PSA/DNA Babe Ruth Original Photo Authentication

[filmmaker]

I recently found and purchased an original Babe Ruth Photograph from an old Sports Memorabilia Estate. I submitted the photo to PSA for Original Photograph Authentication and Encapsulation.

I logged into my account and saw "Inconclusive/Unable to Render Opinion"

Ultimately, I am looking to get this photo Authenticated.

Inconclusive/Unable to Render Opinion tells me they are afraid to Authenticate it. Otherwise it would Fail Authentication.

What are your thoughts?

What are my options in getting the photo slabbed?

Thanks for all who chime in.

[ullmandds]

Can we see said image?

[Snapolit1]

Is there some kind of cardboard back affixed to it?

[filmmaker]

Here are photos I just took for your review

[filmmaker]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Is there some kind of cardboard back affixed to it?

Nothing attached. I uploaded photos for your review

[filmmaker]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

Can we see said image?

Just uploaded photos for your review. Thank you

[ullmandds]

Does not appear to be a type one photo to me.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

Does not appear to be a type one photo to me.

Great image, but not even close.

[griffon512]

likely type IV. modern print during or after the 80's. not worth the cost of encapsulation.

[Lucas00]

If I went to my computer and printed out a high resolution Babe Ruth photo right now PSA would give me the same treatment. Even if it's a type 4 they probably need some sort of Indication it was from an actual photographic process and not a 2 second print job. Otherwise people would be selling Ruth type 4s in a Red Sox uniform all day long.
A good example, many 80s type 4s have Kodak branding. So we know they were "professionally developed".

Does Right clicking an image and selecting print count as a duplicate negative? No.

[conor912]

Just my guess, but given the angle, I’d say it was taken from the press box which is 200 ft from home plate. This image would have required a zoom lens that, to my knowledge, wasn’t in wide use yet at the time. This is almost certainly a zoom-in from a wider shot printed decades later.. The paper looks no older that the 70’s, if that.

FWIW, looks like a fly ball to left, vs. Detroit, early 30’s.

[Joe Hunter]

Just doesn't have any of the characteristics of a vintage photo; white borders, white back-just screams relatively recent. Hope you didn't pay too much.

[filmmaker]

It came from a collection that was 1950's-1970's. There was nothing newer than late 70's. The photo just has the old aged smell that is hard to replicate.
My initial hunch was its from the same time period the entire collection was (1950's-1970's) I'd be happy with a TYPE IV Designation but a little irritated they couldn't render an opinion. Took my $79.00 too.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by filmmaker

It came from a collection that was 1950's-1970's. There was nothing newer than late 70's. The photo just has the old aged smell that is hard to replicate.
My initial hunch was its from the same time period the entire collection was (1950's-1970's) I'd be happy with a TYPE IV Designation but a little irritated they couldn't render an opinion. Took my $79.00 too.

I know nothing about photos. I can guarantee adding that old smell is extremely easy.

[rand1com]

Originally Posted by filmmaker

It came from a collection that was 1950's-1970's. There was nothing newer than late 70's. The photo just has the old aged smell that is hard to replicate.
My initial hunch was its from the same time period the entire collection was (1950's-1970's) I'd be happy with a TYPE IV Designation but a little irritated they couldn't render an opinion. Took my $79.00 too.

They refund the fee if unable to render an opinion so you should get the fee back.

[EddieP]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

If I went to my computer and printed out a high resolution Babe Ruth photo right now PSA would give me the same treatment. Even if it's a type 4 they probably need some sort of Indication it was from an actual photographic process and not a 2 second print job. Otherwise people would be selling Ruth type 4s in a Red Sox uniform all day long.
A good example, many 80s type 4s have Kodak branding. So we know they were "professionally developed".

Does Right clicking an image and selecting print count as a duplicate negative? No.

I didn’t think about this. This is a really good point.PSA probably thinks this is a modern day print on old photopaper. Scams are now infiltrating the photo collecting.

