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

[drcy]

Originally Posted by sphere and ash

I agree wholeheartedly.

That's the way I've always done it-- in plain words.

The PSA type system is a cataloging system, and, from what I've seen, PSA does an accurate job in authenticating photos. So I'm not coming hard down on them or their authentication abilities.

But collectors shouldn't treat the label as the be all and end all, and know that photographs are nuanced, and can't simply be defined by a type system. For example, the Lincoln photo I mentioned wasn't a Type 1 but had great financial value. And, of course, N172 Old Judge, Gypsy Queens and Four Base Hits aren't Type I photos.

And my additional addition that I often add is that PSA and other photo authenticators should never ever install a condition grading system. If that happened, ever other photo would be trimmed to get a better grade.

[sphere and ash]

Originally Posted by drcy

know that photographs are nuanced, and can't simply be defined by a type system.

In a sentence, this is what I’m saying.

[Jersey City Giants]

did Conlon produce many without stamps? I just purchased a photo that had writing in the back that was identical to writing I have seen on authentic Conlons. Can one determine it was one of his without the stamp?

[sphere and ash]

Originally Posted by Jersey City Giants

did Conlon produce many without stamps? I just purchased a photo that had writing in the back that was identical to writing I have seen on authentic Conlons. Can one determine it was one of his without the stamp?

Conlons without stamps are relatively uncommon, but you can certainly find them. His handwriting is distinguishable, as on this Ruth

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by sphere and ash

Conlons without stamps are relatively uncommon, but you can certainly find them. His handwriting is distinguishable, as on this Ruth

Do be aware though that both his handwriting and his stamps have been forged with varying degrees of success. Somewhere in the archives is a thread regarding the stamping. As far as his handwriting, as with any, I guess you'd just have to see enough of the real thing to spot the fakes, though I've seen some pretty awful attempts.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by drcy

The PSA type system is a cataloging system, and, from what I've seen, PSA does an accurate job in authenticating photos. So I'm not coming hard down on them or their authentication abilities.

But collectors shouldn't treat the label as the be all and end all, and know that photographs are nuanced, and can't simply be defined by a type system.

And my additional addition that I often add is that PSA and other photo authenticators should never ever install a condition grading system. If that happened, ever other photo would be trimmed to get a better grade.

This exactly. Just as with cards you will hear over and over "buy the card, not the flip." What is on the photo's "flip" as it comes back from PSA is a great summary of several of the aspects that affect a photo's desirability to collectors, but there are a number of subjective elements that figure into a photo's value as well.

The way I see it, knowing the Type under which PSA has classified the photo, buyers who are not looking at it in person don't have to try and discern tell-tale signs that would enable them to make the determination themselves. This can be particularly difficult when buying based on an image in an eBay listing taken with a crappy camera phone that only shows the front face of the photo. I may be able to discern whether it is a clear image of a desirable subject, but it is often difficult to parse much more than that from a novice seller's eBay posting. The seller's written description may provide some additional clues, but the terminology can often be misused, or terms from other collecting niches are misapplied. If I know what Type classification PSA has assigned to the photo, I can focus more on elements not covered in the Type classification, such as the clarity and desirability of the central image in the photo itself, rather than trying to determine if the print was produced more-recently than advertised. For every Rhys or David, whose descriptions accurately depict all I would need to know other than "do I like the image," there are a hundred would-be photo sellers who I wish would submit to PSA, just so that it wouldn't be such a crap-shoot as to what I can expect when I get that photo in the mail.

To me, this is similar to seeing a grade assigned to a card in that, while I may be looking at other aspects besides what is shown on the flip in determining whether to buy the card, at least I know that it is authentic before moving on to those other observations, rather than spending time scrutinizing how sharp the corners are on a misrepresented modern reprint.

[Jersey City Giants]

here is the photo in question.

https://imgur.com/a/Hj10HR6

[drcy]

There are original Conlon photos with just his writing.

There was a series of forged Conlon stamps, the photos also containing his writing and signature. However, I'm not aware that any of the forgeries had just his writing (no stamp). So a learned opinion/comparison of the handwriting would solve your question.

P.s. The forged stamp was unique in design, meaning it didn't match Conlon's known real stamps and so can easily be identified.

[sphere and ash]

The 1914 dating raises the possibility that it was printed later. In the photography market it would be described as “1914, printed later” (someone might be able to tighten the range based on the paper). I believe PSA would describe it as Type 2, with all of its binary implications. This is a good example of the nuance drcy was calling for which the photography market is geared.

[Jersey City Giants]

The "Cubs 1914" is a little darker Pencil and the Cubs does not match the way Conlon wrote it out (especially the S) while the name matches Conlon's handwriting. Hence, I am thinking someone added that at a later date than the photo.

[Jersey City Giants]

I could be completely off here as I am a newbie to photos.

[horzverti]

Originally Posted by Jersey City Giants

The "Cubs 1914" is a little darker Pencil and the Cubs does not match the way Conlon wrote it out (especially the S) while the name matches Conlon's handwriting. Hence, I am thinking someone added that at a later date than the photo.

The name and Cubs 1914 is in Charlie's hand. Often if you see a date written by Conlon it means that the print was produced well after the image was captured. Conlon would probably receive a request for a print of one of his older images and he would just produce a new print off of his original neg. I would think that he may have been inconsistent with writing dates on prints made off of an older neg = it can be tough to determine if a print was created near the date of image capture or well after. To make a best guess you must consider multiple factors: paper stock, stamp, written detail on back, photo margins, etc. This is assuming the print was produced from the original Conlon created neg.