Anyone win any photos in Legendary's Auction?

[thekingofclout]

I was runner-up on Arron's 715 HR photo. However, I did add a couple of nice TYPE I photos to my collection...and there is still a few I have my eye on for tonight.

Ted Williams 1950
6704


Maris Ties Ruth with his 60th.
6705

6706

[prewarsports]

I won a couple of the bulk lots but not any of the individual shots.

[jacksons]

Hi Jimmy - I won a few - will see what happens tonight.

1926 Yankees (surprised this one didn't go for more - love those jackets)

Maris pauses at Ruth's monument (sentimental favorite of mine)

Joe D and the Rook wirephoto (I have a Type 1 of this from Joe D's estate - always nice to pair the original with a wirephoto sample)

Hope you did well.

[thekingofclout]

Hi Jimmy - I won a few - will see what happens tonight.

1926 Yankees (surprised this one didn't go for more - love those jackets)

Maris pauses at Ruth's monument (sentimental favorite of mine)

Joe D and the Rook wirephoto (I have a Type 1 of this from Joe D's estate - always nice to pair the original with a wirephoto sample)

Hope you did well.

What did the '26 Yanks go for? It's one of the best IMO of all the Yankee Team photographs.

I missed that Maris at the Babe's monument. Would love to add that one to my Maris collection.

Like you, I also like to match a TYPE III with the original TYPE I. I think they present wonderfully together.


Although I do have an incredibly clear TYPE III (wirephoto) of Joe & Mick, I don't have my hopes up too high that I'll ever find a TYPE I. Good luck to you tonight as well. Sincerely, Jimmy

6718

[jacksons]

What did the '26 Yanks go for? It's one of the best IMO of all the Yankee Team photographs.

I missed that Maris at the Babe's monument. Would love to add that one to my Maris collection.

Like you, I also like to match a TYPE III with the original TYPE I. I think they present wonderfully together.


Although I do have an incredibly clear TYPE III (wirephoto) of Joe & Mick, I don't have my hopes up too high that I'll ever find a TYPE I. Good luck to you tonight as well. Sincerely, Jimmy


Jimmy - The '26 team went for less than $500 - I was surprised, really. Thought I'd lost that one. (I had a mutual friend help to give it a 90% accurate Type 1 status, just based on the scans. The U&U stampings lead me to believe it is a Type 1. )The 1923 went for 3-4x more.

I have quite a few original team photos of the Highlanders/Yankees, but missing many from the late teens, 20'-22', 25', '27 & 29'-'31. Don't care for them beyond 1932 or so.

Didn't know you collected Maris. Will see if I can part with that one ;)

[thekingofclout]

Didn't know you collected Maris. Will see if I can part with that one ;)

This link will take you to my Maris Album...

http://tinyurl.com/yb9ew7m

[GKreindler]

Great pick-ups guys!

[jacksons]

This link will take you to my Maris Album...

http://tinyurl.com/yb9ew7m

Great stuff, Jimmy. There are quite a few Maris shots in this auction left. I loved the one from the perspective of the on-deck circle, the one with his follow-through and the #9 on his back.

I have a game-used 1960-1961 Maris bat - the 016 model, I think - the one he stopped using in April of '61, and a wirephoto from LA of the standard swing photo.

What a collection you have.

[bcbgcbrcb]

I picked up one photo last night, the 1936 Cal Hubbard (Umpire) photo. Went for the minimum bid price of $100 which may have been a little bit high but it fits nicely into my collection as it pre-dates his 1955 Bowman Rookie Card by nearly 20 years.

[MVSNYC]

i think i got a good deal on this Gehrig (c.1935)...it has some condition issues, but is a type 1 example.

p.s. i am told by Legendary that the white "streaks" are much more subtle in person.

[thekingofclout]

Very pleased to add three more TYPE I photographs to my collection.

A sweet image of Koufax from Sept. of '63.

6741

Roger Maris gets his 61st Home Run Ball back from fan Sal Durante.

6742

6743

Willie Mays is greeted at home after hitting his 500th career home run by fellow HOF teammate (who later became a member of the 500 club), Willie McCovey.

6744

6745

[MVSNYC]

forgive me, because like i said in another thread, i am new to photos, but aren't these wire photos- thus not type 1?

[thekingofclout]

The photos I posted in this thread are not wire photos, these are news service photos.

