Type I versus Type II : I'm a little confused

[Exhibitman]

PSA speaks crap,
Photo dates not knowable,
Enjoy pics, screw grades.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

PSA speaks crap,
Photo dates not knowable,
Enjoy pics, screw grades.

Excellent! I'm going to petition Leon for a Haiku day on Net54 where all posts must be in Haiku form.

[drc]

Well, I posted this in another thread, but as the subject came up here. If you wish you can download the free photo authentication guide

http://cycleback.com/course.html

A few points:

1) Photo paper changed over time-- how it was made, what it looked like-- and can often judge what period the paper came from. Also, you can identify the photo process used, which helps date the photo to a period. Different processes were used during different periods.

2) If you don't know, you don't know. For even the top exert, there will be photos where he won't be certain of the date. There's nothing errant with saying you don't know if you don't know. The only problem is if you made up a date.

3) You can know a photo is old, but be unable to pint point a year. Due to the photo process, paper, style and aging signs, you can be certain a photo was from the 1800s, but can't say 1888 or 1881.

4) Stamps are a good way to date photo, and in the past have rarely been forged. However, with the popularity of PSA grading, it's possible stamp forgeries will rise. One of the lessons of photo examination, is you don't date a photo just by the stamp

5) I'm not a chemical engineer, but, ironically, my dad is. Really. Pure coincidence to this thread ... He's a retired chemical and biological engineering professor, and has always been my "chief and unpaid adviser" on scientific issues concerning what I do ... He's a prestigious scientist (or at least a retired one) who I just happen to call "dad"

6) One note on paper fiber analysis and chemical testing of photos: I bet no one here owns a baseball card that has had paper fiber analysis and chemical testing. As someone who's also familiar with authenticating baseball cards, you can't tell me that photos and trading cards are different categories in this respect. If you believe it's impossible to determine the age of a photo without laboratory testing, you have to also believe that it's impossible to determine the age of the baseball cards you own without laboratory testing-- as they are all printed images on paper or card stock. Yet, I'm sure many in this thread are quite confident, and I would guess correctly so, that they own genuine cards.

Of course, many baseball card collectors have black lights and pocket microscopes and compare the glossiness and opacity. In these cases, the collectors are doing their own mini scientific testing. Checking the color of fluorescence under ultraviolet light is dang close to home laboratory text. Having to put that 1971 Topps Nolan Ryan under paper fiber analysis would not only be extreme overkill, but not needed.

Genuine laboratory paper fiber analysis would be reserved for something like a newly discovered unique Babe Ruth card that collectors have doubts about. Similarly, you might do such analysis for a legal dispute involving $50,000 Ansel Adams photos. But it's no more needed for the average ACME News Photos Charlie Gehringer photo than for that 1971 Topps Nolan Ryan.

[Matt]

David - I'm disappointed you couldn't get that into Haiku form.

Great, informative response from an expert in the field. Thanks!

[HRBAKER]

David,
Very interesting read and valuable insights. I don't doubt that I own many actual cards just like I don't doubt that the photos we have been discussing in the abstract are actual photos. Most cards are dated, many photos are not (I assume) - I don't doubt they are photos, what I doubt is that most graders can ascertain with a degree of certainty a two year window from which the print/photo was made. And I think to a large degree you said that.

I also think that your point about false/fake stamps is spot on as this segment of the hobby takes off. Maybe I should just stick with the ACME News Service photos of Charlie Gehringer.

Thanks again.

[drc]

You take it photo by photo. One photo you can be near certain it was made in a particular year, another you may be confident it's old but you're unable to determine the particular year it was made. That's why you see a cabinet card in an REA auction labeled as circa 1885 or 1860s. REA is certain they are from the advertised era, but can't give you an exact year.

News photos tend to be easier to assign to a specific year than cabinet cards, as they were for news purposes and often have the date on them. Cabinet cards are often more vague. But, yes, there will be old photos where you can't prove the "within 2 years" rule.