PSA photo authentication - a suggestion

[thecatspajamas]

Scott,
I understand where you're coming from, but I think those kinds of notes regarding condition, marks, removal of marks, etc should be stated by the seller, not the authenticator (for the reasons David mentioned above).

I also think that whoever removed those crop marks should have either finished the job or left well enough alone. (I'm saying that under the assumption that the white marks that are left are white paint that was around whatever marks or framing was removed). As it is now, if the new owner decides to go ahead and complete the "clean-up" job, the photo will no longer match the image on the LOA

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Scott,
I understand where you're coming from, but I think those kinds of notes regarding condition, marks, removal of marks, etc should be stated by the seller, not the authenticator (for the reasons David mentioned above).

I also think that whoever removed those crop marks should have either finished the job or left well enough alone. (I'm saying that under the assumption that the white marks that are left are white paint that was around whatever marks or framing was removed). As it is now, if the new owner decides to go ahead and complete the "clean-up" job, the photo will no longer match the image on the LOA

I was hoping someone would take the bait, but Lance -not you

The buyers of slabbed photos do so for what PSA/DNA is telling them. A lot of the rest of it is hidden under the plastic. Many sellers rely on the PSA/DNA slab to 'say it all' - it basically relieves them of the responsibility that you have described. Right here on the forum we see new collectors asking questions about slabs as if that's the main thing they need to understand, while others show little or zero knowledge about simple things like Kodak watermarks on the back of the photos. Too much focus on what PSA/DNA is going to do with the photo.

PDA/DNA is effectively disguising photos as soon as they put them in an official slab with their designation in a nice little slip...like cards. In fact, I bet many collectors buy them this way because it allows them to be collected the same way you would a slabbed card, and because the slabs with their identical PSA/DNA inserts, add uniformity to an otherwise very creative-looking collection (insert my oft-used disclaimer here).

But, it's a system that is working for those who use it, much like autograph authentication and slabbing of cards, so it's really up to those collectors to speak up if they have concerns, and they don't seem to. So all I'm doing here is discussing, because the subject is interesting and involves my hobby. Hope I haven't offended anyone, and I realize that my thoughts in this area will have no impact whatsoever, nor should they.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I was hoping someone would take the bait, but Lance -not you

The buyers of slabbed photos do so for what PSA/DNA is telling them. A lot of the rest of it is hidden under the plastic. Many sellers rely on the PSA/DNA slab to 'say it all' - it basically relieves them of the responsibility that you have described. Right here on the forum we see new collectors asking questions about slabs as if that's the main thing they need to understand, while others show little or zero knowledge about simple things like Kodak watermarks on the back of the photos. Too much focus on what PSA/DNA is going to do with the photo.

PDA/DNA is effectively disguising photos as soon as they put them in an official slab with their designation in a nice little slip...like cards. In fact, I bet many collectors buy them this way because it allows them to be collected the same way you would a slabbed card, and because the slabs with their identical PSA/DNA inserts, add uniformity to an otherwise very creative-looking collection (insert my oft-used disclaimer here).

But, it's a system that is working for those who use it, much like autograph authentication and slabbing of cards, so it's really up to those collectors to speak up if they have concerns, and they don't seem to. So all I'm doing here is discussing, because the subject is interesting and involves my hobby. Hope I haven't offended anyone, and I realize that my thoughts in this area will have no impact whatsoever, nor should they.

Still not sure what the "bait" or the trap was, but at the risk of nibbling on it some more, here's some more thoughts (all intellectual discussion, no hurt feelings felt or intended here)...

I don't think that PSA/DNA, Henry, Rhys, David, you, me, or anyone else noting on a flip or LOA any additions or removals of crop marks will do much to help to educate the buyers/sellers as to what they should be looking for. At least, not the buyers/sellers who defer to PSA for all of their thinking. Adding more info to the flip isn't going to cure buyers or sellers of their own laziness in educating themselves or doing their due diligence in describing (sellers) or scrutinizing (buyers) the photo itself. The collectors who check their brains at the door once they see that blue flip are not going to be deterred (or educated) by an extra line or two of text. They'll see "Shoeless Joe" and a big Roman Numeral I in the corner, and feel they have all the information they need. The ones who see past the flip and spend their time looking at the photo within will see the big, white swathes of paint, and decide whether/how much that editorial fabrication detracts from the overall appeal of the photo for them, same as they would if PSA/DNA hadn't chimed in with their opinion in the first place.

Maybe PSA could add another "tier" to their LOA service that would include things like notes about alterations and possible removal/alteration of alterations, but I think that whatever is the cheapest service that would get a Roman Numeral and company logo on the photo or its holder would continue to be the most popular.

Also, I think that once you start noting anything related to condition of photos on an LOA or flip, that opens the barn door wide for a paragraph (or several) of information that, in the long run, means very little to most photo collectors (as in, they don't care, not that they don't understand it). Who's to say whether markings were added or removed in the period vs. in modern times? In a case like this, in the period seems less likely, but you'd have to note any/all alterations just in case. Every mark on the back. Every sticker applied. Every stamp. Every wax pencil marking. Every bit of paint. Every spot that looked like it once had wax pencil or paint or a sticker or a marking. Every nick, fold, tear, crop, dog-ear, crazing of the emulsion, paper added, paper lost, on and on and on. None of which affects whether the photo is original to the period, and most of which can be seen in a good scan (with the bits that can't be seen well being the seller's responsibility to describe, since they're the one who has it in hand).
[I'll also add that, in retrospect, I think I went off on a tangent with the whole "condition note" paragraph, but it took a while to type, so I'll leave it]

Originally Posted by glchen

The thing is most photos authenticated by PSA are not slabbed. PSA only slabs photos that are close to 8x10 in size. If the photos are smaller or larger than this size, they are not slabbed. You just the exact same photo you sent in, but with a sticker on the back matching it to the LOA. So, just ballparking it, I would say that less than 10% of photos from PSA are slabbed, so most photos are never hidden in plastic.

That might have been the case early on, but if you look at the more recent submissions (by picking a cert number and trolling up or down on PSA's website), I think you'll see that the current trend is much higher than 10% being in holders (at a quick glance, I would say somewhere around 70% go in slabs these days). Start somewhere around 1P04750 and work your way backwards if you want to see what I'm referring to.

[drcy]

I think PSA photo slabs are ugly. To me, it looks like they're in Oscar Meyer hot dog packaging. And Becket's slabs aren't much better-- the proverbial plastic coffin. That's just my personal taste, and if someone likes slabbed photos that's fine. I'm merely voicing what I like, not saying what is right or wrong.

I've always been strongly against PSA condition grading photos, as many collectors would then trim photos to attain their desired grade. You can count on it. There's nothing wrong with worn edges and dinged corners on a photo-- I want number grade-centric card collectors to leave them alone. Trimming a photo ruins it in my opinion. A 1910 Ty Cobb news photo should have worn corners and a small wrinkle or two. That's how old photos are. They're old and old things have wear. To me, trimming a slightly rough edge on the 1910 Cobb photo is like removing the ball and clete marks from a game used Babe Ruth bat. The bat is supposed to show use. And I can promise you that if PSA started condition grading photos, out the paper cutter will come.

I find many trading card rules to be dubious as applied to cards, and even more so when applied elsewhere. Believe it or not, baseball card collectors are a strange breed with strange little rules for their card collecting fantasy world. They do things such as have never ending or resolved chat board arguments over what constitutes a rookie card or whether or not a trade card counts as a baseball card.

Duly note, I started off as a card collector and am a fan of cards. I have nothing against baseball cards or the collecting of them. I just see them as different than photos. And I have participated in the rookie card and 'what counts as a baseball card' debates.

One good point that was made and that, after reading it, I agree with is that if a photo is in a slab, the collector won't be able to examine it closely so the slab should give more details. Thats a good point I hand't thought of. Though that's more of a reason not to slab photos (see first paragraph).

[drcy]

PSA card collector at the Louvre:

Tour Guide: "This is Whistler's Mother."
Card collector: "Is that her rookie painting?"

I make these jokes just to demonstrate that many card collecting rules and sentiments are idiosyncratic to card collecting and can be wrong headed if not plain silly when applied elsewhere.

I originally thought that, in the famous 1922 German silent horror film, Nosferatu and his accompanying hoard of rats symbolized the black plague crossing the sea to enter society, but now I realize they symbolized PSA baseball card registry collectors, eBay resellers and their paper cutters entering the photo hobby the day PSA starts grading photos. I mean just look what those registry blood suckers did to those poor innocent virginal 1966 Sporting News magazines once they found out PSA would grade the Nolan Ryan pictures inside.


