When and how do you decide to have photos PSA-certified?

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I am all but certain that National Sports Photos was affiliated with National, a New York photo company that was one of the three big studios that shot publicity photos for boxers and entertainers (with Apeda and Cosmopolitan).

I like your thinking but would this account for the photos of other sports sold by National Sports Photos? Also, we have seen two examples thus far of original news service photos with the cursive writing sitting on top of the emulsion. Both examples have credit stamping from International News on reverse. Either way, I feel as though PSA would treat the National Sports Photos prints as "souvenir photos," which they will not render an opinion on. There is no official stance from PSA online about these but really any commercially available photo are treated as such. Best example I can give are modern photographic prints from Photo File (aka TV Sports Mailbag in the early days) that can be found all over ebay.

[Johnphotoman]

Originally Posted by TCMA

I like your thinking but would this account for the photos of other sports sold by National Sports Photos? Also, we have seen two examples thus far of original news service photos with the cursive writing sitting on top of the emulsion. Both examples have credit stamping from International News on reverse. Either way, I feel as though PSA would treat the National Sports Photos prints as "souvenir photos," which they will not render an opinion on. There is no official stance from PSA online about these but really any commercially available photo are treated as such. Best example I can give are modern photographic prints from Photo File (aka TV Sports Mailbag in the early days) that can be found all over ebay.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please explain what you mean by the cursive writing sitting on top of the emulsion. I understand what it means in printing terms, but how are you applying it here? In the case of printing the cursive (name) was added to the print after it was made, thereby it is sitting on top, if you were to flip the photograph over you would see an indentation, impression on the back. Meaning it was not part of the imaging process.

If you would use a Printers Loop on the photo you would see the ink or whatever was used to put the cursive on top of the photo. You can tell it is on top of the emulsion and not part of the emulsion. If I am correct, the cursive was added after the photo was made/printed. Do I understand correctly? John

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Johnphotoman

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please explain what you mean by the cursive writing sitting on top of the emulsion. I understand what it means in printing terms, but how are you applying it here? In the case of printing the cursive (name) was added to the print after it was made, thereby it is sitting on top, if you were to flip the photograph over you would see an indentation, impression on the back. Meaning it was not part of the imaging process.

If you would use a Printers Loop on the photo you would see the ink or whatever was used to put the cursive on top of the photo. You can tell it is on top of the emulsion and not part of the emulsion. If I am correct, the cursive was added after the photo was made/printed. Do I understand correctly? John

Pretty sure he posted above about the cursive writing a couple of days and you agreed with him and thanked him for his observation.

[Johnphotoman]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Pretty sure he posted above about the cursive writing a couple of days and you agreed with him and thanked him for his observation.

Thank you, but I think I am getting confused, It would be nice to have it spelled out from me. Sorry if I am repeating myself. John

[Exhibitman]

The whole type thing is f***ng stupid anyway. Every team issued photo with printing would be a Type III, as would any composite made up for a news story. I personally prefer a photo that carries its back story right in the image and doesn't rely on somebody guessing the generation of the image or when it was made. MJ's rookie year team issue is a Type III? Silly.

[balltrash]

Type III is not a "negative" connotation, it simply explains the reality of what a piece is. If collectors choose to value a Type III at a lower level than Type I that is what they/we (collectively) have chosen to do.

When the Type system first came into use many collectors did not understand what Type III meant and it got a bad rap.

If you look at pricing on quality images it generally holds up to a relative level at this point (meaning Type III image can be considerably valuable) but again, that price is relative. A Type III photo is not a Type I. Printed in the period, yes. But it is not the same as a Type I. That is the reality. To clarify, that Jordan image in Type III will near 100% of the time sell for less than the Type I equivalent. But it is made from a duplicate negative. If someone took pictures of a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle and used that negative to make a new printing plate in 1952 and then printed more Mantles on the same card stock are they "original"? To some, maybe. But i would want a real "original" if that is what my collecting tastes dictated.

Incidentally - I do like that Jordan piece and if I collected basketball I would like to own it. Regardless of Type.

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

The whole type thing is f***ng stupid anyway. Every team issued photo with printing would be a Type III, as would any composite made up for a news story. I personally prefer a photo that carries its back story right in the image and doesn't rely on somebody guessing the generation of the image or when it was made. MJ's rookie year team issue is a Type III? Silly.

[Johnphotoman]

I do want to apologize if I am repeating myself or if the question has already been answered. I make notes on the post that everyone has posted, thanks, and post or ask questions based on those notes. Therefore sometimes the question has already been answered or maybe I repeat myself, because I am not fully understanding the information provided. Thanks for being patient, I just want to understand the information provided. In the past before I found net54, it was hard to get information or even have a conversation. A lot of people for some reason or another just did not give out information. Thanks John.

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by Johnphotoman

If I am correct, the cursive was added after the photo was made/printed. Do I understand correctly? John

Correct. That is what I mean by "on top of the emulsion." A photo with the cursive writing applied on TOP of the emulsion would presumably then be photographed, thereby creating a copy negative, from which multiples could be created with the lettering embedded WITHIN the image itself. If that makes sense.

[Johnphotoman]

Originally Posted by TCMA

Correct. That is what I mean by "on top of the emulsion." A photo with the cursive writing applied on TOP of the emulsion would presumably then be photographed, thereby creating a copy negative, from which multiples could be created with the lettering embedded WITHIN the image itself. If that makes sense.

