NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. When you click on links to eBay on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
T206s on eBay
Babe Ruth Cards on eBay
t206 Ty Cobb on eBay
Ty Cobb Cards on eBay
Lou Gehrig Cards on eBay
Baseball T201-T217 on eBay
Baseball E90-E107 on eBay
T205 Cards on eBay
Baseball Postcards on eBay
Goudey Cards on eBay
Baseball Memorabilia on eBay
Baseball Exhibit Cards on eBay
Baseball Strip Cards on eBay
Baseball Baking Cards on eBay
Sporting News Cards on eBay
Play Ball Cards on eBay
Joe DiMaggio Cards on eBay
Mickey Mantle Cards on eBay
Bowman 1951-1955 on eBay
Football Cards on eBay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Main Forum - WWII & Older Baseball Cards > Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 12-11-2020, 12:43 PM
TCMA's Avatar
TCMA TCMA is offline
Andrew Aronstein
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Peekskill, NY
Posts: 1,010
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lumberjack View Post
The portrait of Grant is like the Thompson head shots. They used those big ol' honking cameras and you could count the freckles on Grant's face.
Great info in your last post, Mike! And yes, the Eddie Grant shot on the right is the Paul Thompson used for his T205 though the image is reversed on the card.
__________________
Visit TCMA Ltd. on Facebook!

Last edited by TCMA; 12-11-2020 at 12:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 12-11-2020, 03:05 PM
doug.goodman doug.goodman is offline
Doug Goodman
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the road again...
Posts: 4,550
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lumberjack View Post
programmatic
Is this a typo?
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 12-11-2020, 05:22 PM
lumberjack lumberjack is offline
Mic.hael Mu.mby
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 149
Default mike's spell check, you gotta pay attention

Yes, thank you. Problematic was the word I intended.

The English language, she is a cruel mistress, no?
lumberjack
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 12-11-2020, 07:11 PM
drcy's Avatar
drcy drcy is offline
David Ru.dd Cycl.eback
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,466
Default

Duly note the vintage photos are regularly trimmed/cut down these days. Expect many 8x10 photos to be trimmed/cut down. If there is borderless "a bit" under 8x10 photo, assume it's been cut down. Other size photos are being cut down too.

It's something I've brought up regularly on this board over the last several years, apparently to deaf ears. But I know as fact that I'm not the only who knows this is going on. It's pointless too, as PSA doesn't assign a condition grade.

There's no reason a hundred-year-old photo should have razor-sharp edges and corners. Also, many of the cuts are obviously not machine cut as the lines are uneven. Much photo paper came in factory-made standard sizes, makes trimming easier to identify. 8.8 x 9.84 inches was not a standard size, yet, strangely and considering the sharp edges and razor-sharp corners, that's slightly under 8x10 inches which was a standard size.

I don't have to give more details, as Net54ers and other collectors can do their own observations and see this for themselves. To me, and those who are observant, it's usually pretty obvious which photos have been trimmed.

This is not a comment on the REA Conlon, as I don't see anything wrong with its cut, and, according to the listing, it measures 8x10".

Last edited by drcy; 12-11-2020 at 07:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 12-11-2020, 08:32 PM
doug.goodman doug.goodman is offline
Doug Goodman
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the road again...
Posts: 4,550
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lumberjack View Post
Yes, thank you. Problematic was the word I intended.

The English language, she is a cruel mistress, no?
lumberjack
I whipped out the old Webster's that my grandmother and I used when we played scrabble, but it was no help...
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 12-12-2020, 12:14 AM
drcy's Avatar
drcy drcy is offline
David Ru.dd Cycl.eback
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,466
Default

As a follow up to my previous post, I went to the REA auction and looked at their photos. One I pulled up in a PSA/DNA holder and identified as probably trimmed. I then read the description, and REA identified it as "slightly trimmed." I look at other lots and there were a bunch of PSA/DNA holdered photos they also described as trimmed. So, to their credit, REA appears to know about and look for this.

Also, this post isn't a criticism of PSA/DNA's authentication or holdering of those photos, as they are just authenticating the photos and not condition grading them.

On a personal note, the recent trimming of these photos to give them sharp edges and borders to a degree ruins the photos in my aesthetic and photo-historian experience. As a longtime photo historian and former collector who knows what old photos are supposed to look like, it's comparable to having a vintage black ballpoint 1970 New York Mets signed baseball then getting Jerry Koosman to sign his name to it in 2020 in blue sharpie. Its sticks out like an ugly sore thumb and you can't help but grimace each time you look at the photo. Not only is the trimming usually pretty obvious and obviously artificial, but they are usually cutting away part of the image. Since there is absolutely nothing errant about rough edges to a photograph, and PSA/DNA doesn't even give a condition grade, giving the photos these artificial sharp edges and corners is completely pointless.

Maybe twenty years ago, I wrote I believe the first short guides to news photos (literally a stapled pamphlet from my home computer printer), and one of the things I wrote was (paraphrase) "If a 70 or 80-year-old news photo has razor sharp edges and corners, it's most probably either a modern reprint or has been trimmed." An interviewer later asked me why I wrote that, and I said that almost no unaltered news photos that old or older are without edge wear and damage. Perfect edges and corners on antique news photos don't look right, not unlike a game used football jersey that looks as if it was never worn.

Last edited by drcy; 12-12-2020 at 01:13 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 12-12-2020, 09:07 AM
Snapolit1's Avatar
Snapolit1 Snapolit1 is offline
Ste.ve Na.polit.ano
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 5,761
Default

I've always wanted a 1923 Yankees team picture with Gehrig. Lelands had one last night and and it was trimmed down tremendously. Took a pass after looking at it many times. Trimmed to 9x4.5. They disclosed it was trimmed, which was patently obvious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by drcy View Post
Duly note the vintage photos are regularly trimmed/cut down these days. Expect many 8x10 photos to be trimmed/cut down. If there is borderless "a bit" under 8x10 photo, assume it's been cut down. Other size photos are being cut down too.

It's something I've brought up regularly on this board over the last several years, apparently to deaf ears. But I know as fact that I'm not the only who knows this is going on. It's pointless too, as PSA doesn't assign a condition grade.

There's no reason a hundred-year-old photo should have razor-sharp edges and corners. Also, many of the cuts are obviously not machine cut as the lines are uneven. Much photo paper came in factory-made standard sizes, makes trimming easier to identify. 8.8 x 9.84 inches was not a standard size, yet, strangely and considering the sharp edges and razor-sharp corners, that's slightly under 8x10 inches which was a standard size.

I don't have to give more details, as Net54ers and other collectors can do their own observations and see this for themselves. To me, and those who are observant, it's usually pretty obvious which photos have been trimmed.

This is not a comment on the REA Conlon, as I don't see anything wrong with its cut, and, according to the listing, it measures 8x10".
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
T206 Cobb Reprint on ebay... buyer beware Blunder19 Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 4 08-04-2020 02:34 PM
T206 fake cobb on ebay-buyer beware !!! JohnP0621 Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 10 05-29-2014 06:56 AM
Wow...Buyer beware !! T206DK Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 6 03-25-2010 02:14 PM
buyer beware Archive Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 3 02-15-2003 06:35 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:42 AM.


ebay GSB