PSA photo authentication - a suggestion

[drcy]

Here's my imaginary conversation between a collector and PSA/DNA:

Collector: "Is this photo a wirephoto?"
PSA/DNA: "Yes, it is a wirephoto."
Collector: "Is it altered?"
PSA/DNA: "Yes. It appears pen marks have been removed from the back."
Collector: "Then why didn't you say in the first place say "it is a wirephoto and it is altered' instead of only saying "it is a wirephoto'?
PSA/DNA: "Because your first question was only 'Is it a wirephoto?' You didn't ask for our opinion about alterations until the second question. "
Collector: "Okay, I guess I understand that. You can't answer a question before it's asked. So, how much do I owe you for your services?"
PSA/DNA: "$45 $30 for telling you it is a wirephoto, and $15 for telling you it has been altered."
Collector: "But I only want to pay $30."
PSA/DNA: "Then you shouldn't have asked if it had been altered."

Asking a paid expert (lawyer, authenticator, accountant) for more answers is like ordering extra toppings on a pizza. The more extra toppings on your pizza the higher price for the pizza, and the more questions you expect answered from an expert the higher your charge. If you're only willing to pay one-topping price, don't order a pizza with five extra toppings. If you only want to pay your lawyer a one legal opinion rate, don't ask him for three legal opinions. This is especially true when it takes the lawyer four hours of extra research and consultation with other lawyers to answer your second two questions.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by drcy

Here's my imaginary conversation between a collector and PSA/DNA:

Collector: "Is this photo a wirephoto?"
PSA/DNA: "Yes, it is a wirephoto."
Collector: "Is it altered?"
PSA/DNA: "Yes. It appears pen marks have been removed from the back."
Collector: "Then why didn't you say in the first place say "it is a wirephoto and it is altered' instead of only saying "it is a wirephoto'?
PSA/DNA: "Because your first question was only 'Is it a wirephoto?' You didn't ask for our opinion about alterations until the second question. "
Collector: "Okay, I guess I understand that. You can't answer a question before it's asked. So, how much do I owe you for your services?"
PSA/DNA: "$45 $30 for telling you it is a wirephoto, and $15 for telling you it has been altered."
Collector: "But I only want to pay $30."
PSA/DNA: "Then you shouldn't have asked if it had been altered."

Asking a paid expert (lawyer, authenticator, accountant, physician) for more answers than spelled out in the original agreement is like ordering extra toppings on a pizza. The more extra toppings on your pizza the higher price for the pizza, and the more questions you expect answered from an expert the higher your charge. If you're only willing to pay one-topping price, don't order a pizza with five extra toppings.

Here's what the two voices in my head are saying:

Collector: "What is this?"
PSA/DNA: "Type II"
Collector: "Anything else you can tell me?"
PSA/DNA: "send me $30"

[glchen]

I don't know if this can be really expected from PSA for photo authentication. Photos are a lot different from cards in that there are a lot of different things going on in photos, so you can very rare expect pristine conditions like you do for cards. There are editorial marks everywhere, clipping, trimming, all of that is just to be expected. This is why I don't think there will ever be any demand for providing number grades or even qualifiers to photos since it would be pointless.

[drcy]

Agreed. Photos and trading cards are different things.

Photos commonly come with photographer's or newspaper's editors notes on back, date stamps, paper captions, cropping marks, paper caption remnants. That's part of what they are. Just as game used jerseys come with grass stains and game used bats come with ball and clete marks and pine tar residue. A grass stain on your baseball card is undesirable, but it's desirable on game used jersey. If someone is selling a 'game used' jersey in 'Gem Mint form the factor condition,' you will question if it is authentic. Baseball cards and jerseys are different things and different genres, and a 1910 UP photo of Ty Cobb is not not a 1991 Donruss Sammy Sosa.

You clearly wouldn't expect Beckett or PSA to grade baseballs using the same exact criterion as they use to grade baseball cards. How do you grade the corners of a baseball when a baseball has no corners? There's not such thing as a baseball with corner dings or trimmed edges.

