Ruth photo sells for $26,349.02 in lelands

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>frank foremny</b><p>a Babe Ruth photo [lot # 767 ] titled , WHAT A CROWD , well how about , what a price , $ 26,349.02 to be exact , so I have a question for fellow board members , why do you think this photo brought such a large sum ? /thank you , frank

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>DJ</b><p>No idea. I would have loved it at my max of $800, but this was simply insane. What a great piece though and something tells me there was a bitter fight to get this great image...for the final price of a really nice luxury car.<br /><br />DJ

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>It's a very famous image. It must not show up for sale very often...even still the price seems astronomical for that photo.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>brock</b><p>When you look at the photo there's a guy in the left corner that looks like Joe DiMaggio alittle. It cant be him but it kinda looks like him to me.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Phil Garry</b><p>It seemed to me that the overall prices in the Lelands auction were significantly higher than many of their previous auctions. i was happy to pick up the Ruth Postcard picturing him in a Boston uniform.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Josh Evans</b><p>That price really shocked us as well. But we knew it was a great image and we have been aware of it for years. The only other specimen I know of I believe was in Christie’s in the Baseball Magazine Collection and I know where it is but it is probably untouchable. <br /><br />This specimen has a very interesting past. We knew this photo was in the collection from the very beginning. It was one of those photos that you don’t say wow that’s worth a lot of money but you say wow, that’s a great image. Many people would prefer Ruth in a Red Sox uniform (not me) and in the past that would be more valuable but the aesthetic of the hobby seems to get more sophisticated every day. Overall, collectors seem to be going for images over historical content. <br /><br />Anyway, for over a year we thought that the image had been stolen by the person who middled the San Francisco Examiner Archive to us (that’s okay he stole plenty of other stuff). But a couple of months ago I was sitting and sorting photos and there it was out of nowhere. I almost fell out of my seat. That was a really neat moment. <br /><br />Josh Evans<br />Chairman<br />Lelands.com<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Josh, how many photos were in that San Fransisco hoard?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Josh Evans</b><p>Now Dan, we do not call this a hoard. This is an “archive.” Hoard is something involving bubble gum that Rosen would have gotten out of Tennessee back in the 80s. <br /><br />Originally there were between 1.5 and 2 million images in the archive but we were originally only allowed to buy 500,000. The rest was to be donated to Berkeley (University of California). But we were fortunate enough to get “first pick.” I was there for six weeks with a small staff (what a blast) and we sorted 12-16 hours a day. As we neared the end we realized we had taken too much plus we still had more “fresh stuff” to go through. I had already gone home and my partner Mike Heffner was able to negotiate a deal where we paid them more money and were able to get what we wanted. I would estimate that in the end we got about 700,000-800,000 images. <br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Koteles</b><p>that's what you bid on it !<br /><br />just effin with you old buddy !

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>Josh, so does this mean there will be many more photos in future Lelands auctions? Will there be many other Babe Ruth ones too?<br /><br />I won these two and I'm ecstatic about them. After all, how many times do you see original photos of images that are turned into famous cards ... and how many times do you see a photo of an actual Babe Ruth Home Run in mid-air flying out? <br /><br />Josh, are there many other photos like these? I hope these are the one-of-a-kind, but I'm also hoping there are others similar, just not the exact same.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.lelands.com/App_Themes/Images/Auctions_Images/711/thumbnails_bidding/54227.jpg"> <img src="http://www.lelands.com/App_Themes/Images/Auctions_Images/711/thumbnails_bidding/54018.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Josh Evans</b><p>Mr. Cmoking:<br />We have not been properly introduced so I am not sure what to call you. C? Ciggy?<br /><br />That is very cool that you are interested in the “baseball card” element of imagery because it is something we have been talking a lot about for the last few weeks. I do believe strongly that this element of the market will become more important in coming years to collectors. People are always looking for niches to collect and this dovetails nicely the collecting of both cards and photography. Kind of like the more recent collecting of tobacco, gum and other pre-War rookie cards which seemed a little too Mark Lewis-y back in the 70s and 80s. <br /><br />That is a great Ruth shot on left above me there which is the same one used on an exhibit card (I feel like Bobby in the Brady Bunch square looking up and over at Alice or Marsha). I also liked that Ruth home run shot as well and should add that this is from the 1935 three-home run day in Pittsburgh when Ruth was pretty much done and became his last hurrah. Photos of Ruth hitting homers are definitely out there but where you can see the ball is pretty rare. It is not something I was ever aware of but I will be in the future. <br /><br />Wire photos are never one of a kind, nor is any most photography other than daguerreotypes where there is no negative (the negative and the positive are one and the same). But for the most part this stuff is truly rare. Most of these images I have only ever seen one or a few of and I have been collecting and dealing in this area specifically since the seventies (my Dad got me into it). There are certain exceptions of more common images such as in Nat Fein’s famous Babe Ruth photo from Babe Ruth Day with his back to the camera (it won the Pulitzer for Spot Photography). It is more common, although still very desirable and can sell from anywhere from $500 for a vintage print to over $5,000 for an oversized gallery print signed by Fein. Signed by Ruth, call the papers. It is less scarce for many reasons: it was used a lot of newspapers all across the country, people saved it because they liked it, it has been bootlegged, it has been used in publications since the 1940s and still gets used today, and Fein himself sold gallery prints for decades right up until his death (his estate stills sells them). <br /><br />As for that Ruth exhibit card pose I do not remember seeing another (but if there are a couple others out there I would not be surprised). Here is another great one that sold in the auction of Matty from his T205 card. It sold for a little over $9,000 which is probably 3-4 times what it would have brought if it were not used on a card. I suppose the ultimate is still the image used for the T206 Wagner. We have had two of those though the years, both well over 10 years ago. They each brought about $20,000. Who knows what they would be today. Depends upon how good the images are and if they are truly vintage. <br /><br />But yes, we will be having a lot more great stuff in the coming months. A lot of stuff goes in the catalogue sales (twice a year) but we are also putting great stuff in the monthly internet sales (www.lelands.com). Actually there were a ton of great images in the internet only portion of this catalogue auction which there were some great deals on. People on this baioardea might delve more towards gareewaatr individual images but there are other areas that are great that dealers jump into. There are some great huge lots that are great for breakdown, both dealers and collectors. <br /><br />For example there was a lot of like 10,000 images (all areas) which sold for about a buck apiece which can be a lot of fun. There are also original negatives which get pretty hot and heavy,. There was some great Mays stuff in this one for example (being from SF) which had some great buys in it. So along with the $26,000 images there are some amazing buys. <br /><br />I am about 2/3 of the way though the collection in terms of sorting and about ½ way through in terms of selling. You never know what you are going to find. But we are also adding to the archive every day. We buy stuff and we are getting significant consignments of images all the time. <br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1196596052.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Hi Josh- that San Francisco photo archive is truly amazing. It's the gift that never stops giving. Some really great images (even a few of Robert Wadlow- how can you not love him!)

