REA's 1910 Cobb Sliding Photo LET THE BUYER BEWARE

[Snapolit1]

Whole thread just make clear that there is a degree of uncertainty in all of the hobby, whether you are buying bats, balls, card, photos or anything else. If you think any AH or industry source is beyond question or challenge I politely disagree. Autographs most prominent example. I've seen legal cases that turn on validity of a signature, and two world renowned experts come to the court room with diametrically opposed views. The idea that folks on this board can look at a bad scan and give some degree of certainty seems like a real stretch to me except in the most obvious cases. Same with photos. And the whole photo classification scheme just interjects more uncertainty in many cases. Some know more than others but nobody knows it all.

[benjulmag]

FWIW, the most recent RMY auction had a Conlon image also taken at Hilltop Park c. 1910. The size is 6.5" x 9.5". It has no white border. Here is the link: https://rmyauctions.com/bids/bidplace?itemid=51452

RMY characterizes the photo as Vintage 1, which they define as being printed from the original negative within 5 years of being shot.

[drcy]

All areas have uncertainty. What matters is that experts correctly represent the uncertainty.

There is no area in memorabilia or physics or biology or art or astronomy or religion or economics where there is 100% certainty. The key is to say you don't know when you don't know, and to know when you don't know.

Also, your label shouldn't be more specific than your knowledge. Circa 1930, or "1930s" can be a correct label, where "1932" for the same thing wouldn't be.

As I said before, I don't have specific knowledge of Conlon's photos including what sizes he's used when, but a question shouldn't be just about the white borders but the white borders with the 8x10" size. Showing pre-1910 white-bordered photos certainly is relevant and informative, but ones that are smaller than 8x10" are not the same things. The 8x10" size is very relevant and should be sorted out, as an 8x10" white bordered photo is generally associated with later time periods.

I don't know the two-year window question necessarily has great relevance to the value of this photo. For example, if the photo turned out to be made in 1918, would that alter the hobby value? I don't know that it would. Two years always was and always will be just someone's arbitrary pick. There is no objective, exact definition for what is "original," and a historic photo doesn't have to be original to valuable. There are many other factors and qualities that go into value.

[Robbie]

There are so many inciteful and interesting viewpoints in this thread...

Neither Conlon (nor any other non-studio, sports/news photographer of that era) had anything I believe one would deem perfectly consistent methods, systems, and ways of doing things... Different assignments at any time, or all the time, for whomever was offering the best opportunity... different requirements for sizes, quality, speed, number of prints... other factors like whether contact proofs were needed/made, who owned/controlled/had the negatives... and then inconsistent copyright stampings that may have been done contemporaneously or not, or no stamp at all.

This leaves us with expert opinions and examples with which we can try to deduce print periods. Like others have said, this is a very good method, but far from 100% certain. Perhaps if forensics advance far enough, we can come close to answering these questions with virtual certainty?

An over-arching issue for me in all of this (and I believe for many of us), is that unlike in the pure "Art Photography World," we want the original print that is made earliest as possible after a photo is taken!

So I want that 1910 Conlon photo to be a 1910 print, as opposed to a 1915 print, or even a 1912 print. I believe that an earlier print will always be the most valuable and most preferable to just about every serious photo collector.

Your thoughts?

[drcy]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Your thoughts?

The age is important to me.

[drcy]

I just looked at the PSA label, and the date says "c. 1910s." I'd refer to that rather than the type number they give. There is an obvious conflict between that dating and the type number next to it. PSA/DNA's type and "original" definition says "within approximately two years of when the picture was taken," while the dating on the label doesn't even pinpoint the photo to an exact decade.

1930s-40s George Burke photos are the same deal. You know the era they were made by the back stamp (Burke changed stamp and studio address), but usually don't know what year they were made (1930 versus 1933, 1935 versus 1941). I call those Burke photos "vintage."

These photos shouldn't be assigned a type number because they don't know exactly when they were made.

As I said, there's nothing errant without not knowing details about a photo. With most baseball tintypes, the identities of the players and even teams and state are usually not known, and you very rarely know the exact year. You give an opinion about the decade due to the photo's physicality, uniforms, photo studio backdrop, etc.-- and you usually can be certain that the tintype or cabinet card is from the 1860s versus the 1880s. On the other hand, many news photos have the printing date stamped or tagged right on the photo, so they can often be dated to the day. Most news photos were made for specific news events, so can be reliably dated to the year without a date stamp or dated tag due to that circumstance. Same with many Hollywood movie photos. There are many other photos with other supporting physical evidence that you can logically and very reasonably assume (and label) the photo was made the year it was shot: a snapshot, family picnic real photo postcard, a high school senior portrait, most of the photos in a family photo album. This explains why a photo expert can confidentally call a photo original without knowing the year it was shot and printed. Though that's not the case with many of the Burke and the Cobb photos, as we know the images were put out by the photographers over a relatively large timespan.

