Can we finally lay the "Type I" photo BS to rest?

[drc]

I think one can say the stadium photo grading is an error by PSA's rules (though the date is correct) and points out some things about news photos (in ambiguous cases (generic player portrait) how can be sure when the image was shot within 2 years).

I never subscribed to PSA's grading rules and in particular wouldn't chose the 2 year window, but that doesn't mean I think the rules are wrong. I'm just not fond of them (how not fond depends on my mood)-- not a fan of black and white categories. However, in my limited experience looking at PSA graded photos, I've thought PSA dated and described the photos accurately, so I have gripe with their abilities.

I just say the stadium photo is an interesting example that rightfully might make some people people ponder about when an image was shot visa vie the photo printed.

[drc]

It is a case where a grading rule was broken, but it's a rule I never agreed with -- So what's the meaning in that? Should I be mad or happy? I don't know. I'll compromise and be sleepy.

[thecatspajamas]

With this particular photo, the notation "(STOCK)" at the top of the slug should probably be a cue that the dating of the photo bears a little closer scrutiny.

As for whether you can determine with 100% certainty whether the print was produced within 2 years of when it was shot, you have to consider each photo on a case-by-case basis. Generic aerial shots of a stadium would be much harder to pin down than player shots from a team that changed uniform styles regularly. Studio photos that don't have the paper captions on the back would be much more difficult to date the print than would news photos. In cases where you can't tell for sure though, just don't use the specific "Type" classification when you describe it. Even PSA leaves the door open for photos that they authenticate to come back with an "Inconclusive" judgement. Not sure how often they actually apply that, but clearly there are some cases where it would be impossible to tell.

As for using the Type classification on modern photos, I really don't see the point. As you said, it would be difficult if not impossible to judge (unless you produced the print yourself), and in 99% of cases there wouldn't be any value increase associated with it anyway.

[David Atkatz]

Gee... I wonder how the "experts" at PSA missed that, too.

[drc]

With specific game action or award ceremony or the like, one can be confident when the image was shot. But there's no question news agencies re-used stock images of player portraits and the like.

[thecatspajamas]

Incidentally, for anyone who was not aware, Henry Yee was one of the guys (along with I believe Marshall Fogel and Khyber Oser) who coined the terms Type 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. for photograph evaluation. He and Fogel were also instrumental in helping PSA when they began authenticating photos for Type classifications, which is a fairly recent addition to their services. I believe he was also heavily involved, at least initially, in the authentication process itself (not sure if that is still the case).

All of that is not to point out any kind of conflict of interest though, but rather to say that Yee knows his stuff when it comes to vintage photography, particularly baseball photos. His auctions have always had straightforward and insightful evaluations of the photos themselves along with his lively narratives of the people and events depicted in the photos. He was doing this long before PSA dipped their toes into this end of the collecting pool, and as far as I can tell from his last couple of auctions, has not shifted his emphasis from telling you how great the photo itself is to "isn't it great that PSA thinks this is an authentic photo." The PSA authentication is basically just a blurb in the description and an added picture.

That said, I think the addition of the PSA authentication, particularly with the thin slabs, has made a difference in the prices realized. I haven't gone through his latest auction as closely, but his previous one, which was smaller in scope and consisted of nearly all PSA-slabbed photos, brought in what a friend of mine called "stupid money." There were a lot of very nice photos, which Yee always has, but the trend seemed to be more towards the thousand-dollar-plus mark than usual. And keep in mind that this is all on eBay, not a major independent auction house (which may help explain the added "oomph" that the PSA name brought to the bottom line when dealing with more collectors who recognize their logo over Yee's name).

[drc]

I said that, in my opinion, PSA/DNA appears to do a good job identifying and dating photos. If Yee is doing that work for them, then Yee is. I wasn't suggesting otherwise.

However, if I was asked to re-write their grading rules (which I'm not and I'm not suggesting anyone would ask me), I would change the 2 years in the 2 year rule. I specifically don't like that number 2.

[thecatspajamas]

drc,
Not arguing with you about the quality of work. Just adding some info that others might not be aware of. Didn't mean that to be directed at you.

Since you mention it though, mind if I ask what your specific contention with the 2-year window is? Not saying it's right or wrong. Just curious as to your thoughts.

[drc]

If I was re-writing the rules I would say say 'a few' years. Some points are:

* If 2 years is original, why can't 3 be? 2 years is PSA/DNA's definition (fine, they get a vote), but a reasonable collector might say 2.5 years counts as original too. Another collector might say a 1920 studio photo of Ty Cobb with the image shot three years earlier counts as original. Someone might say, 'Let's make the number 1.' At the least, 2 seems arbitrary where 2.2 or 1.5 would be just as valid.

* 2 years is too finite a number in an often gray world. Say you have a genuine 1930s George Burke photo of Joe Dimaggio (Burke's antique stamp on back proving the old age). You often can't be certain when the photo was made, even if you are certain the photo is from the 1930s. You have no idea how the 2 rule applies, even though you know the photo is old and you very well might call it an original and it might rightly sell for good $$. Burke may have printed that photo in 1933, he may have printed in 1936. No one knows. It's a personal judgment call as to whether or not it's original. Notice my rule was a more ambiguous 'a few,' as there is ambiguity in this case.

---
Beyond that pesky 2 issue, I've read the grading rules and, even if it's not the way I would structure the categories, the rules and thinking are logical. I understand what they're talking about and why they made the categories that way. However, just as trading card collectors shouldn't judge a card just by the 1-10 grade, collectors shouldn't judge a photograph solely by the type2, type3 categories. Treat them as a guide or categorization rather than final arbiter of taste. For example, a 1917 real photo postcard with a second generation or 4 year old image of Joe Jackson is still a 1917 postcard of Joe Jackson and should and rightly will fetch good $$ at auction.

[TexasLeaguer]

I bid on a number of lots in the recent auction (I only won one), but I was a little bothered by the "third party authentication" by PSA because Henry Yee's name is on the COA as part of the authentication team. How is it "third party" in any sense of the words if the seller is also the authenticator? This seems like a pretty big conflict of interest because he has financial motivation to "authenticate" the items he then turns around and auctions. I would feel more comfortable with a COA from an objective source.

[HRBAKER]

Whether the number is 2, 3, 5 or 10, it most cases it is an arbitrary guess is it not?

[David Atkatz]

Don't expect PSA to ever admit to that.