Nosferatu awaiting the day PSA/DNA starts grading photos. He's run out of Sporting News magazines, and needs more innocent blood.

[prewarsports]

I will chime in a few thoughts.

First, I always tell people that photographs are MUCH closer to game used memorabilia than cards or anything like that. Each photo is a living breathing piece of art and it should be treated that way. Take a game used bat for example. They were all issued at the same size and weight, but no two are exactly alike. After being used in games some are broken, some are cracked, some were taped and some were barely used. Its the SAME THING with a press photograph and the use is what we like. Some were trimmed, some were traced for engraving, some were spliced, some were heavily painted and turned more into artwork and some were just marked with a few potential sizes for stories. So when a photo is cleaned it is no different than when a bat is wiped off with warm water. Should that be disclosed? I don't think it really needs to be if all you did is wipe of a spot of dirt or dust from being in an attic for 100 years. But I think many dealers in game used bats would explain in their rules (as we do) that they sometimes clean their bats with warm water. If in the process of cleaning the bat though, some chemicals are used which leave a mark or any restoration of the material itself takes place at all then yes, it needs to be disclosed. These things might have happened in the past however and in those situations it is often impossible to tell.

We grade our photos, and as far as I know we are the only ones who do it. We don't take editorial markings (or their removal) or cropping of the image into account in the grade unless it affects the condition of the photograph itself. We do however mention in our descriptions if there are editorial markings that were removed if we can detect it (or tracing that is still present) or if an item has a border trimmed off etc. We do it on a different scale than baseball cards and it is NOT to create a market for photo grading. We do it simply because you can not tell everything from a scan. We have images that might look perfect to the naked eye but when examined up close there might be a few creases that are visible only when tilted to the light and that need to be disclosed. It is simply another way to convey what the buyer is getting when a scan and description combined isn't even enough. I think it works and the evidence I have for this is that in (5) Auctions we have run (through RMY) we have not had one single complaint about condition and have received hundreds of e mails about customers finding the photos to be better in person and that is our goal. Extra information is never a bad thing.

SO, to sum up I feel that photo grading works. Not in the same way that cards or autographs work, but as a way of conveying as much information as possible to the potential buyer as many flaws can not be seen from a scan alone and a description sometimes does not accurately convey the magnitude of a flaw no matter how long you describe it.

Rhys Yeakley

[drcy]

Condition does matter with photographs, but not to the finite anal-retentive degree as it does in the baseball card. An ExMt 1910 photo may sell the name as a Nrmt-Mt example, because photography collectors aren't so concerned with microscopic wrinkles or barely seen nicks in the corner. It's baseball card collectors who worry about that.

The reason behind this is because there may be 20,000 1993 SP Derek Jeters or 1968 Topps Nolan Ryans and the only thing that separates them is the condition or very minor print variations. However, with a particular 1925 Babe Ruth photo, there may be only five or even one in existence. Photography collectors are concerned about condition and presentation, but don't worry about silly minor stuff like a minor ding to the corner or a little wrinkle on the edge. If you see a wonderful 1908 Ty Cobb photo, it may be the last time you see it for sale. You don't fret over a corner bump and minor wrinkles. A minor pencil mark on the back of a beautiful Abe Lincoln cabinet card doesn't prevent a photography collector from buying it.

This also explains why it's baseball collectors and sellers who slice a half a millimeter off the left side to try and get a better grade. A serious photograph collector wouldn't do that because a) a very slightly rough left edge doesn't matter aesthetically and b) sharpening the edge won't raise the resale vale because other photograph collectors won't care either.

So condition does matter with photographs and they can be assigned a grade Poor to Mint. But the Gem Mint 10, Nrmt-Mt 8.5, Beckett Mint 9.5 corners and 8.5 gloss, Set Registry average grade 9.32145612115666 nonsense is the baseball card hobby not the photography hobby.

You have to understand one thing: As far as condition goes, photography collectors are sane and graded baseball card collectors are insane. PSA label number collectors need an intervention and some form of psychiatric medication. Because sane people don't spend hours of their free time with a microscope searching pieces of cardboard for wrinkles and edge dings invisible to the naked eye.