Photographic Images: The Impact of Size on Desirability/Value

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>A number of photographic images are known in various sizes. Joseph Halls and Kalamazoo Bats, to name two, were issued in various sizes. Joseph Halls, besides the typical cabinet size, were also issued as imperial cabinets and mammoth plates. Kalamazoo Bats, besides the standard card size, also exist as cabinets and imperial cabinets. For my tastes, all other considerations (i.e., condition, contrast, resolution) being equal, the larger the image, the more desirable and therefore (to me), the more valuable. Yet I am told by a number of respected collectors/dealers that because card and cabinet size, in contrast to imperial cabinet and mammoth plate, photographic images qualify as baseball cards, they have a greater market value than their larger counterparts. I'd be curious to know people's thoughts on this question.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>ramram</b><p>My wife will swear that, given the choice, bigger is preferred.<br /><br />Rob M.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>scott brockelman</b><p>I am an avid collector of cabinet cards and imperial cabinets as well. These were much more expensive to produce and thus fewer survive. If you look at the field of Ambrotypes or daguerotypes, whole plates bring more than 1/2 plates which bring more than 1/4 plates, which bring more than 1/6y plates and so on, However the subject can make smaller images out price larger ones.<br /><br />But as Corey stated, why wouldn't an identical larger image bring more? In my eyes it is more desirable.<br /><br />Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>You already know my response. In every other photographic category, a mammoth plate image would be the most desirable form attainable. The one hobby group that has it backwards is the baseball card crowd. The slab outrules everything else; if you can get it in a slab, it is more valuable small than large. It flies in the face of logic, but unfortunately plastic rules. I would trade a CdV for a display image any day of the week (including Sundays).

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Clint</b><p>Corey, I'm more of a cabinet and postcard collector than a card collector so I may be biased. For me the bigger the photograph the better. The larger the photograph the rarer I've found. The smaller ones are more convenient to store and display but nothing beats a huge baseball cabinet. <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1166235627.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rhett Yeakley</b><p>Personally, I agree that with early photographic images the larger the better. However, the strict baseball card collectors are not prone thinking of this in the same way many of us do. They tend to want things that are as close to an "ideal baseball card" as possible. Whatever the ideal is determined to be (it is generally what one would envision in their mind as to what a baseball card should be.) For many of us growing up on Topps cards, something betweeen the size of a t206 and a 1952 Topps happens to be what one envisions when thinking of a baseball card. It is the same reason that many do not choose to collect items such as M101-1 Sporting News or National Copper Plate's, or even more particular are those that say Exhibits are not "true cards" because of their size (they really aren't that much bigger!). <br />-Rhett

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>For all areas of photography, the rule of thumb is that, with all other qualities equivalent, the larger the more expensive. It's true some baseball card collectors will bid up a CDV to $100,000 because it resembles a trading card while skipping the 20x20" version, but baseball card collectors don't always exhibit normal behavior. It's not unlike modern card collectors who pay $2,000 for a $200 cut signature if the cut signature is on a serial numbered Topps or Upper Deck insert card. I know autograph collectors get a kick of the prices paid for some of those cut signature cards.<br /><br />Of course a collector should pick the sizes he likes. With modern photos, I prefer 11x14" and don't like larger than 20x20" as they can be hard to store. A collector of snap shots will specialize in small photos.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Max Weder</b><p>The bigger the photo, the better. I especially like team panoramas. The two shown here are 1922 Seals and Vernon and the 1926 Toronto Maple Leafs with Carl Hubbell and Lionel Conacher.<br /><br /><img src="http://static.flickr.com/52/189100738_94234cbeff.jpg"><br /><br />Max

