PSA photo authentication - a suggestion

[Runscott]

This photo has obviously had the printer crop marks carefully removed. That should be noted in the certificate. I have blindly missed stuff before, so if it's there and I'm missing me, someone let me know and I'll kill this post.

Joe Jackson Type I Photo

[drcy]

That's an interesting issue, because, whether or not stuff was removed, it is still a Type I photo. Unlike with trading cards, I don't believe PSA/DNA grades photos (Poor 1 through Mint 10), they just identify what type of photo it is. An altered T206 Honus Wagner is still a T206 Honus Wagner. Trimming and touching up of a card usually falls under grading, not identification. A trimmed T206 Honus Wagner is still a T206 Honus Wagner, it's just that it should be graded (if graded) as Authentic or Poor. PSA doesn't assign grades to photos.

A modern ballpoint pen ink mark or pencil mark removal on the front of a 1973 Topps Mike Schmidt rookie card doesn't make it not a Mike Schmidt Rookie Card. It's still a Mike Schmidt Rookie Card. The ink and erasure mark only changes the condition grade. PSA/DNA photo services don't assign a condition grade, they just tell you whether or not the card is or is not an authentic '1973 Topps Mike Schmidt baseball card.' Clearly, I'm speaking figuratively and mixing cards and photos to show my point. Mixing my metaphors, so to speak.

A topic worthy of discussion. Though if you expect PSA/DNA to examine photos for missing ink and paper, you'd better expect their fees to rise accordingly. There's no way PSA/DNA can determine or guarantee that no ink, paper or glue has ever been removed from a photo. The combined minds of Svengali and Albert Einstein couldn't guarantee that. If you're talking about noting obvious alterations (such as here, or if a photo is obviously trimmed or has modern writing on the back), that's a different issue-- but, still, if you want those things added to their photo identification services, you should expect higher fees. More time and work = higher charges.

In summary, I think all PSA/DNA does as far as photos go is tell you what kind of photo it is. Judging grade, condition and alterations is not under the parameters of their services. They handle baseball cards and photos differently.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by drcy

A topic worthy of discussion. Though if you expect PSA/DNA to examine photos for missing ink and paper, you'd better expect their fees to rise accordingly.

My thoughts are that most people who submit prints to PSA/DNA, do not have an adequate understanding of them. Note - I said "most", not "all". I do realize that some like PSA/DNA because they like getting things certified, either for themselves or for re-sale value (wow, that was a lot of disclaimer )

Given the above, I think that noting tampering (either by pressmen or otherwise) would be valuable to such collectors, and would help them avoid surprises when they receive an item that is more or less than what they thought it would be based on the certificate or slab. Not just crop-marking, but also handwriting, pinholes, mark removal, coloring, etc. Trimming would be impossible to note for obvious reasons, unless writing on the back has been cut off, in which case 'trimmed' might be an appropriate note.

The fee increase doesn't concern me

[drcy]

Here's my imaginary conversation between a collector and PSA/DNA:

Collector: "Is this photo a wirephoto?"
PSA/DNA: "Yes, it is a wirephoto."
Collector: "Is it altered?"
PSA/DNA: "Yes. It appears pen marks have been removed from the back."
Collector: "Then why didn't you say in the first place say "it is a wirephoto and it is altered' instead of only saying "it is a wirephoto'?
PSA/DNA: "Because your first question was only 'Is it a wirephoto?' You didn't ask for our opinion about alterations until the second question. "
Collector: "Okay, I guess I understand that. You can't answer a question before it's asked. So, how much do I owe you for your services?"
PSA/DNA: "$45 $30 for telling you it is a wirephoto, and $15 for telling you it has been altered."
Collector: "But I only want to pay $30."
PSA/DNA: "Then you shouldn't have asked if it had been altered."