It's known as comparing apples to oranges. Or, in the case of baseball cards and game used jerseys, apples to aardvarks. What lowers the value on a baseball card (pine tar stains), raises the value on a games used bat. What lower's the technical grade on a baseball card (photographer's notes and date stamps on back), raises the value of a photograph.

This all helps explains why PSA/DNA judges trading cards, game used bats, coins and photos using different rules.

[Frozen in Time]

I prefer the front of photos to be clean such that the print more accurately represents the original negative taken by the photographer. Extensive editorial masking simply alters the end product of what the photographer was attempting to accomplish in the first place. Henry and many other collectors that I've talked with share exactly the same view.

Nonetheless, there are probably just as many collectors on the other side of the coin that welcome all editorial markings as evidence of publication, etc. In most cases this will not effect the price, although with identical high profile photos, the one that has less or little of the editorial work usually sells for more. This is also one of the major reasons that John Roger's Archives clean the fronts of virtually all their photos.

For me , the ideal photo (aside from content, clarity, etc.) is one with a clean front and a back loaded with as much info as possible - date, photographer, news agency stamps, etc.

I don't know if it would even be possible to follow the exact history of editorial alterations, trimming, etc for many photos but I can understand why some would like to know. For me, I simply want to be certain of the Type classification and original date and source of the photo. All other aspects of its history are secondary in my opinion.

Craig

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Frozen in Time

For me , the ideal photo (aside from content, clarity, etc.) is one with a clean front and a back loaded with as much info as possible - date, photographer, news agency stamps, etc.

Craig, I normally agree completely with what you said above.

But here's a photo I recently received, that shows all sorts of editorial marks, and I think it's kind of cool. I would like to have an un-marked copy as well, but I wouldn't dream of removing the marks from this one:

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Craig, I normally agree completely with what you said above.

But here's a photo I recently received, that shows all sorts of editorial marks, and I think it's kind of cool. I would like to have an un-marked copy as well, but I wouldn't dream of removing the marks from this one:

Yeah Scott, I agree with you about this photo and actually some I have of Mantle where the editorial "shading" is more focused an actually enhances the image in a pleasing and positive fashion.

Craig

[glchen]

Scott,

The thing is most photos authenticated by PSA are not slabbed. PSA only slabs photos that are close to 8x10 in size. If the photos are smaller or larger than this size, they are not slabbed. You just the exact same photo you sent in, but with a sticker on the back matching it to the LOA. So, just ballparking it, I would say that less than 10% of photos from PSA are slabbed, so most photos are never hidden in plastic.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by glchen

Scott,

The thing is most photos authenticated by PSA are not slabbed. PSA only slabs photos that are close to 8x10 in size. If the photos are smaller or larger than this size, they are not slabbed. You just the exact same photo you sent in, but with a sticker on the back matching it to the LOA. So, just ballparking it, I would say that less than 10% of photos from PSA are slabbed, so most photos are never hidden in plastic.

Thanks, Gary. I've owned a bunch of the slabbed ones, but never one of the ones you describe that has a sticker.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by drcy

Agreed. Photos and trading cards are different things.

Correct, which is why, if you are going to disguise a photo as a card by hiding it in a slab with a PSA designation, you need to point out things that are common with photos, that differentiate them from cards, or that might not be as appropriate to describe for a card. Again, I'm not a slab collector, so this is all theory - you might be right that it would be cost-prohibitive, much as accurately identifying a legitimate autograph has proven to be cost-prohibitive. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

[thecatspajamas]

Scott,
I understand where you're coming from, but I think those kinds of notes regarding condition, marks, removal of marks, etc should be stated by the seller, not the authenticator (for the reasons David mentioned above).

I also think that whoever removed those crop marks should have either finished the job or left well enough alone. (I'm saying that under the assumption that the white marks that are left are white paint that was around whatever marks or framing was removed). As it is now, if the new owner decides to go ahead and complete the "clean-up" job, the photo will no longer match the image on the LOA

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Scott,
I understand where you're coming from, but I think those kinds of notes regarding condition, marks, removal of marks, etc should be stated by the seller, not the authenticator (for the reasons David mentioned above).

