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

[gonefishin]

I would like to add a couple of thoughts on this topic. I enjoy vintage pictures and have bought and sold a couple. Regarding PSA, if you pay the extra amount for a LOA in addition to encapsulation you get a lot more information other than what is contained on the label. With just the label itself you receive very little information.

In the example attached, both of Chief Bender, there are a couple of excellent examples that fit this thread.

The snapshot is, and always should be, a type I example.

The photo is a type II. I attached it along with the letter to show the type of information I receive when I also pay for an LOA.

[Johnphotoman]

Originally Posted by gonefishin

I would like to add a couple of thoughts on this topic. I enjoy vintage pictures and have bought and sold a couple. Regarding PSA, if you pay the extra amount for a LOA in addition to encapsulation you get a lot more information other than what is contained on the label. With just the label itself you receive very little information.

In the example attached, both of Chief Bender, there are a couple of excellent examples that fit this thread.

The snapshot is, and always should be, a type I example.

The photo is a type II. I attached it along with the letter to show the type of information I receive when I also pay for an LOA.

This helps a lot. But how did PSA identify the photo as a Type 2? It looks like there were markings on the back? I see the photo was a reissued photo from the 1950. Issued in the 1980s made of the original negative. How did they know that it was Type 2? It says- The characteristics of the Image, paper stock, reverse stampings, notations are consistent with those of a Type 2 photo. Is this right? John

[Johnphotoman]

“Souvenir Photos”- TCMA: Andrew Aronstein -mentioned earlier, it is the best description for the photos I have. I remember hearing that term used on the photos before. But I did not give it much thought, heck there are all souvenir photos. But now thanks to TCMA- I understand it is a classification for photos, commercially sold, not part of a set.

The other day I was going over my notes on the photos I have….and saw a note -“Souvenir Photos”. Let me explain, in 1977 my Dad went to a Baltimore Orioles and New York Yankees baseball game. The broadcast announcers for that game were Rex Barney for Baltimore and Phil Rizzuto for New York. My Dad had their photos with him. He was able to show them the photos, and they both autographed them in ballpoint pen.

They did discuss the photos a little, the best I can understand, they both believed they were “Souvenir Photos” from when they played the game.. My Dad mentioned to Rex Barney that his photo looked like it was from 1946 because of the uniform. His response, it could be. Now I have to ask, does anyone recognize the uniform, and can you say what year it is from? I know it is a Brooklyn Dodgers uniform.

The connection there is proof that souvenir photos like Rex Barnry and Phil Rizzuto were issued in 1947. And we know these souvenir photos were issued by the National Sports photo company. There is a chance that some of the photos I have were taken in the 1940s and issued with the names on them in 1947.

It has been established that the National Sports photo company issued photos like the ones I have - with the names on them, in 1947. Now for the confusing part, even if the photos were taken in 1946 and printed in 1947 with the names on the photos, they could be classified as a Type 1, 2, 3 and even a 4- if I understand how the type system works. You see the confusion: a photo that is over 70 years old- could be a type 4, but a photo from the 1940s made from the original negative a year ago would be a Type 2. John.

[Schlesinj]

Have you purchased the book, I referenced the first post of the thread? It can save you fair amount of time and energy. Very informative and great reference.

[Johnphotoman]

Thank you, no I have not purchased the book. I do know about it, I tried a few years back to buy the book, but it was out of print. I went to the Library, but they do not have a copy. I tried to get it on loan from the libraries that had a copy- but they don't loan the book out, apparently it is considered a reference book. The only copies I have seen go for over $300. I will not be getting the book.

I have asked people about the book. It has a lot of good information, but not on the photos I have. Thanks to everybody posting here I have somewhat of a handle on the types of photos. Maybe my post makes it seem like I do not…but I am just trying to have as many conversations about the photos as I can. Thank you for the suggestion. I hope by talking about the photos I am not beating a dead horse; By going over the same thing here. I just find it very interesting to see other peoples thoughts on the subject. John.

[Johnphotoman]

From Keyman Collectibles: “A large 19.5" x 29.5" copy of the Jackie Robinson, Berk Ross photograph, with the white signature was salvaged in the 1973 renovation, of Yankee Stadium. It was believed to have hung in the halls of the stadium.”

Does anyone know about this, I know a few years back I saw an auction for this but when I mentioned it to someone (collector) they said it has nothing to with the photo because it was a sign? I had forgotten about that. I do not know if it could bring any clarity to the photo, if we had more information on the sign. But it does make the photo more interesting. John

[Schlesinj]

I have toured the new Yankee stadium and know they have a tremendous amount of photograph throughout the tour of major events. I suspect some of originals and some are copies, but certainly a great tour that they use to tell the story.

(Also a shout out to the museum in the stadium which houses a fantastic assortment of on loan memorabilia. Some of which you can hold (with gloves) like a Ruth bat).