A wire photo was created when someone would take a TYPE I photo and run it through a wire photo machine (which AP perfected in the late 1930's) which works pretty much like a like a fax machine and the wire photos would be received at the other end hundreds or thousands of miles away.

So a single TYPE I photo would generally send out 25-50 wire photos to their affiliate newspapers.

Here is an example of a wire photo, notice how the caption is embedded into the photo not typed on a thin piece of brown, green, yellow, etc. paper and pasted on the back. Wire photos are TYPE III photos.

Also, if you viewed this photo with a $15 pocket telescope that can go 100x you will easily see the line pattern produced by the wire photo machine on the receiving end.
6746

Here is a TYPE I News Service Photo...and under 100x it would appear cloudy with no dot patterns or lines.

6747

6748

[MVSNYC]

thanks! that helps alot...

here is a very quick summary from Mastro's book:

type 1- made from the original negative within 2 years of photo being taken
type 2- made from the original negative, years later
type 3- wire photos or photos made from photos within 2 years of being taken
type 4- wire photos or photos made from photos, printed years later

is this an accurate summary?

[thekingofclout]

thanks! that helps alot...

here is a very quick summary from Mastro's book:

type 1- made from the original negative within 2 years of photo being taken
type 2- made from the original negative, years later
type 3- wire photos or photos made from photos within 2 years of being taken
type 4- wire photos or photos made from photos, printed years later

is this an accurate summary?

Yep! But there are a lot of subtleties and nuances involved with determining what TYPE a photo is at times...

[D. Bergin]

Also, if you viewed this photo with a $15 pocket telescope that can go 100x you will easily see the line pattern produced by the wire photo machine on the receiving end.



A simple 10x loop will usually do the trick if you can't tell from your naked eye. If it's a really clean wire transfer I found the easiest way to find the wave pattern is around the outlines of the figures where the body blends into the background of the photo.

The edge of the brim of a baseball cap is usually a great spot to look for the wave lines.

The AP and other news agencies had lots of runners who ran original prints to as many newspapers in the immediate area as possible so they weren't totally reliant on wire transfers either.

Most Type 1's are not 1 of 1's but I imagine that they are a lot scarcer then most known baseball cards of any particular player/athlete.

A lot of wire photos (not all) will actually say "Wire Photo" somewhere on them. Anything with the caption printed into the front of the photo is generally a wire photo. A lot of times this front caption will be trimmed off but it's still fairly easy to tell the difference.

Most photos (not all) that come with the paper tag on the back are Type I press photos. Some are Type II's and are usually easy to tell though some can be a bit tricky.

Then there are also "Sound Photos" and "Radio Photos" which I imagine would be considered Type III. These usually gave poor results and were of less quality then the wire photos.

[nyyanksghr]

With all the talk of Type I and Type II...a few questions/comments. I would like to see a much broader definition of Type II. This Type I through IV is a recent concept developed by Marshall and Henry for the purpose of providing a grading scale for PSA. In the technical definition, a Joe Jackson photo, printed from the original negative, that was taken during the 1919 World Series but not published/printed until 1922 would be considered TYPE II, due to it being printed after 2 years of capture. By the same token, that same image of Jackson from the 1919 World Series, developed from the original negative, in 2009, would be technically a TYPE II. Both would be TYPE II with a drastically different monetary value. What are your opinions of such a broad definition?

A larger issue a see with TYP I and II desigantion is on original photos with no stamping. How would it be possible to know for certain, if a photo developed from the original negative of Jackson, in the 1919 WS, was developed in 1919, or 1929? An 80 year old photo from 1929 would appear no different than a 90 year old photo, from 1919. With no reverse stamping, which is frequent with early photography, you have a guessing game to determine an exact date, within 2 years of photo capture. Thoughts? John Rogers

[slidekellyslide]

I picked up one photo last night, the 1936 Cal Hubbard (Umpire) photo. Went for the minimum bid price of $100 which may have been a little bit high but it fits nicely into my collection as it pre-dates his 1955 Bowman Rookie Card by nearly 20 years.

Hey Phil, not sure if you are aware of this or not, but there is a 1920 Chillicothe Business College football team photo postcard that pictures Hubbard on it. I used to own it, but I sold it to another Net54 member (can't remember who I sold it to though). Of course maybe you don't care for his football career, but I'm guessing it has to be the earliest appearance by Hubbard.

