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

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by bobw

Wouldn't the image be from 1947 as the "watch for" ad for "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty" is in the background and the movie premiered in August 1947 but was released in September 1947.

It's definitely from 1947 because the first time Jackie wore a Dodgers uniform on the field was April 11, 1947 during the pre-season series against the Yankees.

[Schlesinj]

Because they make Billboards signs and don’t replace them for years.

[Exhibitman]

Your conclusion is an inductive reasoning error (generalizing from specific). The photo establishes the earliest possible date of manufacture (the day the image was captured). It does not establish the actual date that the photo was created. It could have been made any time.

[Johnphotoman]

I agree with Exhibitman on most points- but I believe we can establish a timeline for when the photo was created…printed as a print. Ok we mainly agree that the image on the Jackie Robinson photo is from 1947, the possible year it was captured.

The question is, when was the photo made? (printed as a print) Therefore the question becomes can we use deductive reasoning…use logic to arrive at a logical conclusion as to when the print was made? That is to say establish a reasonable date the photo was created.

The known facts:

1- Photos with names on them just like the ones I have have been auctioned as Type 1, 2 and 3. We have one on this post: (Lot# 329: 1940's Grover Cleveland Alexander Type 2 News Service Photo.

What we know about the Grover Cleveland auction: The auction house describes the photo this way: “Mid-1920's image of Hall of Fame pitcher Grover Cleveland Alexander at the Cubs spring training facility on Catalina Island in California. Though the image hails from the 1920's this particular 6.5" x 8.5" print was developed during the 1940's and served as a "proof" for a company known as "National Sports Photos, Inc." National Sports Photos offered 8" x 10" glossy photo reproductions via mail order, complete with the athletes name added in a handwritten style.”

2-National Sports Photos offered 8" x 10" glossy photo reproductions via mail order, complete with the athletes name added in a handwritten style starting in the 1940s. This style of writing on the photos matches the style on the photos I have. We can then conclude the photos I have are National Sports Photos.

3- All the photos I have are of the same style and match the Grover Cleveland Alexander photo except the size. Many of the images on the photos I have are seen on different Baseball cards, Bond Bread, Berk Ross, Exhibit style cards, Mini strip cards (R423), just to name a few. These baseball cards match the photos I have, many down to the names on the cards, which are an exact match- Bond Bread cards come to mind.

4- Bond Bread cards were issued in 1947, does this mean that the photos were around then as well. Since the images are the same on the photos and the Bond Bread cards, would it be reasonable to conclude the images on the photos were made the same time as the 1947 Bond Bread cards.

5- Two examples of the photos I have that match Bond Bread cards are: Ted Willams and Johnny Van Der Meer. The two examples are on the cover of the National Sports Photos- catalog. See post #6. There is no date on the letter from the National Sports Photos malling. But we do see that the mailing for National Sports Photos cost 4 ½ cents to mail. We see a 3 cent stamp and 1 ½ cent stamp. But I notice the 3 cent stamp was - a special commemorative stamp: Issued in 1947.

The U.S. 3 Cents stamp-The Doctor # 949 was issued on June 9, 1947, to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the founding of the American Medical Association. "The Doctor" stamp was sold for approximately 10 years from its initial release in 1947 until the introduction of the 4-cent stamp in 1958. We then can reasonably believe that the mailing for the National Sports Photos- catalog was issued circa 1947 - 1957. Advertising some photos from 1947, as seen on the cover of the catalog.

6- Information suggests many of the photos were made with names on them circa 1947, because again-we see the same images on the Bond Bread cards that came out in 1947. We then can believe that the photos I have were made 1947-1958. Knowing all the information would it not be reasonable to believe the Jackie Robinson photo could have been made in 1947 and no later than 1957. Conclusion the photos I have were taken 1930-1950, the photos were made (created) in 1947-1950s.

