STAMP of approval for jsa, psa? what's going on?

[travrosty]

besides the obvious creasing on one and the seller saying there are no creases on the other, here is the biggest reason i believe they are different physical photos.

one razor sharp corner, one obviously ragged and rounded. make up your own mind.

i never declared one fake and one not or both fake, but gave my opinion i believe at least one to be a copy since the evidence appears that they are two different physical photos. i don't have the photos in my hands but it looks obvious to me.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by travrosty

besides the obvious creasing on one and the seller saying there are no creases on the other, here is the biggest reason i believe they are different physical photos.

one razor sharp corner, one obviously ragged and rounded. make up your own mind.

i never declared one fake and one not or both fake, but gave my opinion i believe at least one to be a copy since the evidence appears that they are two different physical photos. i don't have the photos in my hands but it looks obvious to me.

Sorry, they are identical photos. The corner you show is curled not rounded. Note the small defect to the left of the corner. Similar comparisons can be made to the other corners. It appears to have restoration, but *I* believe it is a difference in presentation (photo vs. scan). The fact that the seller is telling you that it is perfect should have no bearing on the issue. The AM auction description states "This glossy B&W press photo is solid EX with toning to borders and light crazing." That's it.

[steve B]

That's how it looks to me too. Not a "razor sharp" corner, but a worn corner made to appear better by a lack of contrast and very tight cropping. Almost to the point of cropping off a tiny bit of wear.

"Excellent condition" can be interpreted differently by different people. And traditionally has been. It's worn and VG when buying but excellent when selling. Even with standards there's a bit of interpretation. Which is why on the card side we now have TPG and also why we have arguments about TPG.

Of course, I could be wrong, and either could be completely fake. The overlooked thing is that if someone can and will fake a photo and signature, well, they'd obviously stop at the next step of faking a cert.
Or would hesitate before claiming something was in excellent condition to make an Ebay sale

Steve B

[D. Bergin]

They are the same piece.

Laying a photo flat in a scanner will do wonders to a photos appearance compared to taking an image of it with a 2004 or older, middle of the road digital camera.

Scanning software also has a way of washing out whites and off-whites in photos, hiding crazing, light creases and those cracks in the emulsion that tends to show up in the borders of glossy press photos.

Top right corner definitely looks flattened out in the Ebay version.

I'm convinced most people have no idea what NM even means.

Probably closer to VG on a good day.

[travrosty]

here is a photo from the net, it is described as soiled, neglected, etc. and it is obvious the corners are rounded.

theres no difference between the top right corner on this one and on the american memorabilia marciano.


if it is a sharp corner rolled up then the one below is too. if people think it must be a rolled corner because they see other things and the rolled corner theory helps bolster it that's okay, i disagree and peoples opinions are welcome. But there isnt a dime's worth of difference between this photo's upper right corner and marciano and to know it's rolled on one and to admit its rounded on this one takes a distinction that isn't supported by what we see visually and that's all we have to go on.

[markf31]

I can understand the rolled corner theory, and there even appears to be a slight shadow of the roll evident in the top picture. The top version is a photo of the picture, while the bottom verision is a scan of the picture.

I tried to reproduce the effect here, it's not a perfect example but I think it shows that the rolled corner theory is quite possible especially since we are dealing with scans and pictures and are unable to hold the documents to examine in person.

I stressed the corners of a business card. I took a picture of the card first, this is the bottom image. Then I tried to uncurl the corners and placed it on a flatbed scanner and scanned the card second, this is represented in the top image.

Same card, images taken mere minutes apart and there is a world of difference in their appearance.

[Lordstan]

Mark,
Thanks for posting that. That example is exactly the point a few of us have made.

Travis,
It's not that I think that it couldn't be a duplicate image that was certed incorrectly, as we all know PSA/JSA have made blunders similarly before. IMHO, I don't think there is enough evidence here to say for sure that that is what has happened.

I tend to agree with Jim, Dave, and Steve that people have no idea of accurate grading. It's also very possible some repair was done in between the last purchase and when this seller obtained the item. Perhaps, they have no idea anything had been done to it, and are only reporting what they see.

Best,
Mark

[Mr. Zipper]

Mark:

Spot on. Thank you for demonstrating this.