Asking a paid expert (lawyer, authenticator, accountant) for more answers is like ordering extra toppings on a pizza. The more extra toppings on your pizza the higher price for the pizza, and the more questions you expect answered from an expert the higher your charge. If you're only willing to pay one-topping price, don't order a pizza with five extra toppings. If you only want to pay your lawyer a one legal opinion rate, don't ask him for three legal opinions. This is especially true when it takes the lawyer four hours of extra research and consultation with other lawyers to answer your second two questions.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by drcy

Here's my imaginary conversation between a collector and PSA/DNA:

Collector: "Is this photo a wirephoto?"
PSA/DNA: "Yes, it is a wirephoto."
Collector: "Is it altered?"
PSA/DNA: "Yes. It appears pen marks have been removed from the back."
Collector: "Then why didn't you say in the first place say "it is a wirephoto and it is altered' instead of only saying "it is a wirephoto'?
PSA/DNA: "Because your first question was only 'Is it a wirephoto?' You didn't ask for our opinion about alterations until the second question. "
Collector: "Okay, I guess I understand that. You can't answer a question before it's asked. So, how much do I owe you for your services?"
PSA/DNA: "$45 $30 for telling you it is a wirephoto, and $15 for telling you it has been altered."
Collector: "But I only want to pay $30."
PSA/DNA: "Then you shouldn't have asked if it had been altered."

Asking a paid expert (lawyer, authenticator, accountant, physician) for more answers than spelled out in the original agreement is like ordering extra toppings on a pizza. The more extra toppings on your pizza the higher price for the pizza, and the more questions you expect answered from an expert the higher your charge. If you're only willing to pay one-topping price, don't order a pizza with five extra toppings.

Here's what the two voices in my head are saying:

Collector: "What is this?"
PSA/DNA: "Type II"
Collector: "Anything else you can tell me?"
PSA/DNA: "send me $30"

[glchen]

I don't know if this can be really expected from PSA for photo authentication. Photos are a lot different from cards in that there are a lot of different things going on in photos, so you can very rare expect pristine conditions like you do for cards. There are editorial marks everywhere, clipping, trimming, all of that is just to be expected. This is why I don't think there will ever be any demand for providing number grades or even qualifiers to photos since it would be pointless.

[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

[drcy]

Agreed. Photos and trading cards are different things.

Photos commonly come with photographer's or newspaper's editors notes on back, date stamps, paper captions, cropping marks, paper caption remnants. That's part of what they are. Just as game used jerseys come with grass stains and game used bats come with ball and clete marks and pine tar residue. A grass stain on your baseball card is undesirable, but it's desirable on game used jersey. If someone is selling a 'game used' jersey in 'Gem Mint form the factor condition,' you will question if it is authentic. Baseball cards and jerseys are different things and different genres, and a 1910 UP photo of Ty Cobb is not not a 1991 Donruss Sammy Sosa.

You clearly wouldn't expect Beckett or PSA to grade baseballs using the same exact criterion as they use to grade baseball cards. How do you grade the corners of a baseball when a baseball has no corners? There's not such thing as a baseball with corner dings or trimmed edges.

It's known as comparing apples to oranges. Or, in the case of baseball cards and game used jerseys, apples to aardvarks. What lowers the value on a baseball card (pine tar stains), raises the value on a games used bat. What lower's the technical grade on a baseball card (photographer's notes and date stamps on back), raises the value of a photograph.

This all helps explains why PSA/DNA judges trading cards, game used bats, coins and photos using different rules.

[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.

[Frozen in Time]

I prefer the front of photos to be clean such that the print more accurately represents the original negative taken by the photographer. Extensive editorial masking simply alters the end product of what the photographer was attempting to accomplish in the first place. Henry and many other collectors that I've talked with share exactly the same view.

Nonetheless, there are probably just as many collectors on the other side of the coin that welcome all editorial markings as evidence of publication, etc. In most cases this will not effect the price, although with identical high profile photos, the one that has less or little of the editorial work usually sells for more. This is also one of the major reasons that John Roger's Archives clean the fronts of virtually all their photos.

For me , the ideal photo (aside from content, clarity, etc.) is one with a clean front and a back loaded with as much info as possible - date, photographer, news agency stamps, etc.

I don't know if it would even be possible to follow the exact history of editorial alterations, trimming, etc for many photos but I can understand why some would like to know. For me, I simply want to be certain of the Type classification and original date and source of the photo. All other aspects of its history are secondary in my opinion.

Craig

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by drcy

Agreed. Photos and trading cards are different things.

Correct, which is why, if you are going to disguise a photo as a card by hiding it in a slab with a PSA designation, you need to point out things that are common with photos, that differentiate them from cards, or that might not be as appropriate to describe for a card. Again, I'm not a slab collector, so this is all theory - you might be right that it would be cost-prohibitive, much as accurately identifying a legitimate autograph has proven to be cost-prohibitive. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Frozen in Time

For me , the ideal photo (aside from content, clarity, etc.) is one with a clean front and a back loaded with as much info as possible - date, photographer, news agency stamps, etc.

