Charles Conlon Fakes, Baseball Magazine Stickers & A Brief Tutorial

[drcy]

Newspapers and magazines did trim photos, but if you see them in their vintage trimmed state you know they didn't do it for aesthetic reasons. They're often cut crooked, at strange angles and obviously not to please the eye. Be more than suspicious of an antique news photo that has perfect, mint edges-- that's more than probably a modern trim job. Old news photos very rarely to never have Gem Mint corners and edges. And real photo collectors don't give a shit if a photo is ExMt versus Nrmt-- that silliness is for baseball cards collectors and their anal retentive ways. Only idiot graded card collectors are looking for a Gem Mint 10 news photo of Ty Cobb. I've been a photo fan and collector for years and have not once done that graded baseball card collector thing of taking a loupe looking for hidden surface wrinkles or touches to the edges. Most Gem Mint 10 collectors should be on some sort of psychiatric meds and/or receive some form of cognitive-behavorial therapy. Forget trimming photos with scissors, I'm not sure they shouldn't even be allowed to hold anything sharp.

Seriously, the baseball card grade 8,9, 10 numbers game is a just way to somehow differenciate between baseball cards mass produced in the thousands if not tens of thousands. It gives grown up children a way to say "My 1992 Donruss is better than your 1992 Donruss." With a 1920 news photo, where perhaps three or four at most exist, that stuff doesn't matter. Condition and aesthetics do matter, but that a 1920 photo has a touch to the corner or a minor wrinkle to a edge really doesn't matter. A serious photo collector simply won't pay more or less if a rare photo is Ex or ExMt. That's why trimming a photo to gain perfect edges should be pointless.

As I've said for years, a new collector should be very wary of Gem Mint antique news photos. The Gem Mintness usually means it's either a modern reprint or has been trimmed. For that reason, collectors should actually find Gem Mint photos undesirable and that's why the Gem Mint craze should never catch on as it has with trading cards.

A problem with many baseball card collectors is they treat everything as if they're baseball cards, and not everything is like a baseball card. And that includes most photos worth collecting. The Mona Lisa is not a baseball card. Even within baseball cards, serious Old Judge collectors regularly complain that card graders are oblivious about clarity of the image, when OJs are little photos (literally) and serious OJ collectors greatly value (including in financial terms) the clarity of the image. Trimming down news photos to get 'Mint edges and corners' is just a horrid byproduct of baseball card collectors entering the genre. As I said, sincere and serious photo collectors don't give a shit about Mint edges. Only graded baseball card collectors care about that idiocy.

In short Mint 10 baseball card collectors are a disease and a menace and must be stopped. You guys write your Congressmen and I'll quick start a crowdfunding campaign on facebook. With any luck, with what's left over I'll have enough money to finally make my movie. It's a prequel to Alexander Nevsky starring talking dogs.

"So, David, how do you plan on getting the dogs talking in Russian?"
"Peanut butter and dubbing."

[drcy]

P.s., if I was selling a standard George Burke photo, I'd describe it as a "circa 1930s photo" or "vintage circa 1930s." There's no need to assign it a "type I" or "original" label to it. Just describe it a what it is and what you know in plain English language.

I describe photos in language people off the street would understand, and, to be honest, if someone says "Is this a Type II or a Type III" photo, I have to go to the PSA/DNA website to look up what those terms means. I remember Type I, because that's a convoluted way of saying "original." Why people don't say "original" when that's a perfectly clear name, i have no idea.

The PSA type system is just a convenient guide that some people use. It's a fair enough and useful enough guide, has its limitations and arbitrariness, as all guides do. The only problem is some people who take it too seriously and treat it as some sort of gospel.

When people ask me "But what about the two year rule?," I say "What are you asking me for?" That's not my rule, I had nothing to do with it. Two was an arbitrary number PSA picked because they felt they had to have a 'rule' for their 'grading system.'

"All models are wrong, but some are useful"-- British statistician George E.P. Box.

In short, the PSA guide is just a convenient guide. Don't treat it as some sort of gospel. If you find it convenient and useful, great. But, as with any set of rules, it will have its limitations and points of reasonable debate. The two years rule is just the one that most often sticks out.

Some photos, such as many of the Burkes, can't be accurately labelled by the PSA type system, because you don't know when the photo was made. Doesn't make the photos any less valuable or collectible-- people have always known Burke printed and photos later--, it's just applying them to the PSA system is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Or, at least, you don't know what "type" it is. Could fall within the two years, could have been made 7 years later. But it's still a collectible 1930s photo made by George Burke.

