REA's 1910 Cobb Sliding Photo LET THE BUYER BEWARE

[drcy]

I just looked at the PSA label, and the date says "c. 1910s." I'd refer to that rather than the type number they give. There is an obvious conflict between that dating and the type number next to it. PSA/DNA's type and "original" definition says "within approximately two years of when the picture was taken," while the dating on the label doesn't even pinpoint the photo to an exact decade.

1930s-40s George Burke photos are the same deal. You know the era they were made by the back stamp (Burke changed stamp and studio address), but usually don't know what year they were made (1930 versus 1933, 1935 versus 1941). I call those Burke photos "vintage."

These photos shouldn't be assigned a type number because they don't know exactly when they were made.

As I said, there's nothing errant without not knowing details about a photo. With most baseball tintypes, the identities of the players and even teams and state are usually not known, and you very rarely know the exact year. You give an opinion about the decade due to the photo's physicality, uniforms, photo studio backdrop, etc.-- and you usually can be certain that the tintype or cabinet card is from the 1860s versus the 1880s. On the other hand, many news photos have the printing date stamped or tagged right on the photo, so they can often be dated to the day. Most news photos were made for specific news events, so can be reliably dated to the year without a date stamp or dated tag due to that circumstance. Same with many Hollywood movie photos. There are many other photos with other supporting physical evidence that you can logically and very reasonably assume (and label) the photo was made the year it was shot: a snapshot, family picnic real photo postcard, a high school senior portrait, most of the photos in a family photo album. This explains why a photo expert can confidentally call a photo original without knowing the year it was shot and printed. Though that's not the case with many of the Burke and the Cobb photos, as we know the images were put out by the photographers over a relatively large timespan.

I don't think it's logically and honestly arguable that a PSA/DNA type number can be given to the Conlon photo. Your label or description of an item can't be more specific than your knowledge. That's authentication and identification 101.

[D. Bergin]

Everything Mr. Rudd has said in this thread is spot on. I don't need to really add anything else.

I'll wager that if Henry Yee and PSA could go back in time, they would re-think that whole TypeI I two year window, and make the definition more open ended, and perhaps even a little more vague.

[Robbie]

About 12 years ago or so, I developed my own proprietary system to identify, categorize, and evaluate photographs.

I will not go into all the details, but when it came to coordinating photos into date categories (the “when” a print was made), I had to implement some assumptions, like all others do who evaluate photos.

I do this by designating photos into “Printing Eras,” and I do that with the following designations and descriptions;


Printing Era:

“IP” (for “Initial Print”): These are prints that which upon thorough examination of the photograph, and research of its provenance, renders an expert opinion that the print was developed and/or published within 6 Months of when the photograph was originally taken. This category includes things like the original artwork used for contemporaneous publication, and vintage contact prints stored in the original magazine’s file, etc…

I created this category because there are photos that can be determined with high confidence to be produced for use or distribution at that time and/or are “THE” Original Art for some publication or use. These photos are rare, sometimes unique, and desirable, and deserve a designation that nobody else is currently giving them. This would benefit less experienced collectors as well as bring out the true value.

Meanwhile, I believe the market has determined that “Initial Prints” are the most valuable and sought after photographs relative to other vintage and non-vintage prints.

“FPE” (for “First Printing Era”): These are prints developed within 10 Years of photographs originally taken prior to 1920, and within 5 Years of photographs taken in 1920 or later. All IP’s are FPE’s, but not all FPE’s are IP’s.

“SPE” (for “Second Printing Era”): These are prints developed beyond the First Printing Era but within 20 Years of when the photograph was taken.

“LP” (for “Later Printing”): These are prints developed more than 20 Years after the photograph was taken.

“NV” (for “Not Vintage”): Like “Later Prints,” these are prints developed more than 20 Years after the photograph was taken, but are so recent as to have no current market value beyond display.

This is just my system for dating.


Without having actually observed in person the Conlon Photo under discussion, but taking into account what the experts are saying here, along with the very highly respected opinion of Henry Yee, I would refer to the photo as:

Original Negative | First Printing Era or ON | FPE

Simple as that.

Robert Slatkin