Charles Conlon Fakes, Baseball Magazine Stickers & A Brief Tutorial

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Hey, I have plenty of love to pass around. Yep, agreed about the Burkes. We have at least one Burke stamp expert on the forum, so I'm sure there are plenty of times where the range can be narrowed.

Unfortunately I can't agree about the trimming. If your vintage print has the photographer's or journalist's notes trimmed partially off on the edges, it was most likely a modern seller trying to increase his profits. The argument that it was done 'back in the day' is an old and oft-heard one, but why in the world would a photographer or journalist trim their own notes off the edges of their photograph?

Yes on Burkes! Boo on trimming
I am confused what you are not agreeing on in regard to the trimming?
Rhys is correct in most were already trimmed and I said that no doubt peeps will trim more at times to make look better. The fact of the matter is.. a large amount of them were trimmed "back in the day".

As far as your example goes.. who knows. Maybe they(news service) wanted to put it is a smaller folder after writing was put on, maybe they trimmed to send in mail, maybe they trimmed down to exact publication size after writing was applied. As you know, many photos were used numerous times so it could have been trimmed by someone other than the guy who made original markings. Or.. maybe it was trimmed recently like you stated. Point is.. there are no absolutes. That said.. many photos were ABSOLUTELY trimmed during the course of publication.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Yes on Burkes! Boo on trimming
I am confused what you are not agreeing on in regard to the trimming?
Rhys is correct in most were already trimmed and I said that no doubt peeps will trim more at times to make look better. The fact of the matter is.. a large amount of them were trimmed "back in the day".

As far as your example goes.. who knows. Maybe they(news service) wanted to put it is a smaller folder after writing was put on, maybe they trimmed to send in mail, maybe they trimmed down to exact publication size after writing was applied. As you know, many photos were used numerous times so it could have been trimmed by someone other than the guy who made original markings. Or.. maybe it was trimmed recently like you stated. Point is.. there are no absolutes. That said.. many photos were ABSOLUTELY trimmed during the course of publication.

Hey, nothing wrong with two people disagreeing. Neither one of us was around to see any of the trimming. Sure, anyone with a pair of scissors could have trimmed any photo; however, for the reasons I have already stated, I think it is mostly modern sellers doing it to increase profits. You are right - there are no absolutes - but as long as we are talking about this thread being something to help us move forward to make the hobby better, it can't hurt to encourage today's sellers to put their scissors away - from the looks of some of the large groups of photos now making their appearance in the hobby, it's apparent that the trimming is still going on. Sure, it doesn't kill the value to the collector to clean up the edges, but I'm fairly sure most collectors would rather it wasn't done.

Maybe we should start a poll?

[prewarsports]

I think one thing people forget is that in the case of press photos, these were functional tools of an industry. Much more similar to game used bats and equipment than baseball cards but because they are flat and have images of baseball players, people want to treat them like the latter. These things were ripped, trimmed, die-cut, cut out, painted, drawn all over, traced and rubbed by engravers and used over and over again for an endless number of purposes to fit whatever the newspaper or publication wanted. Often times it was a space issue, other times the images were trimmed and laid out to create a composite and then returned to their folders. Also, when dealing with pre-WWI images, many of the images that look trimmed were actually broken off. Silver gelatin photographs from the era were very brittle and if a photo got folded over in a file cabinet it didn't crease, it broke at whatever angle it was folded at. many of these images were also taken by staff photographers and maybe their budget only allowed for a certain amount of photo-paper so they might have been trimmed before the images were even developed onto them. These variables and the functionality of early photography ad to the appeal for me and many collectors. You are holding something in your hand with inherent history (the person photographed) but also a piece of American publishing history with a unique story to tell all on its own!