I also think that whoever removed those crop marks should have either finished the job or left well enough alone. (I'm saying that under the assumption that the white marks that are left are white paint that was around whatever marks or framing was removed). As it is now, if the new owner decides to go ahead and complete the "clean-up" job, the photo will no longer match the image on the LOA

I was hoping someone would take the bait, but Lance -not you

The buyers of slabbed photos do so for what PSA/DNA is telling them. A lot of the rest of it is hidden under the plastic. Many sellers rely on the PSA/DNA slab to 'say it all' - it basically relieves them of the responsibility that you have described. Right here on the forum we see new collectors asking questions about slabs as if that's the main thing they need to understand, while others show little or zero knowledge about simple things like Kodak watermarks on the back of the photos. Too much focus on what PSA/DNA is going to do with the photo.

PDA/DNA is effectively disguising photos as soon as they put them in an official slab with their designation in a nice little slip...like cards. In fact, I bet many collectors buy them this way because it allows them to be collected the same way you would a slabbed card, and because the slabs with their identical PSA/DNA inserts, add uniformity to an otherwise very creative-looking collection (insert my oft-used disclaimer here).

But, it's a system that is working for those who use it, much like autograph authentication and slabbing of cards, so it's really up to those collectors to speak up if they have concerns, and they don't seem to. So all I'm doing here is discussing, because the subject is interesting and involves my hobby. Hope I haven't offended anyone, and I realize that my thoughts in this area will have no impact whatsoever, nor should they.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I was hoping someone would take the bait, but Lance -not you

The buyers of slabbed photos do so for what PSA/DNA is telling them. A lot of the rest of it is hidden under the plastic. Many sellers rely on the PSA/DNA slab to 'say it all' - it basically relieves them of the responsibility that you have described. Right here on the forum we see new collectors asking questions about slabs as if that's the main thing they need to understand, while others show little or zero knowledge about simple things like Kodak watermarks on the back of the photos. Too much focus on what PSA/DNA is going to do with the photo.

PDA/DNA is effectively disguising photos as soon as they put them in an official slab with their designation in a nice little slip...like cards. In fact, I bet many collectors buy them this way because it allows them to be collected the same way you would a slabbed card, and because the slabs with their identical PSA/DNA inserts, add uniformity to an otherwise very creative-looking collection (insert my oft-used disclaimer here).

But, it's a system that is working for those who use it, much like autograph authentication and slabbing of cards, so it's really up to those collectors to speak up if they have concerns, and they don't seem to. So all I'm doing here is discussing, because the subject is interesting and involves my hobby. Hope I haven't offended anyone, and I realize that my thoughts in this area will have no impact whatsoever, nor should they.

Still not sure what the "bait" or the trap was, but at the risk of nibbling on it some more, here's some more thoughts (all intellectual discussion, no hurt feelings felt or intended here)...

I don't think that PSA/DNA, Henry, Rhys, David, you, me, or anyone else noting on a flip or LOA any additions or removals of crop marks will do much to help to educate the buyers/sellers as to what they should be looking for. At least, not the buyers/sellers who defer to PSA for all of their thinking. Adding more info to the flip isn't going to cure buyers or sellers of their own laziness in educating themselves or doing their due diligence in describing (sellers) or scrutinizing (buyers) the photo itself. The collectors who check their brains at the door once they see that blue flip are not going to be deterred (or educated) by an extra line or two of text. They'll see "Shoeless Joe" and a big Roman Numeral I in the corner, and feel they have all the information they need. The ones who see past the flip and spend their time looking at the photo within will see the big, white swathes of paint, and decide whether/how much that editorial fabrication detracts from the overall appeal of the photo for them, same as they would if PSA/DNA hadn't chimed in with their opinion in the first place.

Maybe PSA could add another "tier" to their LOA service that would include things like notes about alterations and possible removal/alteration of alterations, but I think that whatever is the cheapest service that would get a Roman Numeral and company logo on the photo or its holder would continue to be the most popular.

