REA's 1910 Cobb Sliding Photo LET THE BUYER BEWARE

[prewarsports]

I normally do not chime in on stuff like this but I have had a few people call me and bring this thread to my attention as well as ask my opinion, so I will offer a few thoughts.

I have studied Conlon and his paper and stamps as well for years and I do not disagree with what is being said here by those who started the thread. They are an extremely knowledgeable and highly respected group of collectors whose expertise is vast and their collective knowledge is impressive.

WARNING

OPINION and SPECULATION TO FOLLOW BEYOND THIS POINT......

I have seen over the last decade the photo industry change and I have a feeling PSA is changing with it, which if that is the case would be a welcome thing. When this hobby started to gain traction and PSA jumped in, a system was put in place that somewhat mirrored what most people do when evaluating photographs. Whether or not the image is off the original negative is by far the most important aspect, and there is always a gray area between what is considered a first or second generation print. When PSA came up with their standard they used a VERY narrow window of two years. I feel, and many others feel the same way, that this was too narrow. The key though is their use of the word "approximately" when using the two years to evaluate their images. This leaves some ambiguity as to what that means. I think if they could go back in time and do it all over again, they would have expanded that a bit. (Remember Opinion, I am not speaking for PSA, just my observation).

Over the last five or so years I have seen examples of where Henry has expand his database, start to analyze paper fibers rather than reject blank backed photographs, and be scientific in his approach to authenticating. As this hobby has gone from a few hundred thousand in sales to tens of millions, this was a necessity. As his technology has advanced, I feel their window has expanded a bit because they feel more comfortable with their assessments rather than relying on stamps from newspapers and photo archives to date things.

I personally feel that if indeed PSA is expanding their "approximately two years" window to be a Type 1 because their ability to feel comfortable doing so has evolved, this would be a welcome thing in the hobby. I have always felt this was the only potential flaw in their system and when I have spoken about it, it always comes down to that word "approximately."

Again, this is just my opinion as a collector and seller or photographs, but outside the sports world nobody really cares if a 1910 photo was developed in 1912 or 1915, this is why I use five years when evaluating my images for sale. If a Margaret Bourke White photograph of Gandhi at the spinning wheel is a 1950 example instead of say 1947, it does not matter, it is still considered a first generation print. The problem is the 2 years they assigned that they are now confined to stay within.

It is a beautiful photograph and clearly a first generation print. I have no skin in the game, but if I were selling it, I would describe it as a 1910's vintage print from Conlon off his original glass plate negative and call it a "vintage 1" with perhaps a caveat that the photo might have been printed in the mid 1910's.

Again, I generally do not use PSA, not because I am against them, but because I feel comfortable in my own assessments of vintage photography, but I think they do a good job. These are all either observations from being in the industry and studying it every single day and gut feelings of what I think the situation is here.

Rhys