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

[Johnphotoman]

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.

[Schlesinj]

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.

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by Johnphotoman

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.

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.

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by Johnphotoman

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.

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




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Johnphotoman]

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.

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by Johnphotoman

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.

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

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by TCMA

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.

Fantastic collection!

[Lucas00]

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.

[Johnphotoman]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

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

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

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.

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

[TCMA]

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

[Johnphotoman]

Originally Posted by TCMA

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

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

[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

[bcbgcbrcb]

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.

[Johnphotoman]

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.

[Lucas00]

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.

[Lucas00]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

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.

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.

[Exhibitman]

i think I know where PSA got its system:



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.

[Johnphotoman]

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.

[bcbgcbrcb]

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.

[Lucas00]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

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.

[Schlesinj]

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.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Johnphotoman]

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

[Exhibitman]

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:

[Johnphotoman]

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

[Schlesinj]

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






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Exhibitman]

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.

[Johnphotoman]

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

[bcbgcbrcb]

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.

[Johnphotoman]

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