The PSA Type System: Should it follow the photography market?

[Jersey City Giants]

Guys I really appreciate the great back and forth. My next question is if PSA does not know what year something was produced do they just return the photo or just slap on a Type 2 rating? I have never submitted a photo (I own one but bought it graded) but am curious.

[drcy]

I believe they will a photo return ungraded if they can't formed an opinion, such as with some blank back photos.

[joshleland]

PSA "authentication" of photography is a beginning, not an end. It should not be a wall, but a step to take us to the next level. The "Type" system as simplistic and damning as it is has caused some great benefit. It has opened the gates for new collectors (and old) to enter with a certain level of comfort and the result has been increased interest, increased prices at the high end, a flood gate of new material coming in for us to ooh, ahh and bitch about and an increased sophistication to build on. And this convo is perfect for that build.

Its just like cards. The new era goes beyond the slabs. "Interpretation of the slab" which is in its infancy. "Buy the card not the slab" is a credo of increasing velocity. How ironic it would be where the hobby is in reverse and the slab is relevant? Essentially, we go to slabbed raw.

I know it hurts. When you have an image you know is great, really great, and it is weighed down by this (figurative) slab, and when you know more than the slabs or its slabber (?). But in the short term, you live by the slab, and you die by the slab. In some you have benefited (hopefully) and some you have lost (unfortunately and in your mind unfairly).

But have faith. Ultimately, the truth rises to the top. Hopefully in our lifetimes.

[Exhibitman]

I collect and deal in boxer self-issued promo photos. One of the biggest frustrations for me with the PSA system is that these are usually treated as Type III under the PSA roof even though they are more desirable than a basic (Type I) photo of the boxer from some news service. This is the sort of photo i am talking about:



The other underserved type of photo are the head to head or composites made to promote specific fights:

Dempsey-Tunney II:



An example of the "tale of the tape" style that is still used today:



This came out of the press kit for the Thrilla in Manila:



None of them are 'type I' because all of them are composites, yet they are the best available items for these fights.

While I appreciate that the people who blindly follow PSA will undervalue photos like this, it is annoying as hell for the reasons everyone else mentions.

[sphere and ash]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I collect and deal in boxer self-issued promo photos. One of the biggest frustrations for me with the PSA system is that these are usually treated as Type III under the PSA roof even though they are more desirable than a basic (Type I) photo of the boxer from some news service. This is the sort of photo i am talking about:



The other underserved type of photo are the head to head or composites made to promote specific fights:

Dempsey-Tunney II:



An example of the "tale of the tape" style that is still used today:



This came out of the press kit for the Thrilla in Manila:



None of them are 'type I' because all of them are composites, yet they are the best available items for these fights.

While I appreciate that the people who blindly follow PSA will undervalue photos like this, it is annoying as hell for the reasons everyone else mentions.

I don’t understand enough about how the self-issued promo photo is made to know why it isn’t a vintage print. Can you explain the arguments for and against?

I wouldn’t have any trouble accepting the composites as vintage, but I understand the other side of the argument.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by sphere and ash

I don’t understand enough about how the self-issued promo photo is made to know why it isn’t a vintage print. Can you explain the arguments for and against?

I wouldn’t have any trouble accepting the composites as vintage, but I understand the other side of the argument.

From PSA:

Type I – A 1st generation photograph, developed from the original negative, during the period (within approximately two years of when the picture was taken).

Type II – A photograph, developed from the original negative, during the period (more than approximately two years after the picture was taken).

Type III – A 2nd generation photograph, developed from a duplicate negative or wire transmission, during the period (within approximately two years of when the picture was taken).

Type IV – A 2nd generation photograph (or 3rd or later generation), developed from a duplicate negative or wire transmission, during a later period (more than approximately two years after the picture was taken).


The "original negative" is the issue. Composite images are the pre-digital photo-shop. They are made from pieces of other images, or the original image with graphics added, that are put together and made into one image. The Dempsey-Tunney, for example, has a photo of Soldier Field with cameos of Dempsey, Tunney and Rickard added to it. Then the composite is reshot as a single image and printed. PSA will label it a Type III and kill the value for those who use the slab as a shorthand for everything else. Yet it is a contemporaneously issued photo promoting a very significant contest, the famous "Long Count" fight where Tunney got 14 seconds to recover because Dempsey violated the newly enacted neutral corner rule after knocking Gene on his ass.

