When and how do you decide to have photos PSA-certified?

TCMA · #1 03-30-2025, 08:57 PM

Maybe I missed the answers to these questions but:

1) Are all the photos the same size?
2) Do any have stamping on reverse?
3) Are all of the written names embedded within the images, not added on TOP of the images?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Johnphotoman · #2 03-31-2025, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCMA

Maybe I missed the answers to these questions but:

1) Are all the photos the same size?
2) Do any have stamping on reverse?
3) Are all of the written names embedded within the images, not added on TOP of the images?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1-2) All photos are 8x10 black and white nothing on the backs; No stamping.
3) All photos but a couple have the names within the images, not on top. The names are in black or white.
But a couple are different, in the script that is on the photos. I have provided images of photos that are different.
4) The photos have been in the family since 1965-68. When discovered they were kept in photo albums that were circa 1940s. When found, the photos were aging, you could tell they were in those albums a long time at least 10-20 years. By aging I mean�they look like they were already looking as if they were "vintage," or "antique�. They had a nostalgic and classic feel. I guess the proper term would be to say;that had a tone that gave the photos a vintage look. John

Johnphotoman · #3 03-31-2025, 04:10 PM

Note: This post will run long therefore I will post in segments.

To tell you the truth, the only reason I have ever considered the PSA certification process�Because of the family. I hope to pass them down. I want the person who inherits the photos to know what they have. Especially if there is monetary value in them. How many times has someone just sold or disposed of a collection, all because they did not know what they had.

First off I should disclose-I do not like the certification process for photos on type only. Second, we are having a conversation here, I take everybody's opinion and give it consideration. Please do the same. Most of the people posting know a lot more about the photo certification process than I do. In fact I have never used it, not sure how it works, that was the reason for the original post.

As I understand the process, there are photos like the ones I have that the certification process does not help, in fact it could do more damage to a collection, ie- authentication on when there were issues, value etc. In this case PSA certification does not improve on the photos or tell us what they are, but impairs the facts because all the system is interested in is how long between when the negative was made and the print was made.

However, in the historical area which most baseball collectors are involved in, age itself is an essential quality. Not - if the print was made within two years from when the negative was developed. With many vintage collectors of baseball (memorabilia) historical items, age has always been an essential quality. I myself have alway be more interested in the origins and age of the memorabilia.

You can have a photo that is old and original but not be considered or certified as a PSA 1 photo. You and I both know the value of a piece is not in the type, because a type 3 photo could have more value then a type 1, it just depends on the image and when it was issued.

I may be wrong but a type 1 or 2 photos have more value then a type 3, because of the systems. With the system as it is- you can have a type 2 made 20 years after the first print was made and it would still be a type 2 because of how the system is set up. My point is this� take a photo say it is a type 2 circa 1920- then say the same photo was made as a type 3 - in the 1940s, and then the same photo ( original type 2 negative) is re-made as a type 2 1n 1970s. What is worth more to you the 1940s type 3 or 1970s type 2? And would you say the type 3 is not an original, but the type 2 is an original? No, I would still call the type 3 an original, how about you? To my point a type 3 photo could be rarer then a type 1 or 2 photo, which makes the type 3 more valuable. John

bcbgcbrcb · #4 03-31-2025, 04:27 PM

No doubt, there are board members here with extremely high levels of knowledge when it comes to photography dating, paper stock, printing process, etc. Far more knowledgeable dealing with photos than I will ever be. That being said, the maybe oversimplified answer to the OP’s question is if the photography subject is nearly impossible to find as a type 1 specimen, types 2, 3 & 4 will be far more valuable than those types of a common subject, even if the common subject is Babe Ruth, Jackie Robinson, etc. At Hakes Auctions, we have recently sold a number of PSA authenticated type 2’s, 3’s and especially 4’s, that brought four figure prices because the more desirable type 1’s of those subjects do not exist or are so scarce that prices would be unaffordable in many cases. In this situation, it can certainly be feasible to pay for PSA to authenticate these knowing full well that they are not type 1 photos. Examples would be 1937 Ciudad Trujillo team photos with Josh Gibson, Satchel Paige and Cool Papa Bell and Jackie Robinson in his Kansas City Monarches uniform. You don’t need a lot of technical knowledge about photographs to make this work.