The information also suggests the Jackie Robinson photo has a good chance of being made the year it was taken 1947. Because it does match photos we can say were made in 1947, ie Ted Willams and John Van Der Meer. The odds are in fact better than the print being made in the 1950s. So how can anyone say what Type photo it is. Why would anyone judge the photo of Jackie Robinson on what Type it was, or any of the photos I have? John

[Johnphotoman]

I guess the question should be to you as collectors: Find value in the photos I have? Or value in the type of photos -they would be classified as. John

[Exhibitman]

The dating argument still fails for lack of evidence. Unless you have some sort of extrinsic proof of date, like a mailing envelope, you can't conclude to enough of a certainty that the photo was printed in any specific time period, or how long it was printed for. Of course, you can narrow it down somewhat when it comes to identified items, e.g., if you know that a company made an item and then went down the toilet in a specific year, their products are pretty much capped at that year at the latest. But with an active company trying to make money, not cater to us nerds, anything else is speculation and is very likely wrong because they used their intellectual property as long as it paid. I'll give you a concrete example: the designation of Salutations Exhibit cards as a 1939-1946 issue.

The truth is that some Salutations designs were issued in 1939 but some were issued as late as 1960. ESCO re-used the same art for a decade or more, retiring a design when the player retired. Ted Williams, for example, retired after the 1960 season and his Salutations card (the no #9 showing version) can be found on uncut sheets of Exhibit cards with Rocky Colavito as a Tiger. Colavito was traded from Cleveland to Detroit on April 17, 1960. The Colavito card in the Detroit uni cannot predate the trade, so the Williams card on the same sheet was made after April 17, 1960. The Williams card was reprinted for at least 14 years after the purported end of its print run, which is why it is easy to find a high-grade example. That does not stop sellers from offering the card as a 1939-46 card. They, and many of the public, assume that all Salutations Williams cards were made in the 1939-46 timeframe because some Salutations Williams cards were made between 1939 and 1946 and someone, somewhere, sometime (possibly Woody Scharf when he was doing his first work on the classification of these cards) decided on those dates, the guides picked it up, the TPGs then followed suit, etc. This plagues a lot of what we researchers do. Look at the kerfluffle over the definitive dating of the 1947 Bond Bread Robinson portrait. People with vested interests in that not being his first MLB card (like those with massive $ into the 1949 Leaf) tried their best to ignore facts.

Your Robinson photo is freakin' awesome but from where I sit, there isn't convincing proof of when it was made. And just to prove I have skin in this game, here's my Musial:



I'd love to get a date on it, but I don't have the evidence. I do know that it came out of a collection with a Ruben Gomez in the same format. Gomez pitched for the Giants starting in 1953, so that sets the baseline on when his photo could have been made. The Musial has the same image as the 1947 Bond Bread but no proof it was printed in 1947.

[Johnphotoman]

Exhibitman- great way to sum-up the situation with the photos. And yes at the same time - that is what is so frustrating. You and I have photos that match Bond Bread cards that came out in 1947, you would think that the photos came out at the same-time, if not first, but some of the Bond Bread images were on cards circa 1940. How can anyone put a date on the photos?

Yes we can look at the photo paper and maybe put an age base on that, but as you have said it is not an accurate date, it is a best guess situation.

But I ask the question, do collectors find the photos I and you have valuable, just in the photo alone, or do they look for value in what Type the photo is: Type,1,2 or 3. John

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Johnphotoman

But I ask the question, do collectors find the photos I and you have valuable, just in the photo alone, or do they look for value in what Type the photo is: Type,1,2 or 3. John

Yes. Depends on who you ask. Depends on why they are buying. I happen to collect team issues, publicity photos, etc. I prefer those to regular photos. If I have the choice between a 'Type I' 1958 photo of Jim Brown and his 1958 'Type III' team issue for my PC, same pose, I would prefer to own the latter:



If you include a nice snapshot in the blend, for my PC I would naturally go there because it is the closest thing to a card.



If I am trying to make money and the cost to me is equal, I am going for the most valuable. At this point, it is the Type I photo. That may change over time. If the relative values of a team issue and a Type I from the same year of the same player move closer to equal, I may opt for the TI as an investment in the hope that I can buy more of them and they will outperform the Type I over time. If I knew the answer I would be buying, not sharing the information. I haven't a clue, so I just collect what I like and hope it works out. Gabby agrees:

[lumberjack]

The market will determine the value of your photos. As to the classification, what we are discussing is beyond Types. Someone mentioned earlier, "souvenir," which is very appropriate. This would cover team issue, Jay Publications and the photos with script "autographs."