I have purchased thousands of comics and periodicals over the past 14 years on eBay. I have seen hundreds of cases where the combination of a curled corner, a shadow and pixilation creates the appearance of a very rounded corner, and when it is in hand it is not bad at all. And on eBay, “Near Mint” descriptions should be taken with a grain of salt.

Further, there are restorative techniques such as leafcasting that can infill areas of paper loss. If the color match is good, it is very difficult to detect.

I can’t say with 100% certainty these photos are the same item. But I think the likelihood of it being the same item and the difference being due to the explanation above is much higher than the likelihood of JSA missing a copy of a ballpoint signed and personalized photo.

Additionally, if it was a copy, how did they make a copy onto “old” photostock? Even the supposedly “near mint” newer version is still has signs of aging such as crazing.

In his zeal to post another “gotya” and collect some “attaboys,” I believe the OP didn’t think this one through.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by travrosty

here is a photo from the net, it is described as soiled, neglected, etc. and it is obvious the corners are rounded.

theres no difference between the top right corner on this one and on the american memorabilia marciano.


if it is a sharp corner rolled up then the one below is too. if people think it must be a rolled corner because they see other things and the rolled corner theory helps bolster it that's okay, i disagree and peoples opinions are welcome. But there isnt a dime's worth of difference between this photo's upper right corner and marciano and to know it's rolled on one and to admit its rounded on this one takes a distinction that isn't supported by what we see visually and that's all we have to go on.

Travis,

Problem here is you are comparing a completely different flattened "scanned" photo with a digital camera capture of a curled up photo from 1' to 3' feet away.

IMO the corners were either flattened down or reinforced (or both) somewhere between 2004 and 2012.

Also looks like the same type photo stock to me. Difference in tone generally boils down to the scanner/camera settings used 8 years apart.

As far as the NM description by the seller. Here's another item he describes as EX/MT. While it's a nice photo, I don't think anybody would purchase it solely based on his accurate personal grading scale. Maybe GD/VG or VG. Thank goodness this isn't the old days of print ads and lack of photos so you can draw your own conclusions based on the photo he provides.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/8-7-1943-FRITZIE-ZIVIC-PITTSBURGH-SIGNED-5X8-PHOTOGRAPH-/150623322890?pt=US_Autographs&hash=item2311d9830a

Not making a run at you either Travis. I think you are great for the hobby and questions need to be raised. Notice I'm not critiquing the autograph itself, as I know you do a fine job of weeding those out yourself.

The same seller has other JSA Boxing Stuff (particularly Ali) that doesn't exactly make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside either.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Travis,

Problem here is you are comparing a completely different flattened "scanned" photo with a digital camera capture of a curled up photo from 1' to 3' feet away.

IMO the corners were either flattened down or reinforced (or both) somewhere between 2004 and 2012.

Also looks like the same type photo stock to me. Difference in tone generally boils down to the scanner/camera settings used 8 years apart.

As far as the NM description by the seller. Here's another item he describes as EX/MT. While it's a nice photo, I don't think anybody would purchase it solely based on his accurate personal grading scale. Maybe GD/VG or VG. Thank goodness this isn't the old days of print ads and lack of photos so you can draw your own conclusions based on the photo he provides.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/8-7-1943-FRITZIE-ZIVIC-PITTSBURGH-SIGNED-5X8-PHOTOGRAPH-/150623322890?pt=US_Autographs&hash=item2311d9830a

Not making a run at you either Travis. I think you are great for the hobby and questions need to be raised. Notice I'm not critiquing the autograph itself, as I know you do a fine job of weeding those out yourself.

The same seller has other JSA Boxing Stuff (particularly Ali) that doesn't exactly make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside either.

okay, nope no problem at all. it sold at am in 2004, do people build up corners, yep, do they flatten out creases, yep, is the corner rolled, some think so, i don't. i never even said that the ebay photo is a copy of the am one, it could be the other way around, as we all know that people copy perfect photos and artificially age them and round corners to suggest wear.

do i know that is the case, no, and i never said i knew for a fact that either one was the copy, i suggested that by looking at the two offerings, that one of them had to be from what i see, and that is using a working model that there are two photos, which is what i believe but others don't. i realize that.