PSA photo authentication - a suggestion

[drcy]

Condition does matter with photographs, but not to the finite anal-retentive degree as it does in the baseball card. An ExMt 1910 photo may sell the name as a Nrmt-Mt example, because photography collectors aren't so concerned with microscopic wrinkles or barely seen nicks in the corner. It's baseball card collectors who worry about that.

The reason behind this is because there may be 20,000 1993 SP Derek Jeters or 1968 Topps Nolan Ryans and the only thing that separates them is the condition or very minor print variations. However, with a particular 1925 Babe Ruth photo, there may be only five or even one in existence. Photography collectors are concerned about condition and presentation, but don't worry about silly minor stuff like a minor ding to the corner or a little wrinkle on the edge. If you see a wonderful 1908 Ty Cobb photo, it may be the last time you see it for sale. You don't fret over a corner bump and minor wrinkles. A minor pencil mark on the back of a beautiful Abe Lincoln cabinet card doesn't prevent a photography collector from buying it.

This also explains why it's baseball collectors and sellers who slice a half a millimeter off the left side to try and get a better grade. A serious photograph collector wouldn't do that because a) a very slightly rough left edge doesn't matter aesthetically and b) sharpening the edge won't raise the resale vale because other photograph collectors won't care either.

So condition does matter with photographs and they can be assigned a grade Poor to Mint. But the Gem Mint 10, Nrmt-Mt 8.5, Beckett Mint 9.5 corners and 8.5 gloss, Set Registry average grade 9.32145612115666 nonsense is the baseball card hobby not the photography hobby.

You have to understand one thing: As far as condition goes, photography collectors are sane and graded baseball card collectors are insane. PSA label number collectors need an intervention and some form of psychiatric medication. Because sane people don't spend hours of their free time with a microscope searching pieces of cardboard for wrinkles and edge dings invisible to the naked eye.

[drcy]

Duly note I both say what I mean and use tongue in cheek rhetoric and analogies. I've always been proficient and mixing and matching serious thoughts with offbeat humor. It's just some people don't know where I'm being serious and where I'm joking, in particular since I usually avoid using emoticons.

For example, I don't think set registry members are literally vampires. That was a tongue in cheek part.

The need for some collectors to be put on psychiatric medicine? Well, we all know that's true. Let's call that one a joke with an element of truth.

That baseball card rules are for baseball cards and don't always apply to other forms of memorabilia and art? That's 100% serious.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by drcy

Condition does matter with photographs, but not to the finite anal-retentive degree as it does in the baseball card.

I'm very glad that the above is the case. One of my concerns 10+ years ago, when we saw clearly-trimmed photos entering the market, and then appearing in plastic slabs, was that the modern trimming would be encouraged by card-like collector preferences.

This has continued to some extent (check some of the photos that supposedly came straight from archives, but have razor-sharp corners and vintage writing clearly half-gone from their backs, while most of the less valuable photos retain their vintage rough edges) but for the most part we have been lucky in that respect. Thanks, collectors, for not encouraging that practice. Also, I'm not pointing fingers with my prior parenthesized comment - I think the trimming is to make the photos more aesthetically-pleasing, which perhaps it does, and it's obvious, so I doubt there's any intended deception. Still...

To all photo sellers: leave the rough edges - we need them for matting.

[Runscott]

Lance, I wasn't asking for the level of detail from PSA/DNA that you described, but those were certainly all things that were going through my mind as possibilities. Also, I do realize that it isn't economically feasible, just as it isn't economically feasible to put the required effort into authenticating most autographs. I think I stated that in a previous post.

But your post was very interesting - thanks. Also, thanks for clarifying the change in slabbed-photo % - I wasn't going to argue with about it, as I don't collect slabbed photos.

It's good to get the philosophical photo guys discussing this sort of stuff - looking forward to Ben getting back from his wanderings.

[drcy]

As I've said for years, a collector shouldn't even want a Pre-War news photo that is in Gem Mint condition, because that means it is probably either a modern reprint or has been altered (usually trimmed). 99.9 percent of authentic Pre-War news photos naturally have some form of wear and tear. They are paper thin items that were well handled over the years, editors and photographers commonly wrote notes on and rubber stamped the backs, and almost all have at least slightly rough edges here and there, a wrinkle or two, a dinged corner. This explains why collectors shouldn't be unduly concerned with condition.

As with baseball cards, tobacco signs, movie lobby cards et al, a heavy crease or unsightly wrinkling through the image, stains, missing corners, water damage, missing paper or spots in the image and other such thing that effect eye appeal do effect financial value. Condition is part of the value of photos. However, a slightly dinged corner, or small surface wrinkle on the white border will have little to no effect on value. It's about general naked eye appearance, especially of the images, and, as said, antique photos, especially news photos, are expected to have at least a some wear and aging.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by drcy

You have to understand one thing ... graded baseball card collectors are insane.

Amen, brother!