That makes sense, But at the same time I am more confused. For now lets stay with the Grover Cleveland Alexander, Type 2 News Service Photo.

I did write up this post on Grover Cleveland Alexander, Type 2 News Service Photo, before we started talking about the emulsion and name on top. Therefore I am posting what I wrote before and then I will explain why I am more confused.: Stay with me it is get crazy for me to take it all in: John

The "Summer, 2023 Premier Auction- (Love of the Game Auctions.)

I want to discuss the "Summer, 2023 Premier Auction- (Love of the Game Auctions.) Lot # 329: c.1940's Grover Cleveland Alexander, Type 2 News Service Photo.
https://bid.loveofthegameauctions.co...e?itemid=31181

If I understand the auction, the original photograph, image was from the “Mid-1920's. It is a photo of pitcher Grover Cleveland Alexander at the Cubs spring training facility on Catalina Island in California.

The image or photo for auction Lot # 329: is a 6.5x8.5 print and was developed during the 1940's and served as a "proof" for a company known as National Sports Photos, Inc.

The auction particulars- National Sports Photos offered 8" x 10" glossy photo reproductions via mail order, complete with the athletes name added.” (Lot # 329: c.1940's Grover Cleveland Alexander (HOF) Type 2 News Service Photo (PSA/DNA).”

Pertaining to our conversation, notice lot# 329 has the athlete's name in white, but it is being auctioned off as aType 2 Wire photo. But in most cases this photo would be called a Type 3 or 4. Because of the name on the photo.

It seems that some company used the photo produced by National Sports Photos, Inc.(Lot # 329)- to make a Wire photo, we know this from the back of the photo.

How was the Wire photo made? It was an original photograph from the “Mid-1920's. Which means the wire photo had to be made from the original negative to be a Type 2 photo (lot# 329), otherwise it would be a Type 3-4 photo.

Another problem, but goes with what I have been saying about how you can use the original negative and add a name to a print. Making the photo a Type 2. It is a fact that you do not have to use a second negative to have a name on a photo.

How was the photo of Grover Cleveland Alexander, a type two wire photo, if the name was added to the Wire photo? The name was not on the original photo, or was it. Is it possible the name was on the original negative and print. It would be nice if someone could look that up, it is beyond me how to do that.

But for now let's just say the original photo of Grover Cleveland Alexander did not have the name on it. How did the Wire photo up for auction, then get the name on the photo. And how is it a type 2? Over and over I have been told if a name is on the photo it is a Type 3 or 4.

Since National Sports Photos, Inc. did make the print in the 1940s, and did put names on the photos, the only way they could have done this..is with the original negative, for it to be a type 2. Now thanks to Exhibitman …it seems they did have the original photos. That is if National Sports Photos was affiliated with National, a New York photo company that was one of the three big studios that shot publicity photos. If they shot the photos, they had the negatives.

One problem I see…if someone used the date stamp and markings on the back, they would tell you the image was from the 1940s, not the 1920s. Do you see how relying on marking on the backs of photos does not alway give accurate details about an image on the photo.

To my point, it would appear that National Sports Photos, Inc. had original negatives that they made photo prints from. Meaning the photos I have should be Type 1 or 2, But in almost every case they would be classified as type 3 or 4. The Type system is broken, there has to be a better system for us as collectors to use. I do believe the Type system in use today is not very well received, but for many that's all there is. John.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by TCMA

I like your thinking but would this account for the photos of other sports sold by National Sports Photos? Also, we have seen two examples thus far of original news service photos with the cursive writing sitting on top of the emulsion. Both examples have credit stamping from International News on reverse. Either way, I feel as though PSA would treat the National Sports Photos prints as "souvenir photos," which they will not render an opinion on. There is no official stance from PSA online about these but really any commercially available photo are treated as such. Best example I can give are modern photographic prints from Photo File (aka TV Sports Mailbag in the early days) that can be found all over ebay.

If PSA/DNA will not render an opinion on these photos and consider them souvenir photos then maybe the best route is to submit info to PSA for them consider grading them as a "card" issue.

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

If PSA/DNA will not render an opinion on these photos and consider them souvenir photos then maybe the best route is to submit info to PSA for them consider grading them as a "card" issue.

The issue there is these are uncatalogued and nobody really has a handle on exactly what they are quite yet. According to their advertising, National Sports Photos would even take requests to obtain images of athletes not on their stock list. So, a complete checklist is probably not something that is likely to surface.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by TCMA

The issue there is these are uncatalogued and nobody really has a handle on exactly what they are quite yet. According to their advertising, National Sports Photos would even take requests to obtain images of athletes not on their stock list. So, a complete checklist is probably not something that is likely to surface.

A complete checklist would not be an obstacle in getting PSA to identify it as a a "card" issue. You are correct, however, that the issue would need to be cataloged or have a detailed description of the National Sports Photos' characteristics.

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by TCMA

Either way, I feel as though PSA would treat the National Sports Photos prints as "souvenir photos," which they will not render an opinion on. There is no official stance from PSA online about these but really any commercially available photo are treated as such. Best example I can give are modern photographic prints from Photo File (aka TV Sports Mailbag in the early days) that can be found all over ebay.

Ah, well I stand corrected. They DID Render an opinion on this one, deeming it a Type IV: https://www.ebay.com/itm/235250487091