Craig, I normally agree completely with what you said above.

But here's a photo I recently received, that shows all sorts of editorial marks, and I think it's kind of cool. I would like to have an un-marked copy as well, but I wouldn't dream of removing the marks from this one:

[glchen]

Scott,

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.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by glchen

Scott,

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.

Thanks, Gary. I've owned a bunch of the slabbed ones, but never one of the ones you describe that has a sticker.

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Craig, I normally agree completely with what you said above.

But here's a photo I recently received, that shows all sorts of editorial marks, and I think it's kind of cool. I would like to have an un-marked copy as well, but I wouldn't dream of removing the marks from this one:

Yeah Scott, I agree with you about this photo and actually some I have of Mantle where the editorial "shading" is more focused an actually enhances the image in a pleasing and positive fashion.

Craig

[Runscott]

PS - that was Jackie Robinson stealing home, in July of 1947. Plan to frame it with a baseball card and autograph.

[mybestbretts]

Craig,I couldn't agree with you more. The amount of information
on the back of the photo is important to me. Also, each time I
come across a new photographer I try to find as much information
about that photographer as possible.

I actually slab them for protection of the photo as much as anything. I won't
be doing it any more since PSA raised their rates, but I will watch and
hope for specials.

[drcy]

If you apply trading card standards to everything, a Pablo Picasso signed original lithograph grades Fair or Poor because it has writing on the front. Same with a Babe Ruth signed photo. Same with a Charles Conlon where Conlon wrote a caption on the back and stamped the date.

A card collector at the Louvre:
"How can the Mona Lisa grade an ExMt? It's got paint all over the front. And someone scribbled in the corner."
"Uh, that scribbling is Da Vinci's signature."
"Still, according to my Beckett Baseball Card Monthly, it can't grade higher than VgEx with two dinged corners. With two dinged corners, I'll give you $25 for it, but only if that includes shipping. Is there a refractor version? I'd pay $35 for that."
"Sir, we must please ask that you leave the museum. And, even better, the country."
"Okay, fine. Is Denny's anywhere around here?"

A PSA card collector after a date:
"Oh man, I think she's the one. Her gloss appears original and her corners untouched."
"Don't fool yourself. Rumor around town is she's a double print and had gum stains removed."

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by drcy

If you apply trading card standards to everything, a Pablo Picasso signed original lithograph grades Fair or Poor because it has writing on the front. Same with a Babe Ruth signed photo. Same with a Charles Conlon where Conlon wrote a caption on the back and stamped the date.

A card collector at the Louvre:
"How can the Mona Lisa grade an ExMt? It's got paint all over the front. And someone scribbled in the corner."
"Uh, that scribbling is Da Vinci's signature."
"Still, according to my Beckett Baseball Card Monthly, it can't grade higher than VgEx with two dinged corners. With two dinged corners, I'll give you $25 for it, but only if that includes shipping. Is there a refractor version? I'd pay $35 for that."
"Sir, we must please ask that you leave the museum. And, even better, the country."
"Okay, fine. Is Denny's anywhere around here?"

A PSA card collector after a date:
"Oh man, I think she's the one. Her gloss appears original and her corners untouched."
"Don't fool yourself. Rumor around town is she's a double print and had gum stains removed."

David, my comments were related to the fact that PSA/DNA is slabbing both photos and cards. To my knowledge, they are not slabbing Picassos.

[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.

[drcy]

Duly note I both say what I mean and use tongue in cheek rhetoric and analogies. I've always been proficient and mixing and matching serious thoughts with offbeat humor. It's just some people don't know where I'm being serious and where I'm joking, in particular since I usually avoid using emoticons.

For example, I don't think set registry members are literally vampires. That was a tongue in cheek part.

The need for some collectors to be put on psychiatric medicine? Well, we all know that's true. Let's call that one a joke with an element of truth.

That baseball card rules are for baseball cards and don't always apply to other forms of memorabilia and art? That's 100% serious.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by drcy

Condition does matter with photographs, but not to the finite anal-retentive degree as it does in the baseball card.

I'm very glad that the above is the case. One of my concerns 10+ years ago, when we saw clearly-trimmed photos entering the market, and then appearing in plastic slabs, was that the modern trimming would be encouraged by card-like collector preferences.

