triple-A International League affiliate of the Brooklyn Dodgers that had their own uniforms. Now- Jackie Robinson did not play for the Brooklyn Dodgers until his major league debut- April 15, 1947. This is the information I have…Jackie Robinson made his Major League debut for the Brooklyn Dodgers on April 15, 1947, against the Boston Braves at Ebbets Field. I believe this is correct.

I believed something was wrong with the photo, it just did not add up for me. I thought could it be a fake. But most people believed the photo was issued circa 1950s and the image was from 1946. I started believing that theory, but I just could not get the 1946 scoreboard, or the fact that Jackie was in a Brooklyn Dodgers uniform out of my head.

All these years I did not know that the date on the scoreboard was not the year- but advertising. Not one person mentioned the date or questioned the date. They always went right to the name on the photos. In-spite of me saying many times “the image on the photo was from 1946, because you can see the date on the photo.”

This is a brand new discovery for me: I discovered on April 3, 2025 the date on the scoreboard is not the year 1946, but advertising. After going over images of Ebbets Field.

Tell me your thoughts. John.

Now notice the images below, they are from April 15, 1947- The Brooklyn Dodgers vs. the Boston Braves at Ebbets Field. The day Robinson made his Major League debut.

Everything on the scoreboard looks to be the same as on my photo.

Not everything. They don't match.

In-fact there are multiple discrepancies between the images, not the least of which is the red/white/blue bunting on right field wall and the horizontal ad that is above the scoreboard in one shot and not in the other.

Wouldn't the image be from 1947 as the "watch for" ad for "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty" is in the background and the movie premiered in August 1947 but was released in September 1947.

Thank you, I see it now. But does this change how you see the images? Are they close enough to say you could believe the photo image is circa 1947?

And please can anyone explain the ad- Electricity more for your money in 1976.
The ad in question. John

It's definitely from 1947 because the first time Jackie wore a Dodgers uniform on the field was April 11, 1947 during the pre-season series against the Yankees.

Because they make Billboards signs and don’t replace them for years.

Your conclusion is an inductive reasoning error (generalizing from specific). The photo establishes the earliest possible date of manufacture (the day the image was captured). It does not establish the actual date that the photo was created. It could have been made any time.

I agree with Exhibitman on most points- but I believe we can establish a timeline for when the photo was created…printed as a print. Ok we mainly agree that the image on the Jackie Robinson photo is from 1947, the possible year it was captured.

The question is, when was the photo made? (printed as a print) Therefore the question becomes can we use deductive reasoning…use logic to arrive at a logical conclusion as to when the print was made? That is to say establish a reasonable date the photo was created.

The known facts:

1- Photos with names on them just like the ones I have have been auctioned as Type 1, 2 and 3. We have one on this post: (Lot# 329: 1940's Grover Cleveland Alexander Type 2 News Service Photo.

What we know about the Grover Cleveland auction: The auction house describes the photo this way: “Mid-1920's image of Hall of Fame pitcher Grover Cleveland Alexander at the Cubs spring training facility on Catalina Island in California. Though the image hails from the 1920's this particular 6.5" x 8.5" print was developed during the 1940's and served as a "proof" for a company known as "National Sports Photos, Inc." National Sports Photos offered 8" x 10" glossy photo reproductions via mail order, complete with the athletes name added in a handwritten style.”

2-National Sports Photos offered 8" x 10" glossy photo reproductions via mail order, complete with the athletes name added in a handwritten style starting in the 1940s. This style of writing on the photos matches the style on the photos I have. We can then conclude the photos I have are National Sports Photos.

3- All the photos I have are of the same style and match the Grover Cleveland Alexander photo except the size. Many of the images on the photos I have are seen on different Baseball cards, Bond Bread, Berk Ross, Exhibit style cards, Mini strip cards (R423), just to name a few. These baseball cards match the photos I have, many down to the names on the cards, which are an exact match- Bond Bread cards come to mind.

4- Bond Bread cards were issued in 1947, does this mean that the photos were around then as well. Since the images are the same on the photos and the Bond Bread cards, would it be reasonable to conclude the images on the photos were made the same time as the 1947 Bond Bread cards.

5- Two examples of the photos I have that match Bond Bread cards are: Ted Willams and Johnny Van Der Meer. The two examples are on the cover of the National Sports Photos- catalog. See post #6. There is no date on the letter from the National Sports Photos malling. But we do see that the mailing for National Sports Photos cost 4 ½ cents to mail. We see a 3 cent stamp and 1 ½ cent stamp. But I notice the 3 cent stamp was - a special commemorative stamp: Issued in 1947.

