Are Composite photos by nature type 3 or 4?

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

I find it interesting that PSA won't even bother trying to give a title to most composites. So composites really just fall outside the "type" designation and shouldn't be mixed in the same description.

I don't think that saying they "won't even bother trying" is accurate at all, nor is saying ALL composites fall outside the system. They analyze whatever photos are sent to them, and where they are able to identify a TYPE, they do. It just happens that with many/most composites it is inappropriate or impossible to say with any certainty, so they rightly decline to just make something up or just guess. Ultimately declining to state an opinion is not equivalent to a lack of effort or concern.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

I don't think that saying they "won't even bother trying" is accurate at all, nor is saying ALL composites fall outside the system. They analyze whatever photos are sent to them, and where they are able to identify a TYPE, they do. It just happens that with many/most composites it is inappropriate or impossible to say with any certainty, so they rightly decline to just make something up or just guess. Ultimately declining to state an opinion is not equivalent to a lack of effort or concern.

Lance, the problem is that some people have to have a 'Type' designation for the photo or they don't want the photo - PSA authentication is what makes the print 'real' for them. And before anyone busts my balls - I'm not bashing PSA and I'm not saying ALL collectors. Just some. So if PSA won't give an opinion, it makes the photo phony. My Zack Wheat mounted Conlon is a perfect example - PSA can't see the back, so my understanding is that they can't render an opinion....so to potential buyers, it is not 'real'. So declining to offer an opinion is problematic. Not for me (other than if it involves a customer), but for people who need their authentication.

[drcy]

This thread demonstrates that a photograph (composite) can be both Type III and original. It's like quantum physics

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by drcy

This thread demonstrates that a photograph (composite) can be both Type III and original. It's like quantum physics

And here I thought I was the only one who saw Schrodinger's cat lurking in this thread...

Appreciated Henry's take on things. The uncertainty is one of the reasons I buy composite photos based on subject and try to find them with stamps and slugs that demonstrate age. Here's a fun composite:



From Rawhide; Lou Gehrig's head stripped onto the stuntman's body.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

And here I thought I was the only one who saw Schrodinger's cat lurking in this thread...

I did almost bring up Kurt Godel's incompleteness theorems.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by drcy

I did almost bring up Kurt Godel's incompleteness theorems.

I would have, but was stuck in a strange loop.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Lance, the problem is that some people have to have a 'Type' designation for the photo or they don't want the photo - PSA authentication is what makes the print 'real' for them. And before anyone busts my balls - I'm not bashing PSA and I'm not saying ALL collectors. Just some. So if PSA won't give an opinion, it makes the photo phony. My Zack Wheat mounted Conlon is a perfect example - PSA can't see the back, so my understanding is that they can't render an opinion....so to potential buyers, it is not 'real'. So declining to offer an opinion is problematic. Not for me (other than if it involves a customer), but for people who need their authentication.

Scott, I fully agree that the "no opinion = fake or worthless" mindset is all too prevalent among novice collectors, and have had to take returns as well because of it. I don't blame PSA for the collector's ignorance though, or want them to start guessing on authentication of ambiguous photos just to keep their "No Opinion" count down. Maybe add a note of explanation for why an opinion was not rendered (Is that already done? I don't have an example of a No Opinion letter on hand to verify), but not go out on limbs with their written opinions.

Basically, the collector's ignorance regarding what they are collecting and/or why a TYPE was not assigned is the problem, not the absence of a rendered opinion.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Scott, I fully agree that the "no opinion = fake or worthless" mindset is all too prevalent among novice collectors, and have had to take returns as well because of it. I don't blame PSA for the collector's ignorance though, or want them to start guessing on authentication of ambiguous photos just to keep their "No Opinion" count down. Maybe add a note of explanation for why an opinion was not rendered (Is that already done? I don't have an example of a No Opinion letter on hand to verify), but not go out on limbs with their written opinions.

Basically, the collector's ignorance regarding what they are collecting and/or why a TYPE was not assigned is the problem, not the absence of a rendered opinion.

I didn't suggest that they should start guessing, or that a collectors' ignorance would be PSA's fault - on the contrary, I think the Type system helps educate novices by having defined guidelines.

But PSA is making money authenticating photos, partly because novices want the service - it has created a new collector market. So I do think they owe the collectors more than 'no opinion'. But like you, I haven't seen the 'no opinion' letter. Perhaps it says that the print looks fine, but because they can't get under the mount, they can't render an official opinion.

I guess another way to look at it is that if you are a novice collector, and don't feel comfortable with 'no opinion' items, then just avoid them - I'm thinking it's a fraction of what PSA authenticates, so it shouldn't be a big deal.

[thecatspajamas]

Sorry, I misunderstood and thought you were griping about the number of N.O. letters. My bad, and I think we're on the same page now.

[drcy]

As I've always said all along, it's just a convenient guide that has limits and looks at just certain aspects of photos. We all here understand that. But, as Scott said, many newbie collectors treat it as a bible and final arbiter of a photo's value, nature and intrinsic worth. Some collectors will say if something is not Type I it's not worth buying and overpay for an ugly photo of Lou Gehrig simply because it has a Type I label on the holder (I've that seen it happen). And, as Scott says, if someone says a photo (say a composite) can't be labelled by PSA type's system, there really are collectors out there who will assume that means there's something wrong with the photo-- in their mind equating it to PSA not authenticating an autograph. But Henry himself said there are Type IIIs that are valuable and very much worth collecting and there are perfectly good and valuable photos that can't be labelled by the type system.

In short, if you treat the system as a limited and narrow-viewed but convenient way to categorize photos, that's fine. The error, and what is the crux of my complaints all along, is when some people treat it as the final and entire arbiter of a photo's worth and nature-- which some do. I've seen it. If you treat the Type system as one of a combination five ways to judge a photo, that's fine. If you treat it as the only way, you're view of photos is limited and near sided.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

I don't think that saying they "won't even bother trying" is accurate at all, nor is saying ALL composites fall outside the system. They analyze whatever photos are sent to them, and where they are able to identify a TYPE, they do. It just happens that with many/most composites it is inappropriate or impossible to say with any certainty, so they rightly decline to just make something up or just guess. Ultimately declining to state an opinion is not equivalent to a lack of effort or concern.

Thanks for clarifying that. I do have an issue with wording my posts correctly when I keep getting interrupted with "work"

I did understand that they do try when they can, but I meant to say "they won't bother forcing a designation when it isn't clear, which would sound like is more often than not."