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>It should be noted that size is just one of many qualities that determines value. A 3x4" 1877 Boston Bostons photo will be much more expensive than a 11x14" 1985 Lou Pinella photo, even though the Bostons is smaller. But, as I noted earlier, all other things equivalent (size, subject, image quality, condition, fame of photographer, etc), the larger will be more expensive.<br /><br />The collector should also consider the rarity of the size. George Burke's original photos are usually postcard size and 8x10". Not only do the larger than 8x10" sizes have extra eye appeal but they are much rarer. The jumbo sizes are somewhat like a rare variation to a baseball card. <br /><br />With 1800s and early 1900s baseball photos, big panoramas, mamoth photos are all rare. In fact, in the 1860s-70s cabinets are scarce, as the CDV was the common size.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joe_G.</b><p>The 19th century collector might have stronger feelings on this topic than those who collect later issues. 19th century items are all over the map from small E223s to the numerous different cabinet sized cards to the imperial beauties. I personally place more value on the larger items. The 19th century collector is usually dealing in actual photos as opposed to printed cards and all else equal (content, clarity, subject material), bigger is better.<br /><br />Content can also drive up the desire for a larger format. A game-in-progress photo or team picture will present better in a larger format.<br /><br />BTW, I love that Hickman imperial cabinet Scott, great piece <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Best Regards,<br />Joe Gonsowski<br />back to remodeling the kitchen, little time to play <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>Thanks for the responses.<br /><br />Clint, Max, thanks for posting the images. They look like great items.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>even for the unknown player/team shots....<br />content is most important --- and size is a distant second in importance.<br /><br />I would take a cool smaller photo over a boring larger one any day.<br /><br />Now, if it was the same exact photo (or very similar), I personally would prefer the larger one -<br />but I could see smaller being more collectible for many people because smaller is more card-like.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>In my opinion this Mike Kelly Imperial cabinet has to be the king of all 19th century photographs. Any opinions on the price? Too high, too low or just about right?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/site/bidplace.aspx?itemid=4306" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/site/bidplace.aspx?itemid=4306</a>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Trevor Hocking</b><p>What a great question. I personal collect display items as well. I think why most larger photographic items are less expensive than there "card" counterparts is size. Most people don't have the wall space or want to give up the wall space for display items. Also it is a lot tougher to secure items on your wall from theft or your child's sticky fingered "friends". <img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14> Also most people do not have the knowledge when it comes to photographic items to buy with full confidence. And finally they are so rare and hard to find they never come up for auction and when they do most people pass because of all the above. By the way SHHHH this is the only area in vintage baseball I can still find great bargains. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Trevor

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Max Weder</b><p>Trevor <br /><br />That's an interesting point about "sticky fingers". Over the years, I have had two disappearances of cards from my house (one certain with the cards recovered, the second either a theft or my Heilmann Boston Store card is lurking in the attic, waiting to be found by a new owner); no one has managed yet to walk out with a 60" panorama under his arm without me noticing. <br /><br />(Before a response happens with the dreaded admonishment "safety deposit box", my cards aren't of immense value, serving mainly for my aesthetic enjoyment and as adornments to the books in the bookshelves)<br /><br />Max

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Dan- that Mike Kelly photo is owned by a member of this board. Perhaps he will come forward and tell you his thoughts about it.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Trevor Hocking</b><p>I am sure the Heilman is nice and safe under a sofa cushion some where. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Hopefully in your house!<br /><br />As far as the Kelly Four Base Hits cabinet goes I think that is a great example. The cabinet is rarer than the Four Base Hits card (If you can say that here) because to my knowledge there is only one cabinet known and two Kelly Four Base Hits. But in the case of the Four Base Hit and Kalamazoo cabinets, they would be worth WAY more than there card counterparts if they had any product association on them. Will the Kelly Four Base Hits cabinet ever sell for more money? Who cares it is such an important and cool item and that is why I think it sold for what it did. So I think the price was exactly what it is worth and what any item is worth until it is sold again. These items are so hard to place value on. Just bid or pay what you personal can afford and win or loss you will always be happy. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Trevor<br /><br />P.S I do not own this item. Really wish i did though <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jay</b><p>I think it depends how you collect. I collect sets of cards, not display pieces. For me the card is worth more than a comparable larger photo, assuming I need the card. I, and the market, value a Four Base Hit of Kelly substantially above that large photo of Kelly(virtually the same pose) because one is a card and one isn't. Possibly not rational but a common view nonetheless.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>so if you have a Real Photo Postcard of a certain image, would you assume it to be less valuable or more valuable than a larger photo that may not have been used for any commercial purpose?<br /><br />I personally would think that many times, a RPPC would give a larger photo print of the same image a run for its money.<br /><br />What do you think?<br /><br /><img src="http://www.internetville.com/images/albums/userpics/10001/normal_1907Detroit.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Trevor Hocking</b><p>That is exactly what I was trying to say Jay thank you. I think the large photo or print of any card issue (unless it has the same product endorsement) will sell for far less and the market has proven that many times over.<br /><br />So do i think a RPPC would out perform the original photo it was created from, hard to say as RPPC's are still undervalued. Some instances like the RPPC you are showing now, if a large format original photo would surface of that same image it would sell for 10x more than the RPPC any day IMO.<br /><br />Trevor

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>I don't think there is a precise rule of thumb to evaluate whether a small or large example of the same photograph would be worth more. When a card is part of a collected set, the card is probably worth more than its larger counterpart. If in another example both a cabinet and a mammoth plate of the same image is unique, with no affiliation to a product or a set, then the larger one is likely to be worth more. But there could be exceptions.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jay</b><p>Barry--I think you are exactly right