Also, I think that once you start noting anything related to condition of photos on an LOA or flip, that opens the barn door wide for a paragraph (or several) of information that, in the long run, means very little to most photo collectors (as in, they don't care, not that they don't understand it). Who's to say whether markings were added or removed in the period vs. in modern times? In a case like this, in the period seems less likely, but you'd have to note any/all alterations just in case. Every mark on the back. Every sticker applied. Every stamp. Every wax pencil marking. Every bit of paint. Every spot that looked like it once had wax pencil or paint or a sticker or a marking. Every nick, fold, tear, crop, dog-ear, crazing of the emulsion, paper added, paper lost, on and on and on. None of which affects whether the photo is original to the period, and most of which can be seen in a good scan (with the bits that can't be seen well being the seller's responsibility to describe, since they're the one who has it in hand).
[I'll also add that, in retrospect, I think I went off on a tangent with the whole "condition note" paragraph, but it took a while to type, so I'll leave it]

Originally Posted by glchen

The thing is most photos authenticated by PSA are not slabbed. PSA only slabs photos that are close to 8x10 in size. If the photos are smaller or larger than this size, they are not slabbed. You just the exact same photo you sent in, but with a sticker on the back matching it to the LOA. So, just ballparking it, I would say that less than 10% of photos from PSA are slabbed, so most photos are never hidden in plastic.

That might have been the case early on, but if you look at the more recent submissions (by picking a cert number and trolling up or down on PSA's website), I think you'll see that the current trend is much higher than 10% being in holders (at a quick glance, I would say somewhere around 70% go in slabs these days). Start somewhere around 1P04750 and work your way backwards if you want to see what I'm referring to.

[drcy]

I think PSA photo slabs are ugly. To me, it looks like they're in Oscar Meyer hot dog packaging. And Becket's slabs aren't much better-- the proverbial plastic coffin. That's just my personal taste, and if someone likes slabbed photos that's fine. I'm merely voicing what I like, not saying what is right or wrong.

I've always been strongly against PSA condition grading photos, as many collectors would then trim photos to attain their desired grade. You can count on it. There's nothing wrong with worn edges and dinged corners on a photo-- I want number grade-centric card collectors to leave them alone. Trimming a photo ruins it in my opinion. A 1910 Ty Cobb news photo should have worn corners and a small wrinkle or two. That's how old photos are. They're old and old things have wear. To me, trimming a slightly rough edge on the 1910 Cobb photo is like removing the ball and clete marks from a game used Babe Ruth bat. The bat is supposed to show use. And I can promise you that if PSA started condition grading photos, out the paper cutter will come.

I find many trading card rules to be dubious as applied to cards, and even more so when applied elsewhere. Believe it or not, baseball card collectors are a strange breed with strange little rules for their card collecting fantasy world. They do things such as have never ending or resolved chat board arguments over what constitutes a rookie card or whether or not a trade card counts as a baseball card.

Duly note, I started off as a card collector and am a fan of cards. I have nothing against baseball cards or the collecting of them. I just see them as different than photos. And I have participated in the rookie card and 'what counts as a baseball card' debates.

One good point that was made and that, after reading it, I agree with is that if a photo is in a slab, the collector won't be able to examine it closely so the slab should give more details. Thats a good point I hand't thought of. Though that's more of a reason not to slab photos (see first paragraph).

[drcy]

PSA card collector at the Louvre:

Tour Guide: "This is Whistler's Mother."
Card collector: "Is that her rookie painting?"

I make these jokes just to demonstrate that many card collecting rules and sentiments are idiosyncratic to card collecting and can be wrong headed if not plain silly when applied elsewhere.

I originally thought that, in the famous 1922 German silent horror film, Nosferatu and his accompanying hoard of rats symbolized the black plague crossing the sea to enter society, but now I realize they symbolized PSA baseball card registry collectors, eBay resellers and their paper cutters entering the photo hobby the day PSA starts grading photos. I mean just look what those registry blood suckers did to those poor innocent virginal 1966 Sporting News magazines once they found out PSA would grade the Nolan Ryan pictures inside.


Nosferatu awaiting the day PSA/DNA starts grading photos. He's run out of Sporting News magazines, and needs more innocent blood.