The PSA Type System: Should it follow the photography market?

[drcy]

Originally Posted by sphere and ash

I would argue it is a cataloging system for news photographs only, and not for exhibition prints.

In the fine art photography world, with the famous artists, high quality later made and limited edition photos are valued and can catch high prices. They are appreciated differently, and the later made ones by Ansel Adams or David Baily will often be of highest quality, processes, etc.

I authenticated and cataloged for an auction house a collection of Civil War photos, and, amongst the other vintage and original CDVs and cabinet cards, the Abraham Lincoln photo that sold the most was from the 1890s. The key was it was a very large display photo made from the original negative and using the highest quality process (platinum) and the image was more than crystal clear. Plus, it was signed and dated on the back by the photographer who made it. And, of course, the 1890s means it was still a 19th century photo. It actually sold for more than an original Mathew Brady cabinet card of Lincoln. And, even as an 'age purist,' I knew that photo was special and worthy of the price.

However, in the historical artifacts areas, which most baseball collectors are involved in, age itself is an essential quality. If you're a Civil War or WWII collector, clearly you most desire items from that period. If you're a collector of Pre-history American Indian artifacts, a modern reproduction won't hack it except for as a cheap display piece on coffee table.

As a vintage collector, of baseball cards and historical items, the age has always been an essential quality. It's built into my collecting psychology. You know, if you want a Ty Cobb postcard, you naturally want one from his playing days not one from 1970. If you want a piece of Joe DiMaggio memorabilia, you most desire one from his playing days not retirement. So I've always been interested in the originals, with the later made ones not having the 'intrinsic' appeal to me. But, as I said, there are people in art circles, where the later made photos have appeal and are not considered lesser-- and we're talking here where the later photos were made by the photographer, made to be highest quality and limited edition.

Similarly, there are collecting areas where restoration is much more accepted than in baseball cards and memorabilia. Different collecting areas, different sentiments.

And of course there are cases where a buyer spends a lot on a baseball photo because it is original, rare and old, but doesn't take into consideration that the image is ugly. Aesthetics should always be an integral part of valuation-- and that may help explain why art people spend so much on the latter made ones. A major focus of theirs is on the physical quality and appearance. N172 Old Judge collectors often comment that PSA gives a technical grade that often doesn't take into consideration the eye appeal (or lack thereof) of what are literally little photographs. An N172 can get a high grade even if the image is underdeveloped, and an N172 can get a low grade for technical reasons (back damage) when the image is sharp. That shows that a condition grade is a technical condition grade and does not cover everything about the card. I'm not saying that's a fault of PSA as they spell out the parameters and specifics of what they are grading, but the person who would financially vale the card strictly by the grade. I don't have to tell anyone here that one PSA 7 1958 Topps Willie Mays can have better eye appeal than another PSA 7 1958 Topps Willia Mays, and the collector should price accordingly.

As I said, while they should be and will be valued substantially less than the originals, I can understand why a collector would buy the later made UPI photos of Cobb, Ruth and DiMaggio-- the images are often Grade A and made from the original negatives. Certainly, if you want to have photos to frame for your office or 'man cave' (hate that term) wall, UPI photos would be a great way to go. And they are official news photos, so have inherent value as collectibles and baseball/news artifacts.