This has continued to some extent (check some of the photos that supposedly came straight from archives, but have razor-sharp corners and vintage writing clearly half-gone from their backs, while most of the less valuable photos retain their vintage rough edges) but for the most part we have been lucky in that respect. Thanks, collectors, for not encouraging that practice. Also, I'm not pointing fingers with my prior parenthesized comment - I think the trimming is to make the photos more aesthetically-pleasing, which perhaps it does, and it's obvious, so I doubt there's any intended deception. Still...

To all photo sellers: leave the rough edges - we need them for matting.

[Runscott]

Lance, I wasn't asking for the level of detail from PSA/DNA that you described, but those were certainly all things that were going through my mind as possibilities. Also, I do realize that it isn't economically feasible, just as it isn't economically feasible to put the required effort into authenticating most autographs. I think I stated that in a previous post.

But your post was very interesting - thanks. Also, thanks for clarifying the change in slabbed-photo % - I wasn't going to argue with about it, as I don't collect slabbed photos.

It's good to get the philosophical photo guys discussing this sort of stuff - looking forward to Ben getting back from his wanderings.

[drcy]

As I've said for years, a collector shouldn't even want a Pre-War news photo that is in Gem Mint condition, because that means it is probably either a modern reprint or has been altered (usually trimmed). 99.9 percent of authentic Pre-War news photos naturally have some form of wear and tear. They are paper thin items that were well handled over the years, editors and photographers commonly wrote notes on and rubber stamped the backs, and almost all have at least slightly rough edges here and there, a wrinkle or two, a dinged corner. This explains why collectors shouldn't be unduly concerned with condition.

As with baseball cards, tobacco signs, movie lobby cards et al, a heavy crease or unsightly wrinkling through the image, stains, missing corners, water damage, missing paper or spots in the image and other such thing that effect eye appeal do effect financial value. Condition is part of the value of photos. However, a slightly dinged corner, or small surface wrinkle on the white border will have little to no effect on value. It's about general naked eye appearance, especially of the images, and, as said, antique photos, especially news photos, are expected to have at least a some wear and aging.

[Runscott]

I just realized I'm sort of being a hypocrite. I have a Mel Ott photo for sale that I removed some of the crop marks from. Don't think I have a 'before' shot.

...but it's not slabbed and marks are obvious, so not sure if maybe I'm just a pseudo-hypocrite.

[drcy]

I don't like editorial ink marks (crop marks etc) in the images. I like the image area to be clean. Marks and notes on the white border areas are fine. But that's just my taste, and I know some like editorial marking. To me it's all about the appearance of the image and overall photo, which is judged photo by photo. In once case, editorial marks on the image may be distracting and ugly to me, while in another case it may be minor and not bother me.

As has already been said, notes, marks, crop lines, stamps and tags on the back of a news photo are good. You identify and date photos in part by that info. Charles Conlon's handwritten notes and stamp on back will add to the value of the photo, and, of course, help you identify it as an original Conlon photo. But I like the front images to be clean. Again, that's my personal taste. If a collector finds crop marks and other editorial marks in the image interesting and feels they adds to the photo as a historical artifact that is fine. I'm just saying what I like, not what others should like or not like. As is said, art is in the eye of the beholder.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Runscott

...but it's not slabbed and marks are obvious, so not sure if maybe I'm just a pseudo-hypocrite.

I hear if you scan it with the lid up, it can clear those right up for ya

Originally Posted by Runscott

It's good to get the philosophical photo guys discussing this sort of stuff - looking forward to Ben getting back from his wanderings.

Yeah, where is the big lug? Out roaming the earth, righting wrongs like some David Carradine of Photography? Safe travels Ben, and I hope you check in soon.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by drcy

I don't like editorial ink marks (crop marks etc) in the images. I like the image area to be clean. Marks and notes on the white border areas are fine. But that's just my taste, and I know some like editorial marking. To me it's all about the appearance of the image and overall photo, which is judged photo by photo. In once case, editorial marks on the image may be distracting and ugly to me, while in another case it may be minor and not bother me.

As has already been said, notes, marks, crop lines, stamps and tags on the back of a news photo are good. You identify and date photos in part by that info. Charles Conlon's handwritten notes and stamp on back will add to the value of the photo, and, of course, help you identify it as an original Conlon photo. But I like the front images to be clean. Again, that's my personal taste. If a collector finds crop marks and other editorial marks in the image interesting and feels they adds to the photo as a historical artifact that is fine. I'm just saying what I like, not what others should like or not like. As is commonly said, art is in the eye of the beholder.

