STAMP of approval for jsa, psa? what's going on?

[packs]

The original auction description doesn't mention any creases either. They say the photo is in EX condition with some crazing and light toning. It is possible that the eBay seller also doesn't consider crazing to be a crease and his description would be in line with the original auction's.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by packs

The original auction description doesn't mention any creases either. They say the photo is in EX condition with some crazing and light toning. It is possible that the eBay seller also doesn't consider crazing to be a crease and his description would be in line with the original auction's.

when the seller says point blank -no restoration or creases in great shape, does the damage shown in the american memorabilia photo look like great shape to you with no creases. yeah, right.

you cant turn a rounded corner into a sharp one without restoration and he said no restoration.

i never said i knew which company made a mistake, but those aren't the same photos without restoration. that's why i ask what is up with this? If i knew I wouldn't ask that question.

[travrosty]

besides the obvious creasing on one and the seller saying there are no creases on the other, here is the biggest reason i believe they are different physical photos.

one razor sharp corner, one obviously ragged and rounded. make up your own mind.

i never declared one fake and one not or both fake, but gave my opinion i believe at least one to be a copy since the evidence appears that they are two different physical photos. i don't have the photos in my hands but it looks obvious to me.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by travrosty

besides the obvious creasing on one and the seller saying there are no creases on the other, here is the biggest reason i believe they are different physical photos.

one razor sharp corner, one obviously ragged and rounded. make up your own mind.

i never declared one fake and one not or both fake, but gave my opinion i believe at least one to be a copy since the evidence appears that they are two different physical photos. i don't have the photos in my hands but it looks obvious to me.

Sorry, they are identical photos. The corner you show is curled not rounded. Note the small defect to the left of the corner. Similar comparisons can be made to the other corners. It appears to have restoration, but *I* believe it is a difference in presentation (photo vs. scan). The fact that the seller is telling you that it is perfect should have no bearing on the issue. The AM auction description states "This glossy B&W press photo is solid EX with toning to borders and light crazing." That's it.

[steve B]

That's how it looks to me too. Not a "razor sharp" corner, but a worn corner made to appear better by a lack of contrast and very tight cropping. Almost to the point of cropping off a tiny bit of wear.

"Excellent condition" can be interpreted differently by different people. And traditionally has been. It's worn and VG when buying but excellent when selling. Even with standards there's a bit of interpretation. Which is why on the card side we now have TPG and also why we have arguments about TPG.

Of course, I could be wrong, and either could be completely fake. The overlooked thing is that if someone can and will fake a photo and signature, well, they'd obviously stop at the next step of faking a cert.
Or would hesitate before claiming something was in excellent condition to make an Ebay sale

Steve B

[D. Bergin]

They are the same piece.

Laying a photo flat in a scanner will do wonders to a photos appearance compared to taking an image of it with a 2004 or older, middle of the road digital camera.

Scanning software also has a way of washing out whites and off-whites in photos, hiding crazing, light creases and those cracks in the emulsion that tends to show up in the borders of glossy press photos.

Top right corner definitely looks flattened out in the Ebay version.

I'm convinced most people have no idea what NM even means.

Probably closer to VG on a good day.

[travrosty]

here is a photo from the net, it is described as soiled, neglected, etc. and it is obvious the corners are rounded.

theres no difference between the top right corner on this one and on the american memorabilia marciano.


if it is a sharp corner rolled up then the one below is too. if people think it must be a rolled corner because they see other things and the rolled corner theory helps bolster it that's okay, i disagree and peoples opinions are welcome. But there isnt a dime's worth of difference between this photo's upper right corner and marciano and to know it's rolled on one and to admit its rounded on this one takes a distinction that isn't supported by what we see visually and that's all we have to go on.