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

[lumberjack]

This business of classifying an image according to when it was printed, is something unique to sports (baseball, really) photography.

If you are involved with art photography (FSA, Paul Strand, Lewis Hine, you get the idea), there is no mention of type.

Ansel Adams shot "Moonrise" in 1941 and continued to print that image until his death in 1984. Nobody in the history of Earth has ever said, "Oh, Ansel did that in 1975, that's a Type II, I don't want that."

Today, you can get copies of "Moonrise" from the people who manage the estate of Ansel Adams. The prices of the Adams photos vary according to quality. You can buy FSA photos from the Library of Congress,
which are inexpensive.

When HYee and Fogel did there pioneering work on sports photography, an arbitrary date was set for what constituted a "vintage" photography. It wasn't selected out of thin air, but close enough. Their book was not a price guide, they were just looking for clarity.

UPI, the eventual incarnation of International News, was printing quality images from the original negatives well into the '60s. The Brown Bros. photos, which we now have a glut of thanks to Lelands, reprinted photos from the original negatives for decades.

With the Browns, we have no idea, even with the use of back stamps, when this stuff was cranked out. UPI is the same way; maybe you can be off by a decade. It matters most if you are speculating or are a photo maven.

The later copies can go for ten cents on the dollar, which is weird because they are often cleaner copies.

Perhaps the standards will, in time, change.

Ask yourself, why are you doing this, to make money or because you like the picture.

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by lumberjack

UPI, the eventual incarnation of International News, was printing quality images from the original negatives well into the '60s. The Brown Bros. photos, which we now have a glut of thanks to Lelands, reprinted photos from the original negatives for decades.

No doubt. Some really great UPI photos out there with fantastic images right off of the original negs.

Originally Posted by lumberjack

With the Browns, we have no idea, even with the use of back stamps, when this stuff was cranked out. UPI is the same way; maybe you can be off by a decade. It matters most if you are speculating or are a photo maven.

I hear you on this but I do think we can be reasonably sure in regards to when the photos were created based on paper type/size. In many cases anyway but not all. Admittedly this is more difficult without having the photos in-hand when bidding.

Originally Posted by lumberjack

The later copies can go for ten cents on the dollar, which is weird because they are often cleaner copies.

Absolutely.

Originally Posted by lumberjack

Ask yourself, why are you doing this, to make money or because you like the picture.

I second this. My impression though, is that in the end he feels his photos should hold more value than what the "experts" are claiming.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by lumberjack

With the Browns, we have no idea, even with the use of back stamps, when this stuff was cranked out. UPI is the same way; maybe you can be off by a decade. It matters most if you are speculating or are a photo maven.

The later copies can go for ten cents on the dollar, which is weird because they are often cleaner copies.

Perhaps the standards will, in time, change.

Ask yourself, why are you doing this, to make money or because you like the picture.

That's why I love team issues from specific seasons and photos with publication usage evident. Same with mailed postcards. Very clear dating.

[Johnphotoman]

Jackie Robinson photo-new info: game-changer?

I learned something new about the Jackie Robinson photo, and it could be a game-changer on everything I thought I knew about the photo.

Almost everybody I showed the photo to, the main interest was always in the name on the photograph in script writing. But for me it is always about the photo- who took the photo, when was the photo taken, when was the photo issued?

One thing that bothered me was the date on the scoreboard, (1946). And how was Jackie Robinson in a Brooklyn Dodgers uniform?

What I Understood about Robinson in 1946…he was a member of the Montreal Royals. As I understood the facts, the Montreal Royals were a Triple-A International League affiliate of the Brooklyn Dodgers that had their own uniforms. Now- Jackie Robinson did not play for the Brooklyn Dodgers until his major league debut- April 15, 1947. This is the information I have…Jackie Robinson made his Major League debut for the Brooklyn Dodgers on April 15, 1947, against the Boston Braves at Ebbets Field. I believe this is correct.

I believed something was wrong with the photo, it just did not add up for me. I thought could it be a fake. But most people believed the photo was issued circa 1950s and the image was from 1946. I started believing that theory, but I just could not get the 1946 scoreboard, or the fact that Jackie was in a Brooklyn Dodgers uniform out of my head.

All these years I did not know that the date on the scoreboard was not the year- but advertising. Not one person mentioned the date or questioned the date. They always went right to the name on the photos. In-spite of me saying many times “the image on the photo was from 1946, because you can see the date on the photo.”

This is a brand new discovery for me: I discovered on April 3, 2025 the date on the scoreboard is not the year 1946, but advertising. After going over images of Ebbets Field.

Tell me your thoughts. John.

Now notice the images below, they are from April 15, 1947- The Brooklyn Dodgers vs. the Boston Braves at Ebbets Field. The day Robinson made his Major League debut.

Everything on the scoreboard looks to be the same as on my photo.

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by Johnphotoman

Everything on the scoreboard looks to be the same as on my photo.

Not everything. They don't match.

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by TCMA

Not everything. They don't match.

In-fact there are multiple discrepancies between the images, not the least of which is the red/white/blue bunting on right field wall and the horizontal ad that is above the scoreboard in one shot and not in the other.

[bobw]

Wouldn't the image be from 1947 as the "watch for" ad for "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty" is in the background and the movie premiered in August 1947 but was released in September 1947.

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by bobw

Wouldn't the image be from 1947 as the "watch for" ad for "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty" is in the background and the movie premiered in August 1947 but was released in September 1947.

It's definitely from 1947 because the first time Jackie wore a Dodgers uniform on the field was April 11, 1947 during the pre-season series against the Yankees.

[Johnphotoman]

Originally Posted by TCMA

In-fact there are multiple discrepancies between the images, not the least of which is the red/white/blue bunting on right field wall and the horizontal ad that is above the scoreboard in one shot and not in the other.

Thank you, I see it now. But does this change how you see the images? Are they close enough to say you could believe the photo image is circa 1947?

And please can anyone explain the ad- Electricity more for your money in 1976.
The ad in question. John

[Schlesinj]

Because they make Billboards signs and don’t replace them for years.