[drcy]

Newspapers and magazines did trim photos, but if you see them in their vintage trimmed state you know they didn't do it for aesthetic reasons. They're often cut crooked, at strange angles and obviously not to please the eye. Be more than suspicious of an antique news photo that has perfect, mint edges-- that's more than probably a modern trim job. Old news photos very rarely to never have Gem Mint corners and edges. And real photo collectors don't give a shit if a photo is ExMt versus Nrmt-- that silliness is for baseball cards collectors and their anal retentive ways. Only idiot graded card collectors are looking for a Gem Mint 10 news photo of Ty Cobb. I've been a photo fan and collector for years and have not once done that graded baseball card collector thing of taking a loupe looking for hidden surface wrinkles or touches to the edges. Most Gem Mint 10 collectors should be on some sort of psychiatric meds and/or receive some form of cognitive-behavorial therapy. Forget trimming photos with scissors, I'm not sure they shouldn't even be allowed to hold anything sharp.

Seriously, the baseball card grade 8,9, 10 numbers game is a just way to somehow differenciate between baseball cards mass produced in the thousands if not tens of thousands. It gives grown up children a way to say "My 1992 Donruss is better than your 1992 Donruss." With a 1920 news photo, where perhaps three or four at most exist, that stuff doesn't matter. Condition and aesthetics do matter, but that a 1920 photo has a touch to the corner or a minor wrinkle to a edge really doesn't matter. A serious photo collector simply won't pay more or less if a rare photo is Ex or ExMt. That's why trimming a photo to gain perfect edges should be pointless.

As I've said for years, a new collector should be very wary of Gem Mint antique news photos. The Gem Mintness usually means it's either a modern reprint or has been trimmed. For that reason, collectors should actually find Gem Mint photos undesirable and that's why the Gem Mint craze should never catch on as it has with trading cards.

A problem with many baseball card collectors is they treat everything as if they're baseball cards, and not everything is like a baseball card. And that includes most photos worth collecting. The Mona Lisa is not a baseball card. Even within baseball cards, serious Old Judge collectors regularly complain that card graders are oblivious about clarity of the image, when OJs are little photos (literally) and serious OJ collectors greatly value (including in financial terms) the clarity of the image. Trimming down news photos to get 'Mint edges and corners' is just a horrid byproduct of baseball card collectors entering the genre. As I said, sincere and serious photo collectors don't give a shit about Mint edges. Only graded baseball card collectors care about that idiocy.

In short Mint 10 baseball card collectors are a disease and a menace and must be stopped. You guys write your Congressmen and I'll quick start a crowdfunding campaign on facebook. With any luck, with what's left over I'll have enough money to finally make my movie. It's a prequel to Alexander Nevsky starring talking dogs.

"So, David, how do you plan on getting the dogs talking in Russian?"
"Peanut butter and dubbing."

[drcy]

P.s., if I was selling a standard George Burke photo, I'd describe it as a "circa 1930s photo" or "vintage circa 1930s." There's no need to assign it a "type I" or "original" label to it. Just describe it a what it is and what you know in plain English language.

I describe photos in language people off the street would understand, and, to be honest, if someone says "Is this a Type II or a Type III" photo, I have to go to the PSA/DNA website to look up what those terms means. I remember Type I, because that's a convoluted way of saying "original." Why people don't say "original" when that's a perfectly clear name, i have no idea.

The PSA type system is just a convenient guide that some people use. It's a fair enough and useful enough guide, has its limitations and arbitrariness, as all guides do. The only problem is some people who take it too seriously and treat it as some sort of gospel.

When people ask me "But what about the two year rule?," I say "What are you asking me for?" That's not my rule, I had nothing to do with it. Two was an arbitrary number PSA picked because they felt they had to have a 'rule' for their 'grading system.'

"All models are wrong, but some are useful"-- British statistician George E.P. Box.

In short, the PSA guide is just a convenient guide. Don't treat it as some sort of gospel. If you find it convenient and useful, great. But, as with any set of rules, it will have its limitations and points of reasonable debate. The two years rule is just the one that most often sticks out.