I agree 100%. To my mind, editorial markings are alterations to a photograph, and I have no qualms with undoing an alteration that someone else (besides the photographer) made if doing so enhances the aesthetics of the piece for me. If I want to see how the editor wanted the photo to look in print, I'll hunt down the printed version of the photo. Otherwise, things like crop marks and faces X'd out on the front of a photo feel like they're putting blinders on me and not letting me see the whole scene.

I also peel price stickers off of the bottom of things I buy at the store, and remove labels from my electronics touting what operating system they use or that they are "Energy Star" compliant, so admittedly, there may be a bit of OCD there...

And I don't remove the crop marks from EVERY photo I handle either, so I may be guilty of some partial hypocrisy as well. There's just some that I don't care to look at the image either way, and don't feel like spending the time to clean it up

[Runscott]

Here's a fun one (the back is basically clean and white). I had to look several times to figure it out:

[drcy]

I've never even attempted to remove marks from the front of a news photo, because a) When I owned them (I don't have any anymore) I didn't even know it could be done and b) I'm not a handy person and would fear I'd ruin the photo.

Though the general rule for all areas of memorabilia and art, restoration is okay if you disclose it at sale. In California, you are legally required to disclose any and all restoration or alteration to an artwork you're selling. Duly note the California law isn't a felony or anything. You wouldn't go to jail if you didn't realize the $1,000 painting you sold had been revarnished ten years before you bought it. It's just that non-desclosure is considered deceptive and would be considered legal reason for the buyer to return it for refund within a reasonable period of time. I think the law says the return period is one year. If the deception was intentional and significantly effected the sale price, you could possibly get an additional fine, something akin to a parking ticket. Now, on the other hand, if you sold $20 million of artwork and lied about every piece you sold, then you could get in big trouble.

If you want to avoid the above return rules and issues, simply mention that ink or whatever was removed from a photo in your sales or auction description. I don't know that the disclosure will even lower the sales price. If anything, it could raise it because the bidders see that you're an honest seller and they're willing to bid more with sellers they trust. The California law doesn't say there's anything wrong, bad or illegal with alteration or restoration, just that it has to be disclosed at sale.

And, as was the point of Scott's original post in this lengthy thread, what he thought was removal of ink to the photo was apparently not disclosed at auction. He didn't say whether he thought ink removal was good or bad, he just observed that, if there was ink removal on the photo, it wasn't mentioned.

[Runscott]

I didn't know crop marks could be removed, until a forum member told me about it. Now I find that some of the white or grey marks can be removed, some can't. Same for thin black ink lines that you would think could not be removed. The few times I tried it, results were mixed, so in general I don't attempt it, but I've seen beautiful photos where the entire 'painted out' gray background had been wiped off.

I think the original example I posted had thin black lines that could not be removed completely.

[Frozen in Time]

One thing I have noticed over the years is that the overall condition and degree of editorial escapades appearing on a photo sometimes depends importantly on the original source of the photo.

For example, over the past 30 years or so, I have found with my major focus (which, as most of you know, is Mantle) that when I have bought collections from individual sports writers, photographers and players more often then not the condition of the photos (as well as the lack of editorial work on the front) and various types of stamping on the back is far better than those obtained from the archives of newspapers, news agencies, publishing houses, magazines, etc. This makes sense, as many of these individual photos from the collections of sports writers, players and to some extent photographers were not used in publication, at least not as frequently as those in the news/publishing archives. Thus , less handling, wear and tear and editorial incursions.

This was one reason why early in the game, I did a lot of research locating such sources - and many were remarkably productive.

Craig

[prewarsports]

There is a pretty direct correlation between the popularity of the subject and condition of press photos in general. In the NEA archive I was able to dig through, there were thousands of high grade images from pre 1930 but they are almost always guys that the paper might have received in the mail as part of a group of images and then never used the photo. The big names got used for stories and then reused over and over again being taken in and out of folders for 100 years. The Grover Lowdermilks of the World just sat there like the unpopular toys from "Toy Story" all alone and remained in amazing condition.

Some archives are just beat to hell and it has to do more with storage than anything. If the paper used open folders than they are almost always in bad shape, but if they used self enclosing envelopes for their subjects than aside from some corner bumping (sliding the photos in and out) they can still be found in immaculate condition!

