Need advice on authenticating photos

[RelicSports]

I recently made a purchase of what I believe to be 2 older/vintage photos. I am thinking the best thing to do is to send them in to PSA to get authenticated (determine if they are type 1's or not). I eventually plan on selling at least one of them, but am not 100%. Do you think it makes sense to "encapsulate" them via PSA, or to just get a LOA? Does PSA offer a simple LOA, or must they be encapsulated once authenticated? Any thoughts/advice are greatly appreciated, thank you!

[billyb]

Drew,
The value is what may warrant an encapsulation. If you are going to sell, then a PSA authentication would not hurt, but it is not need. Most photo collection guys can judge the type just by looking at the photo. I suggest you get a copy of "A portrait of Baseball Photography", by Marshall Fogel, Khyber Oser and Henry Yee.
It will help you to determine your different types of photos, and aid you in future purchases.

In the meantime, here is a description of the different types.

Type 1 - First Generation photo, is developed from the original negative (during the period) or within two years of when the picture was taken.

Type 2- Is a First generation photo, developed from the original negative (during a later period), more than two years when the picture was taken.

Type 3- A second generation photo, developed from either a "duplicate negative" or a "wire transmission" with two years of when the picture was taken.
A "duplicate negative" is produced when someone takes a photo of an existing photograph, which creates a second negative that is a lesser quality of the original.

Type 4- A second generation (of third, or fourth generations) photo developed from a "duplicate negative" or a "wire transmission", more then two years of when the picture was taken.

[RelicSports]

Thank you Bill! So based on what you said, do you think something that is high value warrants encapsulation?

[stlcardinalsfan]

PSA no longer encapsulates photos. I believe the company's they were buying the plastic/ holder went out of business. They will give you the option of placing a sticker on the back of the photo or on the certification. If the photos have stamping on the back it is pretty easy to determine their type. Feel free to post front and back and members will be able to determine.

[bgar3]

I do not see the need to get anything done. I would not pay to submit a photo, nor would I pay more because one had been submitted.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Bearfan4

Thank you Bill! So based on what you said, do you think something that is high value warrants encapsulation?

It all depends on the photo. Post front and back high res scan and there is a pretty good chance a type can be determined if there are definitive stamps. If it is an iconic"/"important photo" a Psa letter would definitely benefit In a major auction setting.
If you sell privately to a knowledgable collector or one who doesn't care, then obviously it wouldn't matter.
There is no doubt though(despite what Loa haters say), if it is a "blue chip" photo(type 1) A Psa letter would definitely benefit it in a major auction setting.

It is all about what the photo is really.

[ibuysportsephemera]

Remember that there is no price guide for photos. I have Babe Ruth type 1 photos in my collection but they are not iconic and they would be considered common and therefore not that valuable. I have found that many vintage photos are truly "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". I watch sales results for photos and there are times that I cannot figure out why a photo was considered valuable or not valuable.

There are many knowledgeable members here...if you post the photos, I can guarantee you that you will get a lot of help.

Good luck.

Jeff

[RelicSports]

Thank you for everyone's feedback, I greatly appreciate it! The two photos in question are of Rube Foster and the 1936 East-West team photo. I haven't seen the back of the 1936 East West photo, but it looks like both items were previously consigned the Heritage Auctions 6 or so years ago.

Once I have the 1936 photo in hand, I will take a photo of the back and upload

Thank you!

[prewarsports]

I am almost certain the Foster is no good. Not sure on the other one would have to see it. No photographer would ever emboss a photo they were going to glue on a cabinet, they had embossed cabinets (plus it looks like the embossing is in the photo and not actually raised). Thin photo paper required a cabinet backing, embossing was for thick photo paper. You would rarely find that combination together, plus it looks modern and glued to an older mount with pencil inscription on the back done in older handwriting style to deceive. I would never give an absolute without holding it in person, but I would find this item to be very likely a modern creation.

Rhys

[thecatspajamas]

Both photos were indeed sold through Heritage previously, and have larger scans hosted on their site:

http://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball/ci...umbnail-071515

http://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball/19...umbnail-071515

To my eye, in looking at the larger scan of the Foster photo and per Heritage's description, the central photo is embossed. Mostly I'm just posting to point to the previous sales. I have no comment either way regarding mounting practices, but would not discount Rhys's opinion, as he has handled many many more mounted photos over the years than I have.

[RelicSports]

Thanks Rhys and Lance! I should have the photos in hand next week and will be better able to tell if the Foster is embossed or not. I have seen several other similar Foster photos that Bedou embossed, (I guess he was a big time Afro-American photographer who did a lot of photographs of Booker T. Washington, etc.) but unsure if this is a copy or not.

I suppose it makes even more sense now to send these in to PSA regardless to get an answer once and for all. The authentication prices seem rather reasonable.