I don't think it's logically and honestly arguable that a PSA/DNA type number can be given to the Conlon photo. Your label or description of an item can't be more specific than your knowledge. That's authentication and identification 101.

[D. Bergin]

Everything Mr. Rudd has said in this thread is spot on. I don't need to really add anything else.

I'll wager that if Henry Yee and PSA could go back in time, they would re-think that whole TypeI I two year window, and make the definition more open ended, and perhaps even a little more vague.

[Robbie]

About 12 years ago or so, I developed my own proprietary system to identify, categorize, and evaluate photographs.

I will not go into all the details, but when it came to coordinating photos into date categories (the “when” a print was made), I had to implement some assumptions, like all others do who evaluate photos.

I do this by designating photos into “Printing Eras,” and I do that with the following designations and descriptions;


Printing Era:

“IP” (for “Initial Print”): These are prints that which upon thorough examination of the photograph, and research of its provenance, renders an expert opinion that the print was developed and/or published within 6 Months of when the photograph was originally taken. This category includes things like the original artwork used for contemporaneous publication, and vintage contact prints stored in the original magazine’s file, etc…

I created this category because there are photos that can be determined with high confidence to be produced for use or distribution at that time and/or are “THE” Original Art for some publication or use. These photos are rare, sometimes unique, and desirable, and deserve a designation that nobody else is currently giving them. This would benefit less experienced collectors as well as bring out the true value.

Meanwhile, I believe the market has determined that “Initial Prints” are the most valuable and sought after photographs relative to other vintage and non-vintage prints.

“FPE” (for “First Printing Era”): These are prints developed within 10 Years of photographs originally taken prior to 1920, and within 5 Years of photographs taken in 1920 or later. All IP’s are FPE’s, but not all FPE’s are IP’s.

“SPE” (for “Second Printing Era”): These are prints developed beyond the First Printing Era but within 20 Years of when the photograph was taken.

“LP” (for “Later Printing”): These are prints developed more than 20 Years after the photograph was taken.

“NV” (for “Not Vintage”): Like “Later Prints,” these are prints developed more than 20 Years after the photograph was taken, but are so recent as to have no current market value beyond display.

This is just my system for dating.


Without having actually observed in person the Conlon Photo under discussion, but taking into account what the experts are saying here, along with the very highly respected opinion of Henry Yee, I would refer to the photo as:

Original Negative | First Printing Era or ON | FPE

Simple as that.

Robert Slatkin

[Snapolit1]

David, just a quick public thank you for your posts through the years on photos. You are a measured, thoughtful voice on these issues, and I am sure I speak for many board members in saying thank you for sharing your expertise and opinions on these issues. I always look forward to reading your posts and learning something.

Originally Posted by drcy

All areas have uncertainty. What matters is that experts correctly represent the uncertainty.

There is no area in memorabilia or physics or biology or art or astronomy or religion or economics where there is 100% certainty. The key is to say you don't know when you don't know, and to know when you don't know.

Also, your label shouldn't be more specific than your knowledge. Circa 1930, or "1930s" can be a correct label, where "1932" for the same thing wouldn't be.

As I said before, I don't have specific knowledge of Conlon's photos including what sizes he's used when, but a question shouldn't be just about the white borders but the white borders with the 8x10" size. Showing pre-1910 white-bordered photos certainly is relevant and informative, but ones that are smaller than 8x10" are not the same things. The 8x10" size is very relevant and should be sorted out, as an 8x10" white bordered photo is generally associated with later time periods.

I don't know the two-year window question necessarily has great relevance to the value of this photo. For example, if the photo turned out to be made in 1918, would that alter the hobby value? I don't know that it would. Two years always was and always will be just someone's arbitrary pick. There is no objective, exact definition for what is "original," and a historic photo doesn't have to be original to valuable. There are many other factors and qualities that go into value.

[drcy]

Thanks!

No system is perfect, and systems are continually being refined. The question is if PSA/DNA refines and correct things. I think there should be photos that they holder but without a type assigned. I believe PSA has said their system was designed for news photos and doesn't necessarily fit to some other photos.

Another issue is the graders couldn't have been unaware of the incongruity of their dating and the two-year window, but decided the photo should get a type 1 and "original" label anyway. That should be problematic to collectors if PSA applies that kind of situational fudging and disregard of their own rules in other areas, such as autographs, card grading and game-used.

However, my observation has been that PSA/DNA has been reliable in photo dating and authentication, and collectors should generally be confident in buying PSA/DNA authenticated photos.

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

David, just a quick public thank you for your posts through the years on photos. You are a measured, thoughtful voice on these issues, and I am sure I speak for many board members in saying thank you for sharing your expertise and opinions on these issues. I always look forward to reading your posts and learning something.

[SAllen2556]

Not sure where or when, but I found this once upon a time on some website. It appears to be the entire negative with a white border.

Cobb-sliding.jpg

[lumberjack]

This is a knockoff. You can see this print in one of the Conlon books done by the McCabes.
lumberjack

[TCMA]

If it helps, here's an example of the same Conlon photo created both with and without borders: