Quote:
Originally Posted by Forever Young
Unfortunately, this thread went off the track at post 2. Good luck to Henry and Rodgers. Henry will add a lot to that group. I am always excited to see fresh images introduced the hobby. Ps: sorry for run-ons..spelling errors ect.. I am tired and this iPad sucks. Peace
|
Ben, it got off track at Post 1. That news release is blatantly unprofessional. I'm surprised Henry allowed it, based on all the praise he has received on this board.
You know my thoughts regarding the type system, PSA's photo slabbing, and supposed 'industry standards' with regard to describing photos, etc. As we discussed, most of use who were knowledgeable vintage photo collectors prior to this system's creation, didn't need it in order to collect 'safely', and many of us (me, at least) thought/think it flawed and felt that it introduced fraud opportunities that didn't exist prior to its inception, but you and I disagree on that, and that's fine. But it's here and all the newer collectors expect photos to have a 'Type' designation. Describing something as 'Original' isn't enough for them, and they might even figure you are hiding something if you don't say 'Type x'. Still, I don't personally use it. Rhys, on the other hand, has explained why he feels that something had to be done. I disagree with him on that point, but he's running a new, large photo auction, and he's thinking about this from a different perspective.
One more point regarding 'type' designations: just as with the autograph TPAs situation, photo type systems were not created for me or for any other knowledgeable collector, but I agree with you that they ARE beneficial for their intended market - I just think that most of the people in that market are better off collecting something else. If you quit using some of your brainpower because you are letting PSA do your thinking for you, then you are asking for trouble. I will also admit that if I were ever to view a hyee auction, and was looking for original photos, it would make things easier for me to be able to search for 'Type I', then focus more by looking for alterations, correctness of stamping, image quality - basically, anything I would have looked for BEFORE the type system was created. But it would make things quicker. Of course, if he put 'original' in the subject line, for me personally, it would accomplish the same thing.
I will use the same method when viewing RMY auction items. Taking as an example John Roger's 1932-35 'Ruth Shot' photo that he uses to attack Rhys' credibility, SO WHAT? As a knowledgeable collector, I will look at the photo and USE MY BRAIN to make my own decisions. If I'm buying stuff based totally on a 'designator' (either PSA's or Rhys'), and spending thousands of dollars, then I am an idiot. John has lost his mind if he really expects people to make decisions that way. At the very least, he's insulting the intelligence of his market.