Johnphotoman · #5 03-31-2025, 05:07 PM

Interesting that you mention Satchel Paige, he is one of the photos I have thought to have PSA certified. I did some digging into (Love of the Game Auctions) and came across a Satchel Paige Wire photo Type 1- Lot #19574. I notice it is the same photo I have; only the athlete's name is added in the photo I have. Oh they did crop the man out of the picture. It is just like the Cleveland photo. Both photos were Wire Photos, then it seems National Sports Photos, Inc. reissued the photos with names on them circa 1940s.

Sometime back I discovered that the photo of Satchel Paige is of him at Yankee Stadium in uniform as a Black Yankees 1941. Photo is in Bettmann/Corbis archives history photos Collections. No matter what type the photo would be, it is a very rare photo. John

First photo is: (Lot# 329: c.1940's Grover Cleveland Alexander (HOF) Type 2 News Service Photo. Second photo: Lot 19574 of Satchel Paige. Third photo: is my photo.

Exhibitman · #6 04-01-2025, 08:53 AM

I am all but certain that National Sports Photos was affiliated with National, a New York photo company that was one of the three big studios that shot publicity photos for boxers and entertainers (with Apeda and Cosmopolitan). Here is a Marciano publicity photo by National:

Same approximate era and style.

My theory is that NSP was National cashing in on its image archive.

But I digress...

I see no reason to grade photos unless you plan to sell. They are a PITA to store and very costly to slab. I will buy an exceptional one but prefer not to do it for my PC. When I sell, or when my daughter sells, I assume they will end up slabbed. Until then, they stay in mylar in albums

TCMA · #7 04-01-2025, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I am all but certain that National Sports Photos was affiliated with National, a New York photo company that was one of the three big studios that shot publicity photos for boxers and entertainers (with Apeda and Cosmopolitan).

I like your thinking but would this account for the photos of other sports sold by National Sports Photos? Also, we have seen two examples thus far of original news service photos with the cursive writing sitting on top of the emulsion. Both examples have credit stamping from International News on reverse. Either way, I feel as though PSA would treat the National Sports Photos prints as "souvenir photos," which they will not render an opinion on. There is no official stance from PSA online about these but really any commercially available photo are treated as such. Best example I can give are modern photographic prints from Photo File (aka TV Sports Mailbag in the early days) that can be found all over ebay.

Johnphotoman · #8 04-01-2025, 09:49 AM

[QUOTE=Exhibitman;2506975]I am all but certain that National Sports Photos was affiliated with National, a New York photo company that was one of the three big studios that shot publicity photos for boxers and entertainers (with Apeda and Cosmopolitan). Here is a Marciano publicity photo by National:

Same approximate era and style.

My theory is that NSP was National cashing in on its image archive.

But I digress...

I see no reason to grade photos unless you plan to sell. They are a PITA to store and very costly to slab. I will buy an exceptional one but prefer not to do it for my PC. When I sell, or when my daughter sells, I assume they will end up slabbed. Until then, they stay in mylar in albums

__________________________________________________ ____
Thank you, great advice, I agree with everything you said. Do you think NSP had the original Negatives? I do have an up coming post on this, I believe they did.

Thanks John

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Help me decide.	Vintagedeputy	Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used	4	10-20-2022 10:00 AM
Certified Collectibles Group - Certified Sports Guaranty (CSG) Press Release 2-16-21	Leon	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	0	02-17-2021 07:51 PM
help me decide	Jersey City Giants	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	7	01-11-2017 06:24 PM
Help me decide!	The-Cardfather	Modern Baseball Cards Forum (1980-Present)	5	12-10-2016 01:22 PM
Help me decide: Which would you rather have?	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	43	04-14-2007 06:46 PM