And, returning to my first sentence, if selling a Burke photo I'd call it a "circa 1930s George Burke photo."

[drcy]

Just for the record. I got a polite PM said I was attacking the PSA system. I'm not. I called it a useful enough system and guide but with limitations, and pointed out that any rule system will limitations and arbitrariness. Which is why I think collectors shouldn't find themselves stuck to it or view photos only through its lens.

Most systems are an attempt to simplify the complex, which means, even when useful and needed, are an oversimplification of the complex. All I'm saying is the subject of a rule system is more complex and broader, and sometimes different, than the system.

[Exhibitman]

Interesting perspectives.

When it comes to trimming photos, I figure it is a lot like a strip card. When I see a photo with original borders I would want it to stay that way



but when it has already been torn or damaged, I will consider getting rid of the damaged part because I don't particularly relish the look of a photo with this sort of damage:



I haven't cut this one but I could see the reasoning, especially if you don't frame photos for display and just want it to look nice in the album.

[Forever Young]

[QUOTE=Exhibitman;1326434]Interesting perspectives.

When it comes to trimming photos, I figure it is a lot like a strip card. When I see a photo with original borders I would want it to stay that way



but when it has already been torn or damaged, I will consider getting rid of the damaged part because I don't particularly relish the look of a photo with this sort of damage:



Totally get it. There is a difference in cards and photos as it relates to "mint 9 nrmt 7" as David spoke about.
This is an interesting debate. Do we, the collectors, owe it to the hobby to keep the items intact? Is it reasonable to trim to make look "pretty"? I like to frame with plastic corner squares rather than under a matte. Therefore, it is frustrating when an image is not symmetrical. However, I have made teh decision not to trim my stuff. Would I be wrong?

This is an important debate as Scott is really passionate and convinced a large percentage of photos are trimmed to sell for larger amounts of money. No doubt this has happened but should a collector who does it for himself be ostracized?

As the photo market develops, this will be an interesting topic.

Personally, I can see both sides but chose to not trim mine. HOWEVER... I will clean up a photo and have(take off grease ect) because I want to see the original image.. The image is more important to me as art(original shot the photographer saw rather than how it was changed for publication). Others like the opposite. How can one or the other be wrong???

[drcy]

The interesting thing with the MEARS grading system is a bat or jersey can get to a number, say 7, for different reasons and taking different evidentiary routes. A bat can be docked points for reason that has nothing to do with game use, one bat can get +2 points for one reason, while another bat gets 0 for that but +2 for a different reason. The MEARS expert may say "It's 100% a game used jersey. It's been photo matched and was purchased directly from the player's family. But it can only get a 9 out of 10." So with that system, you really have to look beyond and into the number.

Obviously, their system is a system of calculating evidence. And I'm sure they've tweaked the system and will in the future.

Someone could write a paper on grading systems.

[Forever Young]

Here is the before and after photo. The first is where I purchased the photo not knowing for sure if I could clean up(actually I assumed no). However, the paint was water soluble and I was able to easily remove. For the record, I did not trim but cropped out scan to show what it could look like. If I framed, this how I would frame out.
So... I am interested in what other peeps think about trimming and "cleaning up". To me, I justify removing stuff because I want to see original work of art and simply removing whAt was added later. Trimming to me is different as you are actually taking away from the original print. I am Weird...I know this Thoughts?
I wish I could find the original negative or a copy of this image anywhere as I would piece the upper corner of the copy when framed.

PS: either way, my watermark is prettier no doubt.. GOSPEL.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by drcy

Just for the record. I got a polite PM said I was attacking the PSA system. I'm not. I called it a useful enough system and guide but with limitations, and pointed out that any rule system will limitations and arbitrariness. Which is why I think collectors shouldn't find themselves stuck to it or view photos only through its lens.

Most systems are an attempt to simplify the complex, which means, even when useful and needed, are an oversimplification of the complex. All I'm saying is the subject of a rule system is more complex and broader, and sometimes different, than the system.

Amazing.... Thank you for the record David.

It was I who pm'd David, who has edited his post numerous times. I am in no way hiding in a PM... It was an attempt to not derail this thread.

This thread was created to educate the mass on a large issue in the photo hobby. It was posted by Rhys to summarize our collaboration on the issue.

It amazes me that it turned into(in part) a "Type system" thread. If someone has anything positive to add for the greater good of the photo hobby in this thread, it would fit perfectly.