The U.S. 3 Cents stamp-The Doctor # 949 was issued on June 9, 1947, to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the founding of the American Medical Association. "The Doctor" stamp was sold for approximately 10 years from its initial release in 1947 until the introduction of the 4-cent stamp in 1958. We then can reasonably believe that the mailing for the National Sports Photos- catalog was issued circa 1947 - 1957. Advertising some photos from 1947, as seen on the cover of the catalog.

6- Information suggests many of the photos were made with names on them circa 1947, because again-we see the same images on the Bond Bread cards that came out in 1947. We then can believe that the photos I have were made 1947-1958. Knowing all the information would it not be reasonable to believe the Jackie Robinson photo could have been made in 1947 and no later than 1957. Conclusion the photos I have were taken 1930-1950, the photos were made (created) in 1947-1950s.

The information also suggests the Jackie Robinson photo has a good chance of being made the year it was taken 1947. Because it does match photos we can say were made in 1947, ie Ted Willams and John Van Der Meer. The odds are in fact better than the print being made in the 1950s. So how can anyone say what Type photo it is. Why would anyone judge the photo of Jackie Robinson on what Type it was, or any of the photos I have? John

I guess the question should be to you as collectors: Find value in the photos I have? Or value in the type of photos -they would be classified as. John

The dating argument still fails for lack of evidence. Unless you have some sort of extrinsic proof of date, like a mailing envelope, you can't conclude to enough of a certainty that the photo was printed in any specific time period, or how long it was printed for. Of course, you can narrow it down somewhat when it comes to identified items, e.g., if you know that a company made an item and then went down the toilet in a specific year, their products are pretty much capped at that year at the latest. But with an active company trying to make money, not cater to us nerds, anything else is speculation and is very likely wrong because they used their intellectual property as long as it paid. I'll give you a concrete example: the designation of Salutations Exhibit cards as a 1939-1946 issue.

The truth is that some Salutations designs were issued in 1939 but some were issued as late as 1960. ESCO re-used the same art for a decade or more, retiring a design when the player retired. Ted Williams, for example, retired after the 1960 season and his Salutations card (the no #9 showing version) can be found on uncut sheets of Exhibit cards with Rocky Colavito as a Tiger. Colavito was traded from Cleveland to Detroit on April 17, 1960. The Colavito card in the Detroit uni cannot predate the trade, so the Williams card on the same sheet was made after April 17, 1960. The Williams card was reprinted for at least 14 years after the purported end of its print run, which is why it is easy to find a high-grade example. That does not stop sellers from offering the card as a 1939-46 card. They, and many of the public, assume that all Salutations Williams cards were made in the 1939-46 timeframe because some Salutations Williams cards were made between 1939 and 1946 and someone, somewhere, sometime (possibly Woody Scharf when he was doing his first work on the classification of these cards) decided on those dates, the guides picked it up, the TPGs then followed suit, etc. This plagues a lot of what we researchers do. Look at the kerfluffle over the definitive dating of the 1947 Bond Bread Robinson portrait. People with vested interests in that not being his first MLB card (like those with massive $ into the 1949 Leaf) tried their best to ignore facts.

Your Robinson photo is freakin' awesome but from where I sit, there isn't convincing proof of when it was made. And just to prove I have skin in this game, here's my Musial:

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...ize/img172.jpg

I'd love to get a date on it, but I don't have the evidence. I do know that it came out of a collection with a Ruben Gomez in the same format. Gomez pitched for the Giants starting in 1953, so that sets the baseline on when his photo could have been made. The Musial has the same image as the 1947 Bond Bread but no proof it was printed in 1947.

Exhibitman- great way to sum-up the situation with the photos. And yes at the same time - that is what is so frustrating. You and I have photos that match Bond Bread cards that came out in 1947, you would think that the photos came out at the same-time, if not first, but some of the Bond Bread images were on cards circa 1940. How can anyone put a date on the photos?

Yes we can look at the photo paper and maybe put an age base on that, but as you have said it is not an accurate date, it is a best guess situation.

But I ask the question, do collectors find the photos I and you have valuable, just in the photo alone, or do they look for value in what Type the photo is: Type,1,2 or 3. John

Yes. Depends on who you ask. Depends on why they are buying. I happen to collect team issues, publicity photos, etc. I prefer those to regular photos. If I have the choice between a 'Type I' 1958 photo of Jim Brown and his 1958 'Type III' team issue for my PC, same pose, I would prefer to own the latter:

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...am%20issue.JPG

If you include a nice snapshot in the blend, for my PC I would naturally go there because it is the closest thing to a card.