[Swadewade51]

You conveniently left out on your ebay listing you sent it to PSA and what you recieved back from them

https://www.ebay.com/itm/13496774239...mis&media=COPY

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[filmmaker]

That was a different photo. The one I submitted to PSA has not arrived in the mail yet. It’s funny how you twist things with an honest person. I could have thrown it on eBay without writing a thread. Maybe you were searching for the exact Babe Ruth Image with Google search and you found it on eBay. Nobody has chimed in on finding the image anywhere online.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by filmmaker

That was a different photo. The one I submitted to PSA has not arrived in the mail yet. It’s funny how you twist things with an honest person. I could have thrown it on eBay without writing a thread. Maybe you were searching for the exact Babe Ruth Image with Google search and you found it on eBay. Nobody has chimed in on finding the image anywhere online.

Isn't that the same exact pic you posted on here? Or do you have multiples of the same picture?

I highly doubt many or even anyone is actually looking for your photo for you.

[Swadewade51]

Originally Posted by filmmaker

That was a different photo. The one I submitted to PSA has not arrived in the mail yet. It’s funny how you twist things with an honest person. I could have thrown it on eBay without writing a thread. Maybe you were searching for the exact Babe Ruth Image with Google search and you found it on eBay. Nobody has chimed in on finding the image anywhere online.

It's literally the same image you posted in this thread when asked about the photo that did not get authenticated by PSA. Seems you are the one twisting things.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Swadewade51

It's literally the same image you posted in this thread when asked about the photo that did not get authenticated by PSA. Seems you are the one twisting things.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Benjamin,

Yesterday at 5:42 am you said :

Originally Posted by filmmaker

Here are photos I just took for your review

Then less than 12 hours later, at 5:38 pm you said :

Originally Posted by filmmaker

That was a different photo. The one I submitted to PSA has not arrived in the mail yet. It’s funny how you twist things with an honest person. I could have thrown it on eBay without writing a thread. Maybe you were searching for the exact Babe Ruth Image with Google search and you found it on eBay. Nobody has chimed in on finding the image anywhere online.

But as Swade correctly points out the photo that you "just took" is the same as the one you say is a different photo.

It's ok for you to put stuff on ebay for any price you choose, it's ok for you to lean into your status of "not an expert by any means" in the listing. It's also ok for you to call it a 1939 photo while simultaneously acknowledging that it's not. And, it's ok to not accept returns.

What's not ok is for you to come on here and ask a simple question, that seems to me to have a pretty simple answer, and then try to twist yourself into a pretzel while explaining to us that you already know the answer, and the people responding to you don't.

You know it's a crap photo when everybody's favorite opinion seller won't give you an opinion on it.

Hopefully Mr. Barnum you find a sucker for your ebay listing to take care of that submission fee.

But I'm also not an expert,
Doug

[EddieP]

Now I’ve seen everything. Someone wanting to pass off something as a Type IV photo. This is an official all-time low.

[filmmaker]

Doug,

The photo that "I just took" was a photo here in my physical possession. The same photo that is uploaded to eBay.

The eBay listing was an existing Babe Ruth Photo Template. It's not 1939. Im guessing eBay kept all item specs as a default. Not sure why. I didn't type anything in. Just hit "sell similar"

I only asked for help and opinions, however, it seems like this old group has too much time on their hands. If thats the case, go find this exact image of Babe Ruth online. You can't.

I didn't produce this image. I clearly purchased contents from an estate.

Side note: I dont know it's a crap photo. That why I posted it on here.
If it WERE a Crap Photo, PSA would have said it were NO GOOD (aka crap photo) PSA took my money but they gave me a credit voucher. So that clearly tells me it's inconclusive by the EXPERTS on what exactly it is.

Hopefully Emmett Kelly entertained everyone here. I had to find an old clown that everyone in this group remembers.

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

Benjamin,

Yesterday at 5:42 am you said :


Then less than 12 hours later, at 5:38 pm you said :


But as Swade correctly points out the photo that you "just took" is the same as the one you say is a different photo.

It's ok for you to put stuff on ebay for any price you choose, it's ok for you to lean into your status of "not an expert by any means" in the listing. It's also ok for you to call it a 1939 photo while simultaneously acknowledging that it's not. And, it's ok to not accept returns.

What's not ok is for you to come on here and ask a simple question, that seems to me to have a pretty simple answer, and then try to twist yourself into a pretzel while explaining to us that you already know the answer, and the people responding to you don't.

You know it's a crap photo when everybody's favorite opinion seller won't give you an opinion on it.

Hopefully Mr. Barnum you find a sucker for your ebay listing to take care of that submission fee.

But I'm also not an expert,
Doug