Some photos, such as many of the Burkes, can't be accurately labelled by the PSA type system, because you don't know when the photo was made. Doesn't make the photos any less valuable or collectible-- people have always known Burke printed and photos later--, it's just applying them to the PSA system is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Or, at least, you don't know what "type" it is. Could fall within the two years, could have been made 7 years later. But it's still a collectible 1930s photo made by George Burke.

And, returning to my first sentence, if selling a Burke photo I'd call it a "circa 1930s George Burke photo."

[drcy]

Just for the record. I got a polite PM said I was attacking the PSA system. I'm not. I called it a useful enough system and guide but with limitations, and pointed out that any rule system will limitations and arbitrariness. Which is why I think collectors shouldn't find themselves stuck to it or view photos only through its lens.

Most systems are an attempt to simplify the complex, which means, even when useful and needed, are an oversimplification of the complex. All I'm saying is the subject of a rule system is more complex and broader, and sometimes different, than the system.

[Exhibitman]

Interesting perspectives.

When it comes to trimming photos, I figure it is a lot like a strip card. When I see a photo with original borders I would want it to stay that way



but when it has already been torn or damaged, I will consider getting rid of the damaged part because I don't particularly relish the look of a photo with this sort of damage:



I haven't cut this one but I could see the reasoning, especially if you don't frame photos for display and just want it to look nice in the album.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by drcy

Just for the record. I got a polite PM said I was attacking the PSA system. I'm not. I called it a useful enough system and guide but with limitations, and pointed out that any rule system will limitations and arbitrariness. Which is why I think collectors shouldn't find themselves stuck to it or view photos only through its lens.

Most systems are an attempt to simplify the complex, which means, even when useful and needed, are an oversimplification of the complex. All I'm saying is the subject of a rule system is more complex and broader, and sometimes different, than the system.

Amazing.... Thank you for the record David.

It was I who pm'd David, who has edited his post numerous times. I am in no way hiding in a PM... It was an attempt to not derail this thread.

This thread was created to educate the mass on a large issue in the photo hobby. It was posted by Rhys to summarize our collaboration on the issue.

It amazes me that it turned into(in part) a "Type system" thread. If someone has anything positive to add for the greater good of the photo hobby in this thread, it would fit perfectly.

Also, if anyone has constructive criticism of the Type system with a solution that has any merit/advantage at all, I would love to hear it. There has been no such argument to date. Perhaps create a different thread.

"Original" is certainly simpler I will give you that. I can buy or sell an original wire photo, an original telephoto, an original photo printed yesterday, an original print created off an original dupe negative, an original print created at the time, and original print related 5 years after the original shot was taken originally.. ect ect. I am done standing on my original soapbox as it relates to original

Also, extending the two year rule 4-5 years has zero benefit other than just confusing people more and losing specific gains. It is less specific.

Those of you who are not a fan of the Type system.. maybe ask yourself "DO I have something to gain or am I educated enough in the field"?

If you do not like the type system, do not use it. If you do not like graded cards, don’t buy them. If you do not like authenticated autographs, don’t buy them.
Make your own decisions and collect what you want. If you want to collect photos but do not care what the type is, enjoy your photos without a type associated to them.

We will leave it at that for now. If someone would like to have a discussion on the Type system, create a separate thread or feel free to call /pm me.

Let's not stink up this thread with opportunistic jabs at the best system to date responsible for the current flourishing state the photo hobby. Everyone collecting or dealing photos(who are educated) have benefited from the knowledge Henry Yee has provided and countless hours of his research. EVERYONE whether they admit it or not.

Quite frankly, Rhys' post would not be entirely possible without it. Therefore, if you learned something here.. you have benefited as well(educated or not).

All of this said: I cannot say I disagree with David's statement below. It was well stated.

"I called it a useful enough system and guide but with limitations, and pointed out that any rule system will limitations and arbitrariness. Which is why I think collectors shouldn't find themselves stuck to it or view photos only through its lens."