[Johnphotoman]

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