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

[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.

[Jersey City Giants]

Originally Posted by horzverti

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.

But it all seems to boil down to a best guess after considering the paper type. In terms of collecting that is a lot of money riding on someone's "guess" IMHO. I know grading is subjective but I feel most of us are skillful enough to grade many of the cards on our own. Photo's without exact dates just seem like a crap shoot if you are gunning for Type I status regardless what PSA says.

In terms of cropping that would be meaningless to me as I developed my own negatives (I shot for my college newspaper and then as a freelancer after college) and sometimes played around with cropping the same photo different ways. This was all done in the same time frame (same day). Now I never dated any of the photos ( I did use a stamp but it was just to make sure anyone using the photo would have to credit me).

[sphere and ash]

I would like to consider some of the comments that have been made in this thread, and then consider your photograph in the light of those comments.

lumberjack: “wouldn’t it be to the benefit of everyone if the auction houses, big and small, told us everything they could muster about a photograph.”

drcy: “That’s the way I’ve always done it—in plain words.”

drcy: “know that a photograph is nuanced, and can’t simply be defined by a type system.”

Of course you’re correct that there is some guesswork in photographs, but that guesswork exists whether one uses the PSA or photography market definitions. The question is: how should we think about your photograph?

I would begin with lumberjack’s advice: tell everything you can muster. So this is a Charles Conlon photograph, taken in 1913, printed later, or 1913, printed 1920s-1930s. I prefer “printed later” in this case because it might have been printed earlier, and we really have no idea. This is still a collectible print—it was printed during Conlon’s lifetime and probably by Conlon himself—but not as collectible as one stamped “July 7, 1913.” Both the photography market and PSA, confronting a date stamp like that, would have an easy time of it designating the print as “vintage” or “Type 1.”

The difference between a 1913 and a 1923 print is real, but not all-or-none, in my opinion. PSA may not have intended it, but the Type 2 designation essentially renders the photograph worthless. If you doubt that, try consigning it to a major auction house. I think the system fails to capture a lot of value.

[horzverti]

Originally Posted by Jersey City Giants

But it all seems to boil down to a best guess after considering the paper type. In terms of collecting that is a lot of money riding on someone's "guess" IMHO. I know grading is subjective but I feel most of us are skillful enough to grade many of the cards on our own. Photo's without exact dates just seem like a crap shoot if you are gunning for Type I status regardless what PSA says.

In terms of cropping that would be meaningless to me as I developed my own negatives (I shot for my college newspaper and then as a freelancer after college) and sometimes played around with cropping the same photo different ways. This was all done in the same time frame (same day). Now I never dated any of the photos ( I did use a stamp but it was just to make sure anyone using the photo would have to credit me).

Yes, grading/authentication in general is very subjective for sure. If you look at the grading of cards, usually advanced collectors know more about the cards being graded than the graders do. Yet so much emphasis is put on the standard of the PSA grade. The subjectivity of authenticating photos by a third party service is greater than that of cards. With photos, I feel that there is an even more pronounced difference between the knowledge of advanced collectors and the grading service. The collectors have more knowledge. I feel that PSA does a decent job with photos in general; but I prefer Rhys' process. PSA's (Henry's) type system was a great start, but it can be improved. PSA should start at the top - improve authentication of Conlon photos. You are correct Jersey City, there is a lot of $ riding on someone's subjective "guess."