[D. Bergin]

With all the talk of Type I and Type II...a few questions/comments. I would like to see a much broader definition of Type II. This Type I through IV is a recent concept developed by Marshall and Henry for the purpose of providing a grading scale for PSA. In the technical definition, a Joe Jackson photo, printed from the original negative, that was taken during the 1919 World Series but not published/printed until 1922 would be considered TYPE II, due to it being printed after 2 years of capture. By the same token, that same image of Jackson from the 1919 World Series, developed from the original negative, in 2009, would be technically a TYPE II. Both would be TYPE II with a drastically different monetary value. What are your opinions of such a broad definition?

A larger issue a see with TYP I and II desigantion is on original photos with no stamping. How would it be possible to know for certain, if a photo developed from the original negative of Jackson, in the 1919 WS, was developed in 1919, or 1929? An 80 year old photo from 1929 would appear no different than a 90 year old photo, from 1919. With no reverse stamping, which is frequent with early photography, you have a guessing game to determine an exact date, within 2 years of photo capture. Thoughts? John Rogers


Very good points and a question I've always wondered. Press/Wire photos are fairly easy to tell.

Photos from freelance and studio photographers I think are strictly an educated guessing game based on paper type, wear, feeling and even smell. 2 years has to be more of a roundabout figure that maybe should be upgraded to 5 years or so to be more accurate. Who's really to tell if George Burke printed out a photo in 1936 or 1939?

[drc]

double post

[drc]

There's nothing wrong with calling it a 1930s George Burke photo. You don't have to call it original or 1936 if you don't want to. You label photos one at a time and the key is to describe what a photograph is. Sometimes you can describe a photo with one word (ala "original") and other times it can take a paragraph to explain what's going on. Sometimes you don't know exactly when a photo was made and you don't say you do. As noted, news photos by their nature are intended to be timely and you can be more confident many were made right away. Studio photos can be more difficult, but they can often be dated to the period, which satisfies many Hollywood collectors. You can have a 1932 image of Greta Garbo where you can't prove the date but are confident the photo is from the 1930s due to the physical nature. And, actually, most movie studio photos and promos were timely as well, as they were usually tied to movie releases.

The PSA/DNA 2 year rule really is a concept. In my book I use the rule "Made soon after the image was shot." Does a Burke photo shot in 1932 and printed in 1937 count as "soon after"?

[thekingofclout]

There's nothing wrong with calling it a 1930s George Burke photo. You don't have to call it original or 1936 if you don't want to. You label photos one at a time and the key is to describe what a photograph is. Sometimes you can describe a photo with one word (ala "original") and other times it can take a paragraph to explain what's going on. Sometimes you don't know exactly when a photo was made and you don't say you do. As noted, news photos by their nature are intended to be timely and you can be more confident many were made right away. Studio photos can be more difficult, but they can often be dated to the period, which satisfies many Hollywood collectors. You can have a 1932 image of Greta Garbo where you can't prove the date but are confident the photo is from the 1930s due to the physical nature. And, actually, most movie studio photos and promos were timely as well, as they were usually tied to movie releases.

The PSA/DNA 2 year rule really is a concept. In my book I use the rule "Made soon after the image was shot." Does a Burke photo shot in 1932 and printed in 1937 count as "soon after"?

First and foremost, common sense must come into play. As for myself, I simply stay away, far away. from blank back photos, period.

Regarding any piece of memorabilia, if you're spending your hard-earned money on photos, bats, autographs, or whatever it is you collect, and the authenticity cannot be determined by the hobby's top experts, and you still pull the trigger, then you just might not be the sharpest tool in the shed.

Photo collectors are fortunate that we now have TWO major companies that authenticate photographs, as just a few years ago we had none! I mean really, we have some of the best experts in the country in Henry Yee, Dr David Cycleback, and Marshall Fogel. Why won't these auction houses use them?!

I just wish Legendary and Lelands (because they have the giant photo inventories) would utilize their services. I cannot understand why they don't, unless they would prefer to skate by with vague descriptions aimed at inexperienced buyers.

This only keeps the photo sector of the hobby from growing by the leaps and bounds that it should, with all the great major finds that have surfaced in the last few years.

Maybe they don't want to hear the bad news that some potential big ticket photos can't be determined if it's a TYPE I or II and rather than lose a huge sale, just sell it raw (with a "no returns" policy of course).

At least Legendary deserves props for including scans of the back of the photos. By now, even a casual photo buyer knows how important the information on the back of the photo is in determining the value of the photo.

Come on Josh & Hef... let's have some more transparency here. I want to buy more of your photos, but not if I can't see the whole package.

Would you buy a expensive car with only looking at the outside? You can't open the door and get inside and no way can you take it for a test drive. How can you do business like that.

In closing, I'm gonna drop a line from one of my favorite movies that I think is appropriate here, Glengarry GlenRoss... "A man doesn't step on the lot lest he wants to buy." We're dying to give you our money...are you man enough to take it? Are you Josh? Are you Doug?

Sincerely and respectfully, Jimmy

[D. Bergin]

There's nothing wrong with calling it a 1930s George Burke photo. You don't have to call it original or 1936 if you don't want to. You label photos one at a time and the key is to describe what a photograph is. Sometimes you can describe a photo with one word (ala "original") and other times it can take a paragraph to explain what's going on. Sometimes you don't know exactly when a photo was made and you don't say you do. As noted, news photos by their nature are intended to be timely and you can be more confident many were made right away. Studio photos can be more difficult, but they can often be dated to the period, which satisfies many Hollywood collectors. You can have a 1932 image of Greta Garbo where you can't prove the date but are confident the photo is from the 1930s due to the physical nature. And, actually, most movie studio photos and promos were timely as well, as they were usually tied to movie releases.

The PSA/DNA 2 year rule really is a concept. In my book I use the rule "Made soon after the image was shot." Does a Burke photo shot in 1932 and printed in 1937 count as "soon after"?




I agree David. I don't have Henry Yee's book but I have had yours for nearly a decade now.

I've sold tons of blank back photos I am confident are vintage to the period. All photos were not meant for the press services.........especially in boxing where promotional photo shots were commonplace and used to market boxers during the time period and sent out to various promoters and managers.

Jimmy, I hear you about Leland's. I've bid and won lots of their stuff but most of the time it's a crap shoot and I try to bid accordingly.

One time I bought a large boxing photo collection and the lot ended up being comprised of mostly 2nd generation shots and lots of throwaway stuff. Another lot had like 600 photos and 200 of them were of an obscure british flyweight champion from the 40's-50's named Terry Allen, lots of them duplicated.............not sure what I was supposed to do with those.

On the flip side I've also picked up lots, thought I might have overpaid and been pleasantly surprised when I got them in, finding lots of gems they never mentioned in the initial description.

I've rarely bid on single photos from them but agree it would help if backs were shown, whether they are press OR studio photos so you would at least get a sense of the paper grain.

[drc]

I've read the Mastro/Yee et al book and think it's a good book. It focuses almost entirely on news and press photos, but has lots of info and research on that subject.

[thekingofclout]

I've read the Mastro/Yee et al book and think it's a good book. It focuses almost entirely on news and press photos, but has lots of info and research on that subject.

Your comments speak volumes about your character David. Like Henry and Marshall, you're a fair honest man with integrity, and that sir, is the kind of man I want as an advocate for our sector of the hobby. You have my respect and admiration and with you, Mr. Fogel, and Mr. Yee leading the way, I feel better then ever about Baseball Photography's future in the collecting world.

Which brings me back to the question I posed earlier in this thread... With some of the top experts in the country available to shed light and give credibility to authenticating Baseball photographs...why aren't the auctions houses utilizing their services?!

Sincerely, Jimmy

P.S. David, your book also resides in my Baseball Library.

[3and2]

I grabbed this photo of Mantle after hitting #535 off Denny Mclain when he grooved one in for him. I just love the reaction of the Detroit fans b/c it was his last at bat there.

[GKreindler]

That's a hell of a photo 3and2!! Like many of the photos from that auction, it would make a killer painting.

[3and2]

Thanks, I was really happy to pick it up. Also, I've checked out your website and you have awesome pieces. Especially, of the Mick.

[GKreindler]

Thanks Anthony, I appreciate it! I take it you're a big Mantle fan? I have a couple more that I'll be posting on the website soon. Actually, they'll probably be shown on the boards even before that happens!