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...ap%20Paige.jpg

If I am trying to make money and the cost to me is equal, I am going for the most valuable. At this point, it is the Type I photo. That may change over time. If the relative values of a team issue and a Type I from the same year of the same player move closer to equal, I may opt for the TI as an investment in the hope that I can buy more of them and they will outperform the Type I over time. If I knew the answer I would be buying, not sharing the information. I haven't a clue, so I just collect what I like and hope it works out. Gabby agrees:

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...20Catalina.jpg

The market will determine the value of your photos. As to the classification, what we are discussing is beyond Types. Someone mentioned earlier, "souvenir," which is very appropriate. This would cover team issue, Jay Publications and the photos with script "autographs."

Photos used for advertising, like the Rawlings 8x10s from 60 years ago....They should simply be classified as "advertising."

There was a Ruth photo, classified as a Type II earlier in this thread. The photo is perfect, that's the only way you can describe it, but its value is diminished, quite unfairly, because of when it was printed. I don't get it.

Once again, the market will eventually shake all of this out.

I answered the question about what type these would be here.

The reason type 4s are worthless is because I can go on the internet right now and print out a photo of any player and it would be a type 4.

Not sure why there is any talk of type anymore at all when it comes to these. If you want to maximize value of them you would need to get PSA to recognize them as a release. Not as original photos.

I would also give my opinion saying they don't have a release year at all. Much more likely a blanket decade release is what they are. I would say they are simply Ca.1940-1950s. Maybe even 1960s.

i think I know where PSA got its system:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/wp...-_h_-_1983.jpg

Now, before I begin the lesson, will those of you who are playing in the match this afternoon move your clothes down onto the lower peg immediately after lunch, before you write your letter home, if you're not getting your hair cut, unless you've got a younger brother who is going out this weekend as the guest of another boy, in which case, collect his note before lunch, put it in your letter after you've had your hair cut, and make sure he moves your clothes down onto the lower peg for you.

I agree "souvenir photos: is the best way to describe the photos. I also understand from all the conversations here, the market will determine the value of the photos. Thanks for all the great conversations, believe it or not I am gaining a lot of knowledge.

Lucas00 is probably right about them being a decade release 1940-1950. All the information I have points out they were not a release year or part of a set. The reason I rule out the 1960s is because they have been in my family since 1968, when they were discovered - they were in photo albums from the 1940s, which look like they were there for 10-15 years already.

As for them bening National Sports photo- there is properly no doubt they are. We see Ted Willams and Johnny Van Der Meer, the two photos are on the cover of the National Sports Photos- catalog. My photos are the exact same photos. And Jackie Robinson's photo is in the same style. All the photos are in the same style, this is the style used by National Sports Photos since the 1940s. Exhibitman: Now that is funny, we need some humor now and then. John.

Type 4 photos can absolutely have value! As I mentioned previously, two Dominican League baseball photos that pictured Josh Gibson sold in Hakes Auctions for $8K+ and $4K+. That’s nothing to sneeze at if you ask me. What you are failing to recognize is that these were identified on the flips as 1950’s and 1960’s productions. A 2025 Type 4 would be worthless, yes. But that’s a difference of 70 years or so.

That's true, but they would have period identifying marks on the front/back, so easily identified as vintage in some way. The Ops are all blank. The vast vast majority of type 4s are 80s or newer money grabs that have no value. And are low quality grainy prints that are white on the back.

It's actually kind of funny, I would say type 4 truly vintage photos are actually far rarer than any other type. Because everybody either had a negative or purchased a type 1 for publication use or used wire photos. The process of copying a photo in the 50s was hard, and the only way I know it was actually done is simply by taking a photo of a print. Which Is why most vintage type 4 photos look so bad.

It is kind of funny that some Type 4 vintage photos are far rarer than any other type. Take the photos I have, if they are type 4, the verdict is still out on that one. They are very-very-rare, you just do not see them around that much. As far as when they came out the photos are circa 1940s-1950s that is a given.

But as most people have said, in this case the Type of photo does not change the fact that they are either 75 years or 85 years old to date. We know they are over 60 years old, because of when they were discovered.

The image of the name on the photos could have been added right from the original negative, this was done as far back circa 1920s. Making them a Type 2. No one can say what process was used, a best guess scenario would be applied, same can be said about when the photo was captured. But they are cool and a mystery, but we are nailing down the facts here.

And had I believed people in the past when Henry Yee, Marshall Fogel (2005) created the Type system…I would have just put them in the trash. The book did bring attention to collecting photos, because it was hard to find any information on cards. But I can tell you people believed I had something very rare before the type system, not so much in value but in historical contact and they believe they were vintage photos. This is probably why I have kept them. John

I would like to add a couple of thoughts on this topic. I enjoy vintage pictures and have bought and sold a couple. Regarding PSA, if you pay the extra amount for a LOA in addition to encapsulation you get a lot more information other than what is contained on the label. With just the label itself you receive very little information.

