Mastro Auction Photos prices realized...

[sphere and ash]

Originally Posted by 19cbb

Are we sure these grading service companies can tell the difference between a "TYPE I, II, III" photograph?

Oh wait, sure they can... because they created the system!

This reminds me of the "Cups" card game in Friends (Sorry Seinfeld fans!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-ZmM5asSUc

No, they can't. Case in point: lot 136, the "Poignant Rube Marquard and Son Photograph." It is very clearly a copy photograph, a photograph of a photograph. I don't understand how anyone could argue otherwise (i.e., that it is a "Type I" photograph).

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by sphere and ash

No, they can't. Case in point: lot 136, the "Poignant Rube Marquard and Son Photograph." It is very clearly a copy photograph, a photograph of a photograph. I don't understand how anyone could argue otherwise (i.e., that it is a "Type I" photograph).

Can you post the front and back of this lot?

[prewarsports]

I think one of the biggest problems with the new system is that people immediately think a Type 2 or a Type 4 are worthless when that is NOT the case. 2 Examples where a Type 2 and a Type 4, both of which are worth WAY less than Type 1 photos but both completely vintage originals that are casualties of the new system:

Exmple #1. 1924 dated Babe Ruth photo with paper caption on the back from Spring Trianing 1924. Original photo was shot during the season of 1920 so we are talking about a 3 year difference, came back as TYPE 2. While this rediculous to begin with, it certainly illustrates the point that just because something is deemed a type 2 it is still VERY valuable. Type 1 is worth probably $5000, I sold my Type 2 (by 1 year) for about $500

The other example is of a Honus Wagner GG Bain photo I have. It is an original c. 1915 Bain photo of Wagner but since Bain cropped the original from 1909 and then reissued it in 1915, we are looking at a type 4 photo. You would think to yourself based on the rediculous grading scale that PSA uses that this would then be worthless as a type 4 photo, but it is an ORIGINAL 1915 Bain Photo of Honus Wagner no matter how you slice it.

These examples are why I think there should be a more liberal window (not restricted to 2 years) and photos should be labeled as either "Vintage Original" or "Non Vintage" meaning made at a later date and the type 1-4 system simply does not work.

Just my opinion.

[barrysloate]

Rhys- as we know grading systems only survive because they spew out numbers. They never dispense with numbers in favor of a descriptive system. I'm not a photo guy but after reading this thread I am leery of the process. Is PSA getting this right nearly 100% of the time? What is their margin of error?

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Rhys- as we know grading systems only survive because they spew out numbers. They never dispense with numbers in favor of a descriptive system. I'm not a photo guy but after reading this thread I am leery of the process. Is PSA getting this right nearly 100% of the time? What is their margin of error?

I believe the margin of error is much much less in this classification system than it is in a subjective(1-10-with 1/2 graded) baseball card grading or auto authentication. Instead of.."i looks real" or "i think this looks like a 9" it is backed up by news stamps, date stamps, age of paper, captions, silver gel..etc..
Is there room for error because ALL facts are impossible to know? Of course..it is a guide/tool for the buyer/seller who loves photos to use in determining a value without being a photo expert. Is PSA making money? Well..I am sure yes. Are they providing a value to the photo industry on education? As a collector/buyer/rare seller of photos, I believe yes. That would be one definition of a successful business.

[sphere and ash]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Rhys- as we know grading systems only survive because they spew out numbers. They never dispense with numbers in favor of a descriptive system. I'm not a photo guy but after reading this thread I am leery of the process. Is PSA getting this right nearly 100% of the time? What is their margin of error?

I have issues with the definitions, but my post was about error. If you believe the Marquard image was printed from the original negative at any time, then, in my opinion, you should not be grading or evaluating photographs for others. The error rate of the person responsible could be very high (and, presumably, one sided--copy prints will be represented as vintage prints and not the other way around).

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by sphere and ash

I have issues with the definitions, but my post was about error. If you believe the Marquard image was printed from the original negative at any time, then, in my opinion, you should not be grading or evaluating photographs for others. The error rate of the person responsible could be very high (and, presumably, one sided--copy prints will be represented as vintage prints and not the other way around).

Can you please state why you think he Marquard is not off the original negative?

[sphere and ash]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Can you please state why you think he Marquard is not off the original negative?

If you Xerox a memo and then Xerox the copy, the clarity is reduced with each successive copy. The same is true for photographs. You also have another effect, which is increasing contrast--the middle tones start to disappear and become increasingly white or black. You can see that in the Marquard image. I once owned a vintage print of this image, and the clarity and tonal range was astounding. George Grantham Bain, by the way, very frequently copied the images of photographers who were not employed by his agency.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

I think one of the biggest problems with the new system is that people immediately think a Type 2 or a Type 4 are worthless when that is NOT the case. 2 Examples where a Type 2 and a Type 4, both of which are worth WAY less than Type 1 photos but both completely vintage originals that are casualties of the new system:

Exmple #1. 1924 dated Babe Ruth photo with paper caption on the back from Spring Trianing 1924. Original photo was shot during the season of 1920 so we are talking about a 3 year difference, came back as TYPE 2. While this rediculous to begin with, it certainly illustrates the point that just because something is deemed a type 2 it is still VERY valuable. Type 1 is worth probably $5000, I sold my Type 2 (by 1 year) for about $500

The other example is of a Honus Wagner GG Bain photo I have. It is an original c. 1915 Bain photo of Wagner but since Bain cropped the original from 1909 and then reissued it in 1915, we are looking at a type 4 photo. You would think to yourself based on the rediculous grading scale that PSA uses that this would then be worthless as a type 4 photo, but it is an ORIGINAL 1915 Bain Photo of Honus Wagner no matter how you slice it.

These examples are why I think there should be a more liberal window (not restricted to 2 years) and photos should be labeled as either "Vintage Original" or "Non Vintage" meaning made at a later date and the type 1-4 system simply does not work.

Just my opinion.

We have had this convo before...I have no problems with the system. I guess I think they could just be as specific as they can in the description and let the buyer decide. Personally, I would much rather have a Mantle Joplin photo printed in 1950 than one in 1953 and would pay much more. My opinion is that we try to get as specific as we can/classify as close to the original date and let buyers decide. I think that is what the system is doing. If the market deems that type 4's are worth 5 percent, so be it..those who don't care get a deals of a lifetime all day long, all day strong.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by sphere and ash

No, they can't. Case in point: lot 136, the "Poignant Rube Marquard and Son Photograph." It is very clearly a copy photograph, a photograph of a photograph. I don't understand how anyone could argue otherwise (i.e., that it is a "Type I" photograph).

I've noticed a large number of Bain photos aren't neccesarily Type I, but are direct copies of his photos. Especially when used for Press use during this time period.

Most however are vintage to the era, which is the most important aspect I think.

This Marquard one, honestly, I can't tell from the scans. Do you think it's the large borders that give it away? From the image itself, it seems all markings giving clues to 2nd generation use have been cropped away.

It does appear vintage to the period at least.