Photos used for advertising, like the Rawlings 8x10s from 60 years ago....They should simply be classified as "advertising."

There was a Ruth photo, classified as a Type II earlier in this thread. The photo is perfect, that's the only way you can describe it, but its value is diminished, quite unfairly, because of when it was printed. I don't get it.

Once again, the market will eventually shake all of this out.

[Lucas00]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

Simply put, the international news service (service that provided/took the photo and had the negative) created a type 2 in the 1940s with the added name for national sports photos to use to make reproductions.

I think you're getting confused thinking that national sports photos had anything to do with any original negatives or photos, they had no part of that. Only making reproductions. Therefore every single national sports photo issued is a type 4.

So translating that into value if you were to send say jackie to psa and it gets a type 4.
Type 4=Almost valueless. And you probably lose money on the submission price.

While on the other hand if it was labeled as: National Sports photo ca 1950s and added to Jackie robinsons set registry, you would be talking thousands easily.

I answered the question about what type these would be here.

The reason type 4s are worthless is because I can go on the internet right now and print out a photo of any player and it would be a type 4.

Not sure why there is any talk of type anymore at all when it comes to these. If you want to maximize value of them you would need to get PSA to recognize them as a release. Not as original photos.

I would also give my opinion saying they don't have a release year at all. Much more likely a blanket decade release is what they are. I would say they are simply Ca.1940-1950s. Maybe even 1960s.

[Exhibitman]

i think I know where PSA got its system:



Now, before I begin the lesson, will those of you who are playing in the match this afternoon move your clothes down onto the lower peg immediately after lunch, before you write your letter home, if you're not getting your hair cut, unless you've got a younger brother who is going out this weekend as the guest of another boy, in which case, collect his note before lunch, put it in your letter after you've had your hair cut, and make sure he moves your clothes down onto the lower peg for you.

[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.

[Schlesinj]

Have you purchased the book, I referenced the first post of the thread? It can save you fair amount of time and energy. Very informative and great reference.

[Johnphotoman]

Thank you, no I have not purchased the book. I do know about it, I tried a few years back to buy the book, but it was out of print. I went to the Library, but they do not have a copy. I tried to get it on loan from the libraries that had a copy- but they don't loan the book out, apparently it is considered a reference book. The only copies I have seen go for over $300. I will not be getting the book.

I have asked people about the book. It has a lot of good information, but not on the photos I have. Thanks to everybody posting here I have somewhat of a handle on the types of photos. Maybe my post makes it seem like I do not…but I am just trying to have as many conversations about the photos as I can. Thank you for the suggestion. I hope by talking about the photos I am not beating a dead horse; By going over the same thing here. I just find it very interesting to see other peoples thoughts on the subject. John.

[Johnphotoman]

From Keyman Collectibles: “A large 19.5" x 29.5" copy of the Jackie Robinson, Berk Ross photograph, with the white signature was salvaged in the 1973 renovation, of Yankee Stadium. It was believed to have hung in the halls of the stadium.”

Does anyone know about this, I know a few years back I saw an auction for this but when I mentioned it to someone (collector) they said it has nothing to with the photo because it was a sign? I had forgotten about that. I do not know if it could bring any clarity to the photo, if we had more information on the sign. But it does make the photo more interesting. John

[Schlesinj]

I have toured the new Yankee stadium and know they have a tremendous amount of photograph throughout the tour of major events. I suspect some of originals and some are copies, but certainly a great tour that they use to tell the story.

(Also a shout out to the museum in the stadium which houses a fantastic assortment of on loan memorabilia. Some of which you can hold (with gloves) like a Ruth bat).

[Johnphotoman]

Here is another interesting photo in my collection, Bobby Doerr. Notice the spelling on the photo, Bobbie Doerr. It is exactly the same image on the 1947 Homogenized Bond Bread card, D305.

But you never hear anyone talk about the name being wrong. In most collecting situations a mistake adds more value, one of a kind. But most people in this case have the opinion that it does not add any value. OK, but it does make the photo and card more interesting. And to me it is proof that the photo with the name on it came out circa 1947 the same time as the card and could have been made from the original negative. John.

[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.