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

There is a pretty direct correlation between the popularity of the subject and condition of press photos in general. In the NEA archive I was able to dig through, there were thousands of high grade images from pre 1930 but they are almost always guys that the paper might have received in the mail as part of a group of images and then never used the photo. The big names got used for stories and then reused over and over again being taken in and out of folders for 100 years. The Grover Lowdermilks of the World just sat there like the unpopular toys from "Toy Story" all alone and remained in amazing condition.

Some archives are just beat to hell and it has to do more with storage than anything. If the paper used open folders than they are almost always in bad shape, but if they used self enclosing envelopes for their subjects than aside from some corner bumping (sliding the photos in and out) they can still be found in immaculate condition!

Thanks for that explanation, Rhys. When I went through my 1970's baseball cards about ten years ago, I found a 1971 Nolan Ryan in near-mint condition, for exactly the reasons you describe. I was elated that I didn't know who Nolan Ryan was back then.

[thecatspajamas]

This also correlates to what Craig was saying about photos coming from players' personal collections being in better condition. Often those were placed in albums, file cabinets, trunks, or "archived" in some other way and sat untouched for decades. They were treated as keepsakes, not tools of the trade. You tend to expect that tools are going to show more wear than keepsakes

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

This also correlates to what Craig was saying about photos coming from players' personal collections being in better condition. Often those were placed in albums, file cabinets, trunks, or "archived" in some other way and sat untouched for decades. They were treated as keepsakes, not tools of the trade. You tend to expect that tools are going to show more wear than keepsakes

True, Lance, but some of the 'tools' are incredible items, just because of their lifetime of press experience:

[Runscott]

Was that scan big enough for you?

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Runscott

True, Lance, but some of the 'tools' are incredible...

Hey now, let's not get into personal judgements

And yes, that Wheat photo is incredible. Very nice!

[Runscott]

Rhys recently auctioned a very similar one of Alexander - same mounting, stamps, writing, enhancements on the front. Makes me wonder how many more of these there are? What a set it would make to have 5-10 star players.

[thecatspajamas]

So do you think they were produced as "Cabinets" by Conlon and then used for publication, or were they mounted for some reason in the process of being used for publication? (My guess would be the former, given the stamping is on the back of the mount, not on a photo that was then mounted, but not having handled very many cabinets, thought I would throw the question out there).

Also interesting (to me at least) is that this particular image does not appear to be represented among the Conlon Archive negatives that The Sporting News purchased from Conlon. At least, it's not among those presented on the website that Rogers had made for the collection (and being that there are personal shots of unknown relatives of Conlon presented there, I kind of doubt they would have held back an image of a known player). Makes me wonder how many of Conlon's negatives were lost, stolen, sold, given away, or otherwise removed from the archive over the years before Rogers bought them.

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

There is a pretty direct correlation between the popularity of the subject and condition of press photos in general. In the NEA archive I was able to dig through, there were thousands of high grade images from pre 1930 but they are almost always guys that the paper might have received in the mail as part of a group of images and then never used the photo. The big names got used for stories and then reused over and over again being taken in and out of folders for 100 years. The Grover Lowdermilks of the World just sat there like the unpopular toys from "Toy Story" all alone and remained in amazing condition.

Some archives are just beat to hell and it has to do more with storage than anything. If the paper used open folders than they are almost always in bad shape, but if they used self enclosing envelopes for their subjects than aside from some corner bumping (sliding the photos in and out) they can still be found in immaculate condition!

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

This also correlates to what Craig was saying about photos coming from players' personal collections being in better condition. Often those were placed in albums, file cabinets, trunks, or "archived" in some other way and sat untouched for decades. They were treated as keepsakes, not tools of the trade. You tend to expect that tools are going to show more wear than keepsakes

Yes , that was exactly my point. In the case of one sportswriter, I bought all the Mantle photos in his archive directly from his family. These dated from 1951 to 1957 (the sportswriter retired in 1958).

When I went to the house of the sportswriter's daughter, she showed me his entire archive - a series of 5 old filing cabinets + some other stuff in about 20 large boxes. She opened one drawer of one filing cabinet to show me where the Mantle photos were - she said she had looked at all the contents of the filing cabinets and boxes and these were all the Mantle photos she could find. They were in a large, fading, reddish color "envelope" that was in between several other similar envelopes, all oriented with their long axis horizontal. She said these were all original to her father and that all the writing was her father's.

