PSA Photo Authentication Fees

[mybestbretts]

What happened! A couple of months ago the authentication fee for photo's 1970 to present was $15.00. Now its $35.00. Can't justify having my photos
authenticated at that price. More then I pay for some type 1 photos.
Anyone else authenticating photos?

[khkco4bls]

This authenticating crap is getting out of hand.

[Bumpus Jones]

Amen!

[mybestbretts]

No way I can justify $35.00 fee + postage on a photo I paid $20.00 for.
I understand they don't want the modern players, just the expensive
older photos. To bad

[perezfan]

Just authenticate yourself. You probably know as much as them anyway. Plus, these photos look nicer un-slabbed, IMHO.

[Runscott]

Not trying to offend anyone, as I realize that some of you use PSA/DNA to enhance resell value, but that still means that some end-user wants their photos slabbed, so...

...maybe if they raise it to $100, more collectors will start doing their own thinking. They can still be your customers, they'll just be more educated.

[djson1]

Problem is, most auction platforms require these very subjective certs if you want to sell. I think it's bogus.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by djson1

Problem is, most auction platforms require these very subjective certs if you want to sell. I think it's bogus.

I can't think of any auction house that would REQUIRE modern photos to be slabbed. Most AH's would be more likely to lump them all together in a lot and do a poor job of picturing them

[ooo-ribay]

Originally Posted by khkco4bls

This authenticating crap is getting out of hand.

Couldn't agree more.

[drcy]

An irony is modern photos can be harder to authenticate/date than old ones. For example, an old image can often be easily identified as a modern reprint due to the obviously modern paper-- but a modern original is going to be on modern paper.

One thing to look at with modern photos is the photo paper, specifically the branding on back ('This is a Kodak Paper' or whatever printed across the back). If you know the different brands (and there are many) that is helpful in dating a photo. Even with Kodak, they regularly change the wording and style of their branding on back of their paper.

I had an autograph authenticator email me about the branding on the back of a modern signed celebrity photo. The celebrity was a famously reluctant signer. There was an accompanying story from the submitter that the signature was obtained in person in 1989, and the autograph expert wanted to know if the Kodak branding on back was consistent with that era/story. It was.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by drcy

An irony is modern photos can be harder to authenticate/date than old ones. For example, an old image can often be easily identified as a modern reprint due to the obviously modern paper-- but a modern original is going to be on modern paper.

One thing to look at with modern photos is the photo paper, specifically the branding on back ('This is a Kodak Paper' or whatever printed across the back). If you know the different brands (and there are many) that is helpful in dating a photo. Even with Kodak, they regularly change the wording and style of their branding on back of their paper.

I had an autograph authenticator email me about the branding on the back of a modern signed celebrity photo. The celebrity was a famously reluctant signer. There was an accompanying story from the submitter that the signature was obtained in person in 1989, and the autograph expert wanted to know if the Kodak branding on back was consistent with that era/story. It was.

David,
Do you know of anywhere (book, website, or otherwise) where the back branding dates of various photo papers is cataloged? I've seen some rough dates for at least some Kodak papers up through the 1980's as outlined below, but nothing more recent or for other manufacturers. Granted, most that I've seen are either Kodak or unbranded until you get into modern times, but would still be a handy reference to have.

The Kodak dates I've seen given:

VELOX = Late 1920's - Late 1940's

KODAK
VELOX = 1950's - 1960's
PAPER

A KODAK PAPER = 1960's - early 1970's

THIS PAPER
MANUFACTURED = 1970's - 1980's
BY KODAK

[drcy]

I used to collected modern art and magazine photographs (1980 to 2000s) so was generally familiar with the brands and have a large archive of photos to refer to. Specifically, I know which branding was recent and wouldn't appear on a 1975 or 1985 photo.

Some helpful hints for modern photographs include other stamping (photographer's stamp, newspaper, etc), provenance (came from a magazine's archive, for from photographer's estate). I've bought photographs directly from famous photographers. Almost all polaroids are vintage originals, as Polaroids are designed to be developed in the camera on the spot. Many original snapshots have the date they were developed on them. Modern news photos will have the usual news stampings or text (UPI, AP, Movie studio etc). If you buy art photographs, the artist will often sign and date it on the photo-- tell when it was shot and the photo developed. Some photographers will include COAs with the photo. Also, if an art photograph was made by a famous photographer but printed later (and with his stamp, signature, COA whatever) it will still have value on the market.

Some modern art photographers make photos from scarce processes (platinum prints, cibachrome, dye-transfer), and the scarce process will establish it was made by a professional. So if you know how to identify modern processes, that is helpful in authenticating and valuing. The modern cibachrome color process is my favorite process, modern or vintage. The images are ultra, ultra glossy and have a glowing three dimensional quality-- as if the surface is the surface of a pool of water. Cibachromes are expensive to make, only professionals make them, and they're easy to identify as the images are far glossier than other photo. Dye tranfers, another modern color process but with a matte image finish, were only used for high end art photographs are for displays, such as museums.

My photography books lists most of the modern processes and how to identify them. It's really not that hard, you just have to know what to look for.

And, as I said, Polaroid is a modern process (invented in 1963) that is almost self authenticating, because they're developed in the camera seconds after the image is shot.

I think modern photography is an interesting area to collect, and you can collect both modern and vintage sports (or non sport) photos.

[mybestbretts]

That may be true with some photos but the press photos with date/stamp
on the back are a breeze.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by mybestbretts

That may be true with some photos but the press photos with date/stamp
on the back are a breeze.

Not necessarily - very old photos can have much more recent back-stamps, meaning that PSA/DNA still has to have a knowledge of paper and image quality (1st generation vs photos of photos vs wire, etc).

I personally don't know what their skill-level is, but the fact that they charge as much as they do indicates to me that they are spending some time looking at the photo, as opposed to the cheap fees for card-grading and autographs that can't possibly represent the amount of time they should have put into each item.

[ethicsprof]

as a side note, I would add that I ,personally, don't care for the way
the photo looks in the slab. I acquired a 1915 world series photo with
carrigan catching from Legendary some time back that was slabbed.
It was a scene and series that I had wanted for quite a while so I made myself ignore the slab. Hard to ignore once it was in my hands.
all the best,
barry

[drcy]

I've seen in person one PSA/DNA holdered photo and wasn't fond of the holder either, but I'm not a holder person in general and don't like the Beckett holder either. A matter of personal taste, not me saying what others should or should not like. If you don't like the holder, I think you can have PSA hologram and LOA it without putting it anything.

[Bossfan]

I just sent in some autographed photos in their March special, which is for authenticating, grading, and slabbing for $18. It doesn't cover 8 x 10s though.

[drcy]

The PSA holders for 8x10 photos, at least the one I saw, are different than the ones for cards. The standard card holders are rigid solid plastic, while the 8x10 photo holders are soft thin plastic. Again, I saw only one 8x10 holder so don't profess to be an expert on PSA holders. Someone can correct me if my memory is faulty.

[Augy44]

The PSA holders for larger photographs are a thinner plastic, yet fairly durable and gives good protection for storing or displaying the photo. If you don't like what the photo looks like in a PSA photo slab, simply take a pair of scissors and trim the top of the holder and the photo slides right out...Easy as that! You'll still have the PSA sticker on the reverse to verify it's authenticity or you can also get a separate LOA as well.