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Jay- one of the more interesting examples would be the Kalamazoo Bats team card of Boston, which is known in three sizes- card, cabinet, and imperial cabinet. In that case, I think the middle size would be most valuable (even though the large format is much more striking). However, the known cabinets have great product advertising on the mount, further complicating the situation.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>While what Barry says certainly on its surface makes a lot of sense, I'm just not sure how true it is. Take CDVs, for example. To my knowledge the great majority of known baseball CDVs are not part of any set. Yet, because they are slabbed and thereby perceived by many as baseball cards, they very well might sell for (considerably) more than a larger-size version of the same image. Take even the mammoth plate of the 1874 Boston team that Hunt auctions recently sold. I am aware of two cabinets of the same image and if I was a betting man, I would predict that they would sell for more than the mammoth plate. Yet I don't regard that cabinet as being part of any set.<br /><br />In addition, it could be argued that with Joseph Halls, given the number of known imperial cabinet size examples, the "set" was produced in imperial cabinet size. Yet, even at that it is very unclear whether the imperial cabinet size would outprice their cabinet counterparts.<br /><br />In the end I still think that perhaps the best explanation is that within baseball circles the card market is stronger than the photograph market, not primarily because of security or wall space concerns (though those are certainly valid considerations) but simply because they are baseball cards. And CDV and cabinet size images, regardless whether part of any set, do get slabbed and thereby achieve that magical designation as being a baseball card. Or, to use Barry's words from an earlier post, "plastic rules". Should the day ever come that imperial cabinets or mammoth plates are slabbed and have general hobby recognition as being baseball cards too, then at that point watch out where their values go.<br /><br />Edited for grammer

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>If they start slabbing mammoth plates, the slab will weigh forty pounds! You will have to stay in good shape just to move them around your house <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />In truth, I think each situation is unique and has to be looked at that way. There will be times when big is better, and times when small is better.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>the slab-ability of the item will affect the number of people interested in it.... which in turn gives it a higher value.<br /><br />Of course there are exceptions to the rule.<br /><br /><br />Quite honestly.... for the most part - I would take a Real-Photo Postcard over its larger-sized photo counterpart. <br /><br />Postcards just seem to have their own charisma (my own personal preference I guess), especially if they are mailed with postal markings on them. But, if a photo is mounted... then I might prefer it over a Real-Photo postcard. Its close though.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>I suppose it's all in "presentation" and keeping some conformity to your collecting habits. I collect 19th century baseball cabinets and I prefer the samller 6-7" x 4" size cabinets over the larger sizes. OTOH if I had the means to obtain an imperial cabinet of the quality of the King Kelly one I pointed to earlier I would much rather have that one over the smaller sized one.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bob</b><p>Max- I have a panoramic Cubs that needs to be framed and hanging on the den wall. I am assuming that you had your panoramics framed by a specialty shop, just out of curiosity what do these odd sized frames generally run you?<br />Bob

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Max Weder</b><p>Bob<br /><br />As I recall the framing costs, it ran in the area of C$400+ for the 60". The Toronto one was purchased already framed and was a bargain of all ebay.<br /><br /><br />Max<br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Max- That sounds high. I've had panoramas done with nice custom made frames for less than half that. I suppose there are different qualities out there.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Bob, if you want to go the cheap route you can always look in antique shops/malls for framed panoramic photos that will work for your Cubs photo. I have three panoramic baseball photos, but they all still have their original period frames. I've picked up 3 or 4 non-baseball panoramic pictures in the last few years at auctions and garage sales just to have the frames handy in case I run across a baseball panorama that needs framing.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Excellent idea Dan. You probably bought those for next to nothing.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>Dan got it right. Old photos look terrific in period frames and happily that can often also be a very cost effective way of framing. It is not uncommon to find at flea markets and antique shows basically worthless old photos in gorgeous period frames that can be purchased for reasonable prices. If you have the time, this can be a very fun and satisfying way of finding a frame for your item.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bob</b><p>Max- Thanks for the answer.<br />Dan- That is a great idea, I'll be on the lookout for one.<br />Bob

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Max Weder</b><p>Bob:<br /><br />Higher prices in Canada are probably caused by universal health care <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />However, I would be careful with old matting and glass. The matting might have a high acidic content; the glass is unlikely to be non-reflective or anti-glare. <br /><br />As for old frames, it's a good idea, and one that I hadn't really considered before.<br /><br />Max