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

[Johnphotoman]

I agree "souvenir photos: is the best way to describe the photos. I also understand from all the conversations here, the market will determine the value of the photos. Thanks for all the great conversations, believe it or not I am gaining a lot of knowledge.

Lucas00 is probably right about them being a decade release 1940-1950. All the information I have points out they were not a release year or part of a set. The reason I rule out the 1960s is because they have been in my family since 1968, when they were discovered - they were in photo albums from the 1940s, which look like they were there for 10-15 years already.

As for them bening National Sports photo- there is properly no doubt they are. We see Ted Willams and Johnny Van Der Meer, the two photos are on the cover of the National Sports Photos- catalog. My photos are the exact same photos. And Jackie Robinson's photo is in the same style. All the photos are in the same style, this is the style used by National Sports Photos since the 1940s. Exhibitman: Now that is funny, we need some humor now and then. John.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Type 4 photos can absolutely have value! As I mentioned previously, two Dominican League baseball photos that pictured Josh Gibson sold in Hakes Auctions for $8K+ and $4K+. That’s nothing to sneeze at if you ask me. What you are failing to recognize is that these were identified on the flips as 1950’s and 1960’s productions. A 2025 Type 4 would be worthless, yes. But that’s a difference of 70 years or so.

[Lucas00]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Type 4 photos can absolutely have value! As I mentioned previously, two Dominican League baseball photos that pictured Josh Gibson sold in Hakes Auctions for $8K+ and $4K+. That’s nothing to sneeze at if you ask me. What you are failing to recognize is that these were identified on the flips as 1950’s and 1960’s productions. A 2025 Type 4 would be worthless, yes. But that’s a difference of 70 years or so.

That's true, but they would have period identifying marks on the front/back, so easily identified as vintage in some way. The Ops are all blank. The vast vast majority of type 4s are 80s or newer money grabs that have no value. And are low quality grainy prints that are white on the back.

It's actually kind of funny, I would say type 4 truly vintage photos are actually far rarer than any other type. Because everybody either had a negative or purchased a type 1 for publication use or used wire photos. The process of copying a photo in the 50s was hard, and the only way I know it was actually done is simply by taking a photo of a print. Which Is why most vintage type 4 photos look so bad.

[Johnphotoman]

It is kind of funny that some Type 4 vintage photos are far rarer than any other type. Take the photos I have, if they are type 4, the verdict is still out on that one. They are very-very-rare, you just do not see them around that much. As far as when they came out the photos are circa 1940s-1950s that is a given.

But as most people have said, in this case the Type of photo does not change the fact that they are either 75 years or 85 years old to date. We know they are over 60 years old, because of when they were discovered.

The image of the name on the photos could have been added right from the original negative, this was done as far back circa 1920s. Making them a Type 2. No one can say what process was used, a best guess scenario would be applied, same can be said about when the photo was captured. But they are cool and a mystery, but we are nailing down the facts here.

And had I believed people in the past when Henry Yee, Marshall Fogel (2005) created the Type system…I would have just put them in the trash. The book did bring attention to collecting photos, because it was hard to find any information on cards. But I can tell you people believed I had something very rare before the type system, not so much in value but in historical contact and they believe they were vintage photos. This is probably why I have kept them. John

[gonefishin]

I would like to add a couple of thoughts on this topic. I enjoy vintage pictures and have bought and sold a couple. Regarding PSA, if you pay the extra amount for a LOA in addition to encapsulation you get a lot more information other than what is contained on the label. With just the label itself you receive very little information.

In the example attached, both of Chief Bender, there are a couple of excellent examples that fit this thread.

The snapshot is, and always should be, a type I example.

The photo is a type II. I attached it along with the letter to show the type of information I receive when I also pay for an LOA.

[Johnphotoman]

Originally Posted by gonefishin

I would like to add a couple of thoughts on this topic. I enjoy vintage pictures and have bought and sold a couple. Regarding PSA, if you pay the extra amount for a LOA in addition to encapsulation you get a lot more information other than what is contained on the label. With just the label itself you receive very little information.

In the example attached, both of Chief Bender, there are a couple of excellent examples that fit this thread.

The snapshot is, and always should be, a type I example.

The photo is a type II. I attached it along with the letter to show the type of information I receive when I also pay for an LOA.

This helps a lot. But how did PSA identify the photo as a Type 2? It looks like there were markings on the back? I see the photo was a reissued photo from the 1950. Issued in the 1980s made of the original negative. How did they know that it was Type 2? It says- The characteristics of the Image, paper stock, reverse stampings, notations are consistent with those of a Type 2 photo. Is this right? John

[Johnphotoman]

“Souvenir Photos”- TCMA: Andrew Aronstein -mentioned earlier, it is the best description for the photos I have. I remember hearing that term used on the photos before. But I did not give it much thought, heck there are all souvenir photos. But now thanks to TCMA- I understand it is a classification for photos, commercially sold, not part of a set.

The other day I was going over my notes on the photos I have….and saw a note -“Souvenir Photos”. Let me explain, in 1977 my Dad went to a Baltimore Orioles and New York Yankees baseball game. The broadcast announcers for that game were Rex Barney for Baltimore and Phil Rizzuto for New York. My Dad had their photos with him. He was able to show them the photos, and they both autographed them in ballpoint pen.

They did discuss the photos a little, the best I can understand, they both believed they were “Souvenir Photos” from when they played the game.. My Dad mentioned to Rex Barney that his photo looked like it was from 1946 because of the uniform. His response, it could be. Now I have to ask, does anyone recognize the uniform, and can you say what year it is from? I know it is a Brooklyn Dodgers uniform.

The connection there is proof that souvenir photos like Rex Barnry and Phil Rizzuto were issued in 1947. And we know these souvenir photos were issued by the National Sports photo company. There is a chance that some of the photos I have were taken in the 1940s and issued with the names on them in 1947.

It has been established that the National Sports photo company issued photos like the ones I have - with the names on them, in 1947. Now for the confusing part, even if the photos were taken in 1946 and printed in 1947 with the names on the photos, they could be classified as a Type 1, 2, 3 and even a 4- if I understand how the type system works. You see the confusion: a photo that is over 70 years old- could be a type 4, but a photo from the 1940s made from the original negative a year ago would be a Type 2. John.