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>MVSNYC</b><p>hi josh- not sure if you remember me, i sold my T206 Nodgrass variation with you guys about 7 years ago...anyway, good to see you on the board!<br /><br /><br />i think it is interesting to point out that the matty photo above, which was used on his T206 card, is slightly a different angle...meaning they used the photo as an inspiration, but the actaul T206 card's image is from an angle more from the side...<br /><br /><br />regards,<br />michael sarno<br /><br /><br />p.s. congrats on the photos king!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>But that expression on Matty's face is so perfectly reproduced on the card.<br /><br />And look at his waist! He looks tiny. I guess there was no flaxseed oil in those days.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>Josh, thanks very much for the response, very much appreciated!<br /><br />King Yao

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Mike</b><p>I certainly understand the photos but what is the significance of the negatives? If you have photo and negative side by side in an auction, what % of the photo is the negative? Thanks Mike

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bob C</b><p>Delete

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Josh Evans</b><p>Mike<br />I am not sure I understand ur question<br />plz restate<br />Josh

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>King, the photo of Ruth hitting the homerun is so bizarre to me considering our collective knowledge of Ruth photos -- I've never seen a pose of him like that. When you think of him swinging...that view does not come to mind. Very interesting piece.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>Jeff, I wonder if it is his advanced baseball age at that time. He retired soon after that game. Maybe his swing wasn't as majestic anymore by that time, and it was a bit of a fluke that he hit 3 that day.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Maybe -- but think about all the footage of Ruth you've seen and pics of him hitting homeruns. Surely he must have reached across the plate for a pitch and knocked it out? Surely he must have gone opposite field at other times. We never see those poses. It's always the same: pitch straight down the middle, quick swing, tiny legs carrying big body around the bases. Your pic presents a different image completely of Ruth.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>MVSNYC</b><p>king-<br /><br />i like to think of that day as one last display of magic.<br /><br />...and you now have photo documentation of it.<br /><br />congrats & enjoy.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Mike</b><p>Josh,<br /><br />If you have the same image in a photo and a negative which is more desirable and how would you assess value. For example, if you have a cobb photo and the same original negative, which has more value? Isn't the negative one of a kind? Thanks MIke

