I would like to consider some of the comments that have been made in this thread, and then consider your photograph in the light of those comments.
lumberjack: “wouldn’t it be to the benefit of everyone if the auction houses, big and small, told us everything they could muster about a photograph.”
drcy: “That’s the way I’ve always done it—in plain words.”
drcy: “know that a photograph is nuanced, and can’t simply be defined by a type system.”
Of course you’re correct that there is some guesswork in photographs, but that guesswork exists whether one uses the PSA or photography market definitions. The question is: how should we think about your photograph?
I would begin with lumberjack’s advice: tell everything you can muster. So this is a Charles Conlon photograph, taken in 1913, printed later, or 1913, printed 1920s-1930s. I prefer “printed later” in this case because it might have been printed earlier, and we really have no idea. This is still a collectible print—it was printed during Conlon’s lifetime and probably by Conlon himself—but not as collectible as one stamped “July 7, 1913.” Both the photography market and PSA, confronting a date stamp like that, would have an easy time of it designating the print as “vintage” or “Type 1.”
The difference between a 1913 and a 1923 print is real, but not all-or-none, in my opinion. PSA may not have intended it, but the Type 2 designation essentially renders the photograph worthless. If you doubt that, try consigning it to a major auction house. I think the system fails to capture a lot of value.
|