Within the large reddish envelope there were 2 blue folders each with mickey mantle-yankees written on the outside,and one whitish folder with just what looks like "1/2" written on the outside. The "1/2" folder had mostly wire photos cut down to show just Mantle, I believe this is what is now called a vertical file. The 2 other folders had 5X7, 6X8, 7X9 and 8X10 photos of the Mick - mostly Type I's. The fronts of virtually all of these were clean, almost pristine, the backs of most had a news agency or photographer's stamp and sometimes a date stamp. Interestingly, almost all had the paper caption ripped off (all that remained was a small brown piece ) and in the sportswriter's handwriting a summary and date of the photo info.

So, although I'm not sure what the exact function of these photos was for this sportswriter, I can say that the overwhelming majority of the photos that I got from this one (and, as I mentioned in my earlier e-mail, from other sportswriters, photographers and estates of players) have always been in much better shape than those I've bought that originated from newspaper or news agency archives.

Craig

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

So do you think they were produced as "Cabinets" by Conlon and then used for publication, or were they mounted for some reason in the process of being used for publication? (My guess would be the former, given the stamping is on the back of the mount, not on a photo that was then mounted, but not having handled very many cabinets, thought I would throw the question out there).

I don't know - the Conlon stamp on the back initially confused me, because I wouldn't expect him to glue a print to a mount.

One of many possible scenarios: Conlon stamped the original print (or wrote his notes and name on it) and then sent the photo to a news agency. The news agency mounted it for ease of marking up, covering the original Conlon stamp (or notes), then returned to Conlon. Conlon put his stamp on the back and it later ended up with 'the Sporting News'.

[drcy]

I've seen old cardboard mounted news photos before. Rare and not sure why they did it, but I've seen them before. If Conlon's stamp is on back, I assume he did it.

[billyb]

An auction house told me of coming across photos that have a tissue attached to the top of the photo, and drapes over the photo for protection?? It seems to me the tissue is in the way, even if it is rolled back, it still may be in the way when framing said photo.
Have you come across any photos with the attached tissue, if so how did you handle them? At any time, do you decide to remove the tissue??? I guess we can call this the tissue issue.
sorry to jump in so late, but this kind of like the editors marks, to remove or not to remove. A residue of old glue will be at top front border if removed. So should that be mentioned or noted when selling that photo.

[drcy]

I've come across photos with tissue over the fronts. They were often glued on the back then draped/folded over the front. So on those you don't even have to remove the tissue paper on those to display or frame the photo. Just fold the tissue the back.

The tissue was put there strictly to protect the image from scratches and similar surface damage during mailing, handling, sale, storage, etc, not unlike putting a photo in a plastic holder before shipping or putting a baseball card in a penny sleeve for storage. It was strictly for practical utilitarian purposes, not put there to be a part of the 'integral aesthetic design' of the photo. If you have to remove the tissue paper to display the photo, you have to remove the tissue paper. As at paper is translucent not transparent, it would silly to display the photo on a wall with the tissue paper covering the image.

But, as I said, with a lot to most of them--- and perhaps even all (including the ones glued to the front)--, you can simply fold the tissue paper back and removal isn't required. Even with the ones glued to the front, they will only be glued to one far edge, so you can still fold them back. Think of them as blinds over a window. You raise and lower the blinds attached above the window, you don't remove the blinds to to look out the window.

And, anyway, it's just a plain piece of tissue paper over the front of the photo. Removing it wouldn't be a moral sin. And, since it's thin delicate tissue paper, removal would be easy. Simply pull it off. There will be a couple of glue dot remnants left behind but you won't damage the photo.

Though "Comes with the original studio envelope" or "Comes with the original tissue paper still attached" enhances the value at sales time. So I'd only remove it you have to.

So you know, the Carl Horner photos were originally sold in glassine envelopes, and on rare occasion you'll see one of his photos with the original envelope. Most of the time the envelopes are long gone, probably thrown away like packaging material by the original buyers. After all, how often do people keep the envelopes things come in? The presence of the original envelope will add a few buck the final auction price of a Horner photo.

One of the neatest things I've seen was an 1800s cabinet card of Jules Verne by the famous French photographer Nadar with the original sales tag sticker on back. From a 19th century gallery in Philadelphia. That was definitely not a 'foreign object' you'd want to remove from the photo.

[billyb]

drcy,
Thank you, when I was told that about the photos with tissue, the auction house made it seem like it was not that uncommon. I always wondered if it posed any kind of a problem. Thanks for the expertise.