REA's 1910 Cobb Sliding Photo LET THE BUYER BEWARE

[photomoto]

I did contact REA, as I also corrected a description of another one of it's earlier photos in the auction. To it's credit, it recontacted PSA, which confirmed its position. At the very least, REA should have disclosed that several of the most experienced Conlon collectors disagree with PSA and said why.

[Bpm0014]

Great info.

[lumberjack]

PSA wants to have this both ways. A "circa 1910s" designation covers a decade. Henry Yee considers a type I photo to have been printed within two years from the time the shot was taken. How can this be a type I with a ten year window?

There are a number of 8x10 Conlons in my own collection and none of them from this period have borders until 1915.

I spoke with REA on Thursday and they told me that they considered Mr. Yee the go-to guy on photographic images.

I don't know to what extent he examined this print and since it has been slabbed, it is impossible to discover more about the paper itself.

Dennis and I have talked about this and as Dennis said, "This is the T206 Wagner of photographs." It certainly is that (unless you own a shot of the 1869 Redlegs).

If you are paying six figures for ANYTHING (excuse me for shouting), you had better be able to kick the tires. I respect Henry Yee, he wrote the book (literally), but the book isn't closed on this stuff yet and there are chapters yet to be added.

More later....
lumberjack

[Snapolit1]

Thanks both of you for your insights and for airing this publicly. An important discussion. Appreciate hearing from objective experts with no axe to grind.

[prewarsports]

I normally do not chime in on stuff like this but I have had a few people call me and bring this thread to my attention as well as ask my opinion, so I will offer a few thoughts.

I have studied Conlon and his paper and stamps as well for years and I do not disagree with what is being said here by those who started the thread. They are an extremely knowledgeable and highly respected group of collectors whose expertise is vast and their collective knowledge is impressive.

WARNING

OPINION and SPECULATION TO FOLLOW BEYOND THIS POINT......

I have seen over the last decade the photo industry change and I have a feeling PSA is changing with it, which if that is the case would be a welcome thing. When this hobby started to gain traction and PSA jumped in, a system was put in place that somewhat mirrored what most people do when evaluating photographs. Whether or not the image is off the original negative is by far the most important aspect, and there is always a gray area between what is considered a first or second generation print. When PSA came up with their standard they used a VERY narrow window of two years. I feel, and many others feel the same way, that this was too narrow. The key though is their use of the word "approximately" when using the two years to evaluate their images. This leaves some ambiguity as to what that means. I think if they could go back in time and do it all over again, they would have expanded that a bit. (Remember Opinion, I am not speaking for PSA, just my observation).

Over the last five or so years I have seen examples of where Henry has expand his database, start to analyze paper fibers rather than reject blank backed photographs, and be scientific in his approach to authenticating. As this hobby has gone from a few hundred thousand in sales to tens of millions, this was a necessity. As his technology has advanced, I feel their window has expanded a bit because they feel more comfortable with their assessments rather than relying on stamps from newspapers and photo archives to date things.

I personally feel that if indeed PSA is expanding their "approximately two years" window to be a Type 1 because their ability to feel comfortable doing so has evolved, this would be a welcome thing in the hobby. I have always felt this was the only potential flaw in their system and when I have spoken about it, it always comes down to that word "approximately."

Again, this is just my opinion as a collector and seller or photographs, but outside the sports world nobody really cares if a 1910 photo was developed in 1912 or 1915, this is why I use five years when evaluating my images for sale. If a Margaret Bourke White photograph of Gandhi at the spinning wheel is a 1950 example instead of say 1947, it does not matter, it is still considered a first generation print. The problem is the 2 years they assigned that they are now confined to stay within.

It is a beautiful photograph and clearly a first generation print. I have no skin in the game, but if I were selling it, I would describe it as a 1910's vintage print from Conlon off his original glass plate negative and call it a "vintage 1" with perhaps a caveat that the photo might have been printed in the mid 1910's.

Again, I generally do not use PSA, not because I am against them, but because I feel comfortable in my own assessments of vintage photography, but I think they do a good job. These are all either observations from being in the industry and studying it every single day and gut feelings of what I think the situation is here.

Rhys

[Bicem]

Good post Rhys, agreed 100%

[Bicem]

Just had a collector friend text me an example of a pre-1910 Conlon with borders that comes directly from Henry Yee's (PSA) vast database (he has others as well).

I believe you can tell it's pre-1910 based on Conlon's New Jersey address on the stamp. Apparently they are rare but do exist.

I'd feel 100% comfortable bidding on the Cobb as described by both REA and PSA after seeing this (if it were in my price range of course).

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Bicem

Just had a collector friend text me an example of a pre-1910 Conlon with borders. I believe you can tell it's pre-1910 based on Conlon's New Jersey address on the stamp. He says they are rare but do exist.

I have seen, handled and collected pre-1910 conlons with borders.

To be clear, This scan you posted came directly from Henry Yee’s database and was given to your friend. There are more.

In speaking with Henry, I believe the Ty Cobb is a Type 1.