In the example attached, both of Chief Bender, there are a couple of excellent examples that fit this thread.

The snapshot is, and always should be, a type I example.

The photo is a type II. I attached it along with the letter to show the type of information I receive when I also pay for an LOA.

This helps a lot. But how did PSA identify the photo as a Type 2? It looks like there were markings on the back? I see the photo was a reissued photo from the 1950. Issued in the 1980s made of the original negative. How did they know that it was Type 2? It says- The characteristics of the Image, paper stock, reverse stampings, notations are consistent with those of a Type 2 photo. Is this right? John

“Souvenir Photos”-
 

“Souvenir Photos”- TCMA: Andrew Aronstein -mentioned earlier, it is the best description for the photos I have. I remember hearing that term used on the photos before. But I did not give it much thought, heck there are all souvenir photos. But now thanks to TCMA- I understand it is a classification for photos, commercially sold, not part of a set.

The other day I was going over my notes on the photos I have….and saw a note -“Souvenir Photos”. Let me explain, in 1977 my Dad went to a Baltimore Orioles and New York Yankees baseball game. The broadcast announcers for that game were Rex Barney for Baltimore and Phil Rizzuto for New York. My Dad had their photos with him. He was able to show them the photos, and they both autographed them in ballpoint pen.

They did discuss the photos a little, the best I can understand, they both believed they were “Souvenir Photos” from when they played the game.. My Dad mentioned to Rex Barney that his photo looked like it was from 1946 because of the uniform. His response, it could be. Now I have to ask, does anyone recognize the uniform, and can you say what year it is from? I know it is a Brooklyn Dodgers uniform.

The connection there is proof that souvenir photos like Rex Barnry and Phil Rizzuto were issued in 1947. And we know these souvenir photos were issued by the National Sports photo company. There is a chance that some of the photos I have were taken in the 1940s and issued with the names on them in 1947.

It has been established that the National Sports photo company issued photos like the ones I have - with the names on them, in 1947. Now for the confusing part, even if the photos were taken in 1946 and printed in 1947 with the names on the photos, they could be classified as a Type 1, 2, 3 and even a 4- if I understand how the type system works. You see the confusion: a photo that is over 70 years old- could be a type 4, but a photo from the 1940s made from the original negative a year ago would be a Type 2. John.

Have you purchased the book, I referenced the first post of the thread? It can save you fair amount of time and energy. Very informative and great reference.

Thank you, no I have not purchased the book. I do know about it, I tried a few years back to buy the book, but it was out of print. I went to the Library, but they do not have a copy. I tried to get it on loan from the libraries that had a copy- but they don't loan the book out, apparently it is considered a reference book. The only copies I have seen go for over $300. I will not be getting the book.

I have asked people about the book. It has a lot of good information, but not on the photos I have. Thanks to everybody posting here I have somewhat of a handle on the types of photos. Maybe my post makes it seem like I do not…but I am just trying to have as many conversations about the photos as I can. Thank you for the suggestion. I hope by talking about the photos I am not beating a dead horse; By going over the same thing here. I just find it very interesting to see other peoples thoughts on the subject. John.

Jackie Robinson photo is interesting.
 

From Keyman Collectibles: “A large 19.5" x 29.5" copy of the Jackie Robinson, Berk Ross photograph, with the white signature was salvaged in the 1973 renovation, of Yankee Stadium. It was believed to have hung in the halls of the stadium.”

Does anyone know about this, I know a few years back I saw an auction for this but when I mentioned it to someone (collector) they said it has nothing to with the photo because it was a sign? I had forgotten about that. I do not know if it could bring any clarity to the photo, if we had more information on the sign. But it does make the photo more interesting. John

I have toured the new Yankee stadium and know they have a tremendous amount of photograph throughout the tour of major events. I suspect some of originals and some are copies, but certainly a great tour that they use to tell the story.

(Also a shout out to the museum in the stadium which houses a fantastic assortment of on loan memorabilia. Some of which you can hold (with gloves) like a Ruth bat).

Another interesting photo.
 

Here is another interesting photo in my collection, Bobby Doerr. Notice the spelling on the photo, Bobbie Doerr. It is exactly the same image on the 1947 Homogenized Bond Bread card, D305.

But you never hear anyone talk about the name being wrong. In most collecting situations a mistake adds more value, one of a kind. But most people in this case have the opinion that it does not add any value. OK, but it does make the photo and card more interesting. And to me it is proof that the photo with the name on it came out circa 1947 the same time as the card and could have been made from the original negative. John.

A complete checklist would not be an obstacle in getting PSA to identify it as a a "card" issue. You are correct, however, that the issue would need to be cataloged or have a detailed description of the National Sports Photos' characteristics.