The other thing that I am not sure has been explained well enough is that PSA doesn't really deal with the fact that in mass produced commercial photography, as opposed to fine art, virtually nothing we would handle is printed from the true original negative. Negatives wear out. They get damaged. This is especially true of glass negatives. Standard practice was for the photographer to safeguard the original negative and then create duplicate negatives for working uses: repeated printings, sending to news outlets and wire services, etc. When I picked a giant archive of Hollywood materials decades ago I learned all this firsthand when I found multiple negatives and transparencies in the files. I thought I had original negatives. I didn't. The originals were sent out for duplication and then returned to storage with the owner or photographer and the duplicates were actually used to create the prints that we all collect. So this whole "from the original negative" stuff is just a guess.

[drcy]

Collages and photos with before and after images (Current Babe Ruth next to a child Babe Ruth) are interesting examples.

Vintage is strictly about age. Original is vintage, but also has to be made from the original negative and by the photographer or official entity (ala magazine).

Also, in photography, vintage doesn't mean just 'old' (ala anything from before 1970) but from the time the image was shot. It's akin to a 'vintage 1976 wine.'

[SAllen2556]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

The other thing that I am not sure has been explained well enough is that PSA doesn't really deal with the fact that in mass produced commercial photography, as opposed to fine art, virtually nothing we would handle is printed from the true original negative. Negatives wear out. They get damaged. This is especially true of glass negatives. Standard practice was for the photographer to safeguard the original negative and then create duplicate negatives for working uses: repeated printings, sending to news outlets and wire services, etc. When I picked a giant archive of Hollywood materials decades ago I learned all this firsthand when I found multiple negatives and transparencies in the files. I thought I had original negatives. I didn't. The originals were sent out for duplication and then returned to storage with the owner or photographer and the duplicates were actually used to create the prints that we all collect. So this whole "from the original negative" stuff is just a guess.

Pardon me, but I'm curious about this. When do you suppose these original hollywood negatives were sent out for duplication? And do you have any clue how this was done?

The reason I ask is because I did not think, at least with newspapers, that copies of negatives were ever created. Polaroid created a copy camera that would create a 4 x 5 negative from a photo, but I never heard of copying a negative from a negative.

[sphere and ash]

Originally Posted by joshleland

But have faith. Ultimately, the truth rises to the top. Hopefully in our lifetimes.

Either you believe, as I do, that the plain language “vintage print” is better than “Type 1,“ or you don’t. And either you believe that the definition “one made roughly the same time as the negative by the photographer himself or by a person or procedure satisfactory to the photographer” is better than “one made within two years of the date of the negative” or you don’t. What do you believe?

This is a change PSA could make in a day. Why talk about lifetimes?

[joshleland]

Originally Posted by sphere and ash

Either you believe, as I do, that the plain language “vintage print” is better than “Type 1,“ or you don’t. And either you believe that the definition “one made roughly the same time as the negative by the photographer himself or by a person or procedure satisfactory to the photographer” is better than “one made within two years of the date of the negative” or you don’t. What do you believe?

This is a change PSA could make in a day. Why talk about lifetimes?

What do I believe Paul Reifers*n? I believe that the Wilcy Moore 1927 Yankee Road Jersey from the Halper Trunk Find that you sold me at the National about 25 years for $8,000 was a wonderful piece.

As for my beliefs on photography authentication, I will answer sometime after my auction which closes tomorrow night.

[Jersey City Giants]

Originally Posted by joshleland

PSA "authentication" of photography is a beginning, not an end. It should not be a wall, but a step to take us to the next level. The "Type" system as simplistic and damning as it is has caused some great benefit. It has opened the gates for new collectors (and old) to enter with a certain level of comfort and the result has been increased interest, increased prices at the high end, a flood gate of new material coming in for us to ooh, ahh and bitch about and an increased sophistication to build on. And this convo is perfect for that build.

Its just like cards. The new era goes beyond the slabs. "Interpretation of the slab" which is in its infancy. "Buy the card not the slab" is a credo of increasing velocity. How ironic it would be where the hobby is in reverse and the slab is relevant? Essentially, we go to slabbed raw.

I know it hurts. When you have an image you know is great, really great, and it is weighed down by this (figurative) slab, and when you know more than the slabs or its slabber (?). But in the short term, you live by the slab, and you die by the slab. In some you have benefited (hopefully) and some you have lost (unfortunately and in your mind unfairly).

But have faith. Ultimately, the truth rises to the top. Hopefully in our lifetimes.

I have yet to send a single photo in to slab but did purchase one slabbed. I will not be sending in my photo I linked as I think at best they would send it back as unknown at worst a Type II (I think the accurate way to describe it is a period print done by the photographer himself). I am just trying to educate myself on photos and as you can see had many questions. Again, I appreciate everyone's input here.

Happy Collecting,
Jason