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I just wanted to say thanks to Josh (Hi Josh) for coming onto our board. I hope other hobby veterans will too. I also want to thank him for being an advertiser. I will never forget when he and I had a conversation a few years ago, right after I took over moderating. We had a very friendly disagreement on my particpation post-moderatorship. We disagreed a little about me stating my opinion on the board since I am the moderator. Josh coined my title "Opinionator"....I have been called much worse and he and I have very cordial conversations nowadays when we see each other at the Nationals. <br /><br />Back to topic....That Matty photo could absolutely get me into collecting photography. That is breathtaking. I love it.....<br /><br />regards<br />leon<br />ps...something tells me great photos would only be slightly less costly (if any) than great cards <img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Josh Evans</b><p><br /><br />Mike:<br /><br />Baseball negatives are a tricky lot. In a sense the better they are the less they are worth in comparison to the photos they made. Plus, there are rights issues at work and that seriously affects them as well. For a good guide as to what stuff is worth do some photo searches on my website (www.lelands.com) because all past auction sales are kept up there. <br /><br />Let’s take Babe Ruth for example. Most Ruth negs sell for $500-1000 which is actually more than Ruth photos sell for on the low end. Ruth photos for the most part start at about $75 out of uniform to about $200-500 in uniform for the rank and file stuff. Pretty good stuff is about $500-1000 and the great stuff is thousands. This is a very broad generalization as there are so many factors that make these numbers spike up (and down) such as contrast (clarity), historical nature, age (how early in his career), and the artistry of the image itself (mise en scene if you will). Condition is a factor but it is amazing (and wonderful) how little it plays into things compared to say baseball cards. <br /><br />But once the quality gets really high the photos take over. An amazing Babe Ruth negative will sell for much less than its positive counterpart because a negative has limitations. It is tough if not impossible to display (light box?), and a great deal of the value (at least when it was created) comes from its function over form. You really are not supposed to reproduce these things and sell them (at least legally) but you can, there are just limitations. I am not an attorney but I do have experience with all this and you could fill books with the legal issues and they are certainly not black & white (ha ha, only the images are). <br /><br />But if you had rights to go along with them that does add tremendous value although you are still somewhat screwed because the rights do not only come from the photographers but from other potential entities such as MLB (for the team logos), the player themselves (Curtis Licensing in many cases), and who else knows can come out of the woodwork. <br /><br />But the great thing is in owning a negative is that it is yours no matter what anyone says. I have collected them for many years (sold most of them) but no one can tell me what I can own, they can just complain about who I sell the prints to (which I never did ). <br /><br />As for the Opinionator thank for your kind words. I like that word because you can easily make the word onion out of it. <br /><br />Josh<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>An original negative of an important image, being a unique piece, will always have significant value. However, Josh's point is well-taken. A period first generation print of the image, displaying good contrast and otherwise not having major condition issues, assuming there are few known originals, will usually sell for more simply because it displays better. An exception could be where the image is so special that owning the original negative would allow prints to be generated that (i) have commercial value or (ii) otherwise could not (e.g., the original negative is needed to generate adequate photo quality or because copyright rights are acquired along with the original negative). Another exception would be a negative that also displays as a positive image (e.g., a collodion negative). Josh also is correct that more and more collectors are shelling out the big bucks for an image with special artistry/spontaneity. The Ruth photo Lelands just sold for $26k is a great example of such an image.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Todd</b><p>Josh, thanks again for taking the time to respond on here. I was delighted to have won the oversised original 1948 photo of Ted Williams & Babe Ruth. I'm glad to have won the original image of such a popular photograph. Do you have any background info on this that you could share?<br /><br />Thanks<br />Todd<br /><br /><img src="http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc305/TEVANS14/TEDBABE.jpg"><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Josh Evans</b><p>Todd <br />You got a goody there<br />That is actually the second time I have sold this exact same photo (same specimen)<br />It was sold a few years back and was reconsigned to this sale<br /><br />If I remember correctly I originally bought it on a Boston buy trip from a fresh source This was a little old lady type source but the person was not necessary little, old, nor a lady<br />Just that type of fresh source that we all know and love (exciting)<br /><br />This is a pretty famous image but you simply do not see it in this format<br />It usually has some kind of imprinted tagline regarding Ted and the Babe meeting with the date of the game <br />It is always like a 27th generation duped print and dates from the 1960s<br /><br />This one is a different animal <br />This one came right from the photographer and is something of a “gallery print” although it is not of the same quality as something by Ansel Adams or Cartier-Bresson that you would have bought on Madison Avenue in the 1950s for big bucks<br />But remember, this was baseball and we have always been the bastard cousin from the wrong side of the tracks (until of late!)<br /><br />Your print is most likely first generation and definitely vintage <br />Many people wonder how such an image could be first generation and have that copyright imprinted right on it <br />Many times that info was drawn right onto the negative (note the childish scrawl)<br />Otherwise, in order to add that legend you would lose a generation <br />You would have to make a print from the original negative, imprint the copyright or other info right on there, then take a photo of that, and then print it from the second negative <br />Hence, that would make it a second generation print <br /><br />But those crappy 1960s prints you often see don’t ever have this “G. Lyons” cartouche (cartouche is a fancy word for the photographers name) <br />That and the excellent contrast is what makes this special<br />I have never seen this before and when I got it I got a bit of a rush<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Usually when you see that photo you will see facsimile signatures of Ted and the Babe on it. I'm not even sure I've ever seen that image without the sigs.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Mike</b><p>Josh,<br /><br />Thanks for the education and maybe you can tell us when the next auction is and give us a sneak peak at some photos that will be in it.<br /><br />Thanks<br /><br />Mike

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Mark</b><p>Mike makes a great point. If Lelands could make a long lead-time announcement stating the date of their next Catalogue Auction, it would be very helpful.<br /><br />I know that if I had the auction date penciled in with a couple months notice, I would proactively schedule dates, trips and events around it. I can't