Poll - The Stock Market and Vintage Sales

[Peter_Spaeth]

There is an explanation in the auction itself.

Please note: this very example previously sold in our Summer, 2023 Premier Auction and was encapsulated as a Type III photo at that time. Over one year later a second example of this photo, with identical embedded editing, surfaced in the hobby which PSA determined to be a Type I photo. That photo ultimately sold elsewhere in September, 2024 in excess of $85,000. PSA then updated their opinion on the offered example, determining the embedded editing within both images is, in fact, a result of application to the original negative itself and not present due to use of a copy negative. A full LOA from PSA is included with this photo noting the critical distinction.

[oldjudge]

Yes, Al did a great job explaining it.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There is an explanation in the auction itself.

Please note: this very example previously sold in our Summer, 2023 Premier Auction and was encapsulated as a Type III photo at that time. Over one year later a second example of this photo, with identical embedded editing, surfaced in the hobby which PSA determined to be a Type I photo. That photo ultimately sold elsewhere in September, 2024 in excess of $85,000. PSA then updated their opinion on the offered example, determining the embedded editing within both images is, in fact, a result of application to the original negative itself and not present due to use of a copy negative. A full LOA from PSA is included with this photo noting the critical distinction.

So PSA bungled the initial analysis and cost that first consignor how many thousands of dollars due to its (expensive) incompetence? Hey, PSA: