I will chime in a few thoughts.
First, I always tell people that photographs are MUCH closer to game used memorabilia than cards or anything like that. Each photo is a living breathing piece of art and it should be treated that way. Take a game used bat for example. They were all issued at the same size and weight, but no two are exactly alike. After being used in games some are broken, some are cracked, some were taped and some were barely used. Its the SAME THING with a press photograph and the use is what we like. Some were trimmed, some were traced for engraving, some were spliced, some were heavily painted and turned more into artwork and some were just marked with a few potential sizes for stories. So when a photo is cleaned it is no different than when a bat is wiped off with warm water. Should that be disclosed? I don't think it really needs to be if all you did is wipe of a spot of dirt or dust from being in an attic for 100 years. But I think many dealers in game used bats would explain in their rules (as we do) that they sometimes clean their bats with warm water. If in the process of cleaning the bat though, some chemicals are used which leave a mark or any restoration of the material itself takes place at all then yes, it needs to be disclosed. These things might have happened in the past however and in those situations it is often impossible to tell.
We grade our photos, and as far as I know we are the only ones who do it. We don't take editorial markings (or their removal) or cropping of the image into account in the grade unless it affects the condition of the photograph itself. We do however mention in our descriptions if there are editorial markings that were removed if we can detect it (or tracing that is still present) or if an item has a border trimmed off etc. We do it on a different scale than baseball cards and it is NOT to create a market for photo grading. We do it simply because you can not tell everything from a scan. We have images that might look perfect to the naked eye but when examined up close there might be a few creases that are visible only when tilted to the light and that need to be disclosed. It is simply another way to convey what the buyer is getting when a scan and description combined isn't even enough. I think it works and the evidence I have for this is that in (5) Auctions we have run (through RMY) we have not had one single complaint about condition and have received hundreds of e mails about customers finding the photos to be better in person and that is our goal. Extra information is never a bad thing.
SO, to sum up I feel that photo grading works. Not in the same way that cards or autographs work, but as a way of conveying as much information as possible to the potential buyer as many flaws can not be seen from a scan alone and a description sometimes does not accurately convey the magnitude of a flaw no matter how long you describe it.
Rhys Yeakley
|