Also, if anyone has constructive criticism of the Type system with a solution that has any merit/advantage at all, I would love to hear it. There has been no such argument to date. Perhaps create a different thread.

"Original" is certainly simpler I will give you that. I can buy or sell an original wire photo, an original telephoto, an original photo printed yesterday, an original print created off an original dupe negative, an original print created at the time, and original print related 5 years after the original shot was taken originally.. ect ect. I am done standing on my original soapbox as it relates to original

Also, extending the two year rule 4-5 years has zero benefit other than just confusing people more and losing specific gains. It is less specific.

Those of you who are not a fan of the Type system.. maybe ask yourself "DO I have something to gain or am I educated enough in the field"?

If you do not like the type system, do not use it. If you do not like graded cards, don’t buy them. If you do not like authenticated autographs, don’t buy them.
Make your own decisions and collect what you want. If you want to collect photos but do not care what the type is, enjoy your photos without a type associated to them.

We will leave it at that for now. If someone would like to have a discussion on the Type system, create a separate thread or feel free to call /pm me.

Let's not stink up this thread with opportunistic jabs at the best system to date responsible for the current flourishing state the photo hobby. Everyone collecting or dealing photos(who are educated) have benefited from the knowledge Henry Yee has provided and countless hours of his research. EVERYONE whether they admit it or not.

Quite frankly, Rhys' post would not be entirely possible without it. Therefore, if you learned something here.. you have benefited as well(educated or not).

All of this said: I cannot say I disagree with David's statement below. It was well stated.

"I called it a useful enough system and guide but with limitations, and pointed out that any rule system will limitations and arbitrariness. Which is why I think collectors shouldn't find themselves stuck to it or view photos only through its lens."

[drcy]

As I've said before, I like Yee's book and think PSA does a good job at identifying photos. I've never complained about that stuff. And I've said the PSA rules are fair enough. It's that I know that many collectors will use it as an iron clad rule for judging and valuating photos.

An example of a curiosity in a system is MEARS grading system for game used bats. Many game used collectors at gameuseduniverse have noticed that the 1-10 system rules docks points if a bat is cracked or has chipping or deadwood and inevitably say "What does that have to do with whether or not the bat is game used? I thought the grading system was about determining if it's game used?" And a few others will say "What's with a 1-10 number system in the first place? A bat is either game used or it isn't. What the heck does a bat being 7/10th game used even mean? Is that like being 7/10th pregnant?""

Another example is graded baseball cards. Even avid graded card collectors will say there are "good 8s" and "lesser 8s" and one 8 should be valued better than normal because its colors are sharper or the focus is extra crisp. In other words, the grading system is a guide and no serious collector judges a card only by the number assigned. Even when the number is important to them, they also look at the card.

In short, don't take any grading or labeling system as gospel. They all have limitations, margins of error and arbitrary aspects.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by drcy

As I've said before, I like Yee's book and think PSA does a good job at identifying photos. I've never complained about that stuff. And I've said the PSA rules are fair enough. It's that I know that many collectors will use it as an iron clad rule for judging and valuating photos.

An example of a curiosity in a system is MEARS grading system for game used bats. Many game used collectors at gameuseduniverse have noticed that the 1-10 system rules docks points if a bat is cracked or has chipping or deadwood and inevitably say "What does that have to do with whether or not the bat is game used? I thought the grading system was about determining if it's game used?" And a few others have said "What's with a 1-10 number system in the first place? A bat is either game used or it isn't. What the heck does a bat being 7/10th game used even mean? Is that like being 7/10th pregnant?"

Another example is graded baseball cards. Even avid graded card collectors will say there are "good 8s" and "lesser 8s" and one 8 should be valued better than normal because its colors are sharper or the focus is extra crisp. In other words, the grading system is a guide and no serious collector judges a card only by the number assigned. Even when the number is important to them, they also look at the card.

In short, don't take any grading or labeling system as gospel. They all have limitations, margins of error and arbitrary aspects.

You make good points.

[Econteachert205]

Just to mention the trimming issue, I have come across many wire photos that were trimmed to scrapbook fairly soon after the photos were taken. In those cases the journalists notes were cut off but not recently, and the trimming wasn't done obviously as part of the news process or deceive a future buyer, just to look pretty in a 1940's-50's scrapbook. If those photos are remved and split, one would get the impression someone did so maliciously but it is not the case.