Difference between Type 1 and Type 2 Press Photos...

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Neal

Are enhancements to photos viewed differently than enhancements to baseball cards? I imagine that trimming the border around the image and cleaning some smudge marks is acceptable

Comparing the two, the second is certainly a sharper, cleaner copy with better lines

Completed on eBay
https://www.ebay.com/itm/17625163860...mis&media=COPY

The current slab

https://rmyauctions.com/bids/bidplace?itemid=70144



Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

PSA/DNA does not grade photos, they are merely authenticating whether they are Type 1-4, essentially, which speaks only to the photo's generation. I don't think they take into consideration restoration or what in cards would be deemed altering, in their final assessment.

That said the seller's id sounds familiar for some reason. The eBay listing was ended by the seller (not the same as completed, which implies a sale) on 2/29 just in time for him to clean it up, get it authenticated again and get it to the auction house.

[jethrod3]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

PSA/DNA does not grade photos, they are merely authenticating whether they are Type 1-4, essentially, which speaks only to the photo's generation. I don't think they take into consideration restoration or what in cards would be deemed altering, in their final assessment.

What I was told by a couple of major auction houses now makes sense after reading what Lorewalker mentioned. Basically, at the National last year, I brought a photo to show to some of the major sports auction houses, so I could get a feel for the value of that photo. It had an uneven cut to the top of the photo but it was agreed that it was likely a Type I photo and that I should submit it and get it slabbed. It was a photo that had been used for a 1950 Bowman football card. Both of the auction house reps I visited with told me to trim the top so it looks better, before getting it slabbed, as it would also likely not affect the price I might get for it. That make sense now since there is no grading option and only just authentication that is offered.

[Bicem]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

PSA/DNA does not grade photos, they are merely authenticating whether they are Type 1-4, essentially, which speaks only to the photo's generation. I don't think they take into consideration restoration or what in cards would be deemed altering, in their final assessment.

That said the seller's id sounds familiar for some reason. The eBay listing was ended by the seller (not the same as completed, which implies a sale) on 2/29 just in time for him to clean it up, get it authenticated again and get it to the auction house.

I think they are starting to refuse photos that have been restored (not counting trimming since press photos are often cut down from their original size at time of publication).

I just had a photo that was rejected due to chemicals being used to remove a secretarial signature from the front (I bought it after the restoration). It had been previously graded a type one with the signature.

[Schlesinj]

Originally Posted by Bicem

I think they are starting to refuse photos that have been restored (not counting trimming since press photos are often cut down from their original size at time of publication).

I just had a photo that was rejected due to chemicals being used to remove a secretarial signature from the front (I bought it after the restoration). It had been previously graded a type one with the signature.

That is interesting, I bought a photo recently and it had a distinct stamp of the original owner (I happen to own 4 others from the same collection). The photo did not have a PSA/DNA LOA, but the auction mentioned it had been previously authenticated. It was clearly a Type 1, so I had no issue with buying it.

After I received the photo, I was going to try and get a replacement LOA (it was not slabbed) and while doing some research I found the original photo from an older auction (same personal stamp location) and the photo was trimmed since it had been originally authenticated. I then looked up the authentication number and it was deactivated. I now wonder if it had been cleaned and trimmed and got rejected to get a new LOA. Maybe they have some new standards?

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Bicem

I think they are starting to refuse photos that have been restored (not counting trimming since press photos are often cut down from their original size at time of publication).

I just had a photo that was rejected due to chemicals being used to remove a secretarial signature from the front (I bought it after the restoration). It had been previously graded a type one with the signature.

Great info and thank you for sharing. It made me go back to look at the website and read the submission form. Does not have any language about agreeing to not submit restored photos. It does make sense that in spite of their not assigning a grade the photo should be assessed for more than generation but also originality. To me trimming a photo is nothing like trimming a card but removing stuff would fall into the category of an alteration.

[Bicem]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Great info and thank you for sharing. It made me go back to look at the website and read the submission form. Does not have any language about agreeing to not submit restored photos. It does make sense that in spite of their not assigning a grade the photo should be assessed for more than generation but also originality. To me trimming a photo is nothing like trimming a card but removing stuff would fall into the category of an alteration.

Agreed. Was actually happy to see the result.

[jad22]

I would not consider removing a sharpie auto as an alteration but might feel differently about other types of ink.