Ruth Photo - Type 1

[Shoeless Moe]

or hard to say?


http://www.legendaryauctions.com/LotDetail.aspx?inventoryid=170705


So was it one, can it be told from the markings on the back, or is it not possible to say due to lack of info on the back?

[Leon]

I have limited experience but I don't think that markings on the back are foolproof. I believe there will be a photo dealer in deep doo-doo, very soon, over fraudulently stamping some photos backs.

To me, it looks like a period vintage photo. It might have done better in a different venue.

[Runscott]

I think the Ruth photo collectors spoke with their bidding. If they had been confident, it would have sold for way more.

[sporteq]

20s/30s re-strike IMHO

Albert

[drcy]

You have to see the photo in person to determine. I know what is the issue with this photo and why they worded the description that way with the highly unusual return guarantee, but it's something I'd have to see in person. You can't say just from the images.

Ignoring entirely the writing and stamping, it appears Legendary is confident the itself photo is original and just offering the winner the chance to have someone confirm.

[sporteq]

You have to see the photo in person to determine.

Well yeah... I think most ppl are getting the feeling it's NOT 100% period off the negative. We'll probably never know.

Albert

[Runscott]

You can't say just from the images.

The hammer indicates that there could be something the advanced Ruth collectors know that we don't - before dropping $5-20K on a photo you are going to do a bit more research than those participating in this thread have done (zero on my end). But I agree, nothing I see that gives it away as being anything but original, other than the odd curved trim at the bottom left. Perhaps the stamp or notes are a forger tell.

I am curious how Albert arrived at his fairly exact estimates. Not real curious, but mildly.

[sporteq]

I am curious how Albert arrived at his fairly exact estimates. Not real curious, but mildly.

Haha.. mildly doesn't do it for me. Very very curious maybe!

[Leon]

The hammer indicates that there could be something the advanced Ruth collectors know that we don't - before dropping $5-20K on a photo you are going to do a bit more research than those participating in this thread have done (zero on my end). But I agree, nothing I see that gives it away as being anything but original, other than the odd curved trim at the bottom left. Perhaps the stamp or notes are a forger tell.

I am curious how Albert arrived at his fairly exact estimates. Not real curious, but mildly.

Probably the same thing we all saw, it looks a tiny bit off register or fuzzy. I said I think it is a period vintage photo but not sure of the exact origin. Maybe the photo just wasn't super clear when it was developed?

[drcy]

To me and just looking at the images, it looks as if it could be an original photo. And, as I said, I assume Legendary is being honest when they think it's original, while at the same time making no claim as to the name of the photographer (some can read between the lines of what I am saying). It's just that there are recent issues about forged stamps and writing, so they doing the unusual of allowing the winner to have it checked out.

I'm not a Ruth collector and am not up to date on the going rates for his photos, and when I looked at the listing I didn't realize the price was supposedly low. If the winning bid had been $80 I'd have definitely wondered what was going on, but to me at the time $1000 plus for a cropped photo seemed like a healthy amount of money.

To be honest, from my observations of auctions and knowledge of photos, I don't believe there is this hidden league of expansive thinking baseball photo expert bidders (I didn't at all say there were none). I often observe exotic and rare baseball photos that go undervalued (IMO), specifically because most bidders don't understand the significance and rarity of those photos. I've on occasion even had to contact sports auctions houses themselves to tell them that what they had was much rarer and better and sometimes older than they were describing. So, no, I don't always see wild fluctuations in pricing as an expression of a bastion of knowledge-- I often see it as a sign of an immature hobby. As with baseball cards, some types and subjects get hot and some don't-- and baseball collectors are very subject centric, often at the expense of aesthetics. As Mark Macrae and I agreed on at the Seattle show, once a baseball cabinet card or CDV is called a "baseball card" it's values go up, because all the baseball card collectors, who may or may not be interested or knowledgeable in photography, start bidding. He was showing me one of his cabinet cards and jokingly said "This cabinet card-- I mean BASE BALL CARD..." Just in case any potential baseball card buyer nearby was overhearing.

[Runscott]

David, the hammer price is nothing for a type I ruth red sox photo, even with fuzzy image and a cut corner.

[Runscott]

The bidders for these ate not some secret cult of experts - but they ARE guys who pay a lot if confident in authenticity (refer back to first sentence in my first post)

[JeremyW]

I'm assuming a member of this forum purchased this photo & is waiting to get the photo in hand before letting us know his findings.

[Runscott]

Jeremy, I'm assuming the winner is NOT a member of this forum, or at least not one of the known early Ruth photo collectors.

[Shoeless Moe]

...with all the photos RMY Auction owners come across they would have something that matches the markings on the back. I know they are board members can you please chime in?

Or if you purchased and don't want to say, then say "no comment."

[ejharrington]

I bid on it but didn't bid aggressively since I was scared off by the fact that all Legendary would have to do is send the photo to PSA or another grading company and get it verified as Type 1. It would have sold for several times what it went for. I was suspicious as to why they and/or the consignor wouldn't have done that.

[prewarsports]

Hi

I will chime in, but I cant really add much. The large number on the back is a unique filing stamp to the archive and will provide nothing along the way of determining age of the image. It probably reference which cabinet the photo was in or something like that. The name written in pencil will also not add anything.

The sepia image is consistent with the late 1910's, but images from the 1920's could certainly be developed using the same method so nothing definitive there either.

My hunch is that it is probably fine but it is impossible to tell without looking at it in person. If the buyer wants to send it to me for inspection I would be more than happy to examine it free of charge or if they wanted to bring it to the National Convention I will be there as well.

As for the lack of PSA authentication, it can be a long process with photos and PSA will only examine the images if one of two people personally sign off on it (Marshall Fogel or Henry Yee). Both are of course perfectly qualified to offer an opinion but if their schedules did not coincide with the auction or a number of other factors could be the reason for lack of PSA authentication.

Again, nothing much to add but I don't think this was a steal at that price given the poor cut. Maybe a little meat left on the bone but its not a huge money photo even if its PSA Authenticated in my opinion.

Happy to help if the buyer or anyone else has any questions.

Rhys

[Shoeless Moe]

That did add a lot, much appreciated!

[Forever Young]

The winner of this photo did very well; TYPE 1.

Unfortunately, he was skunked on two must haves in Heritage.

[Runscott]

Congratulations Ben! (on the first one).

[Forever Young]

Congratulations Ben! (on the first one).

Thanks Scott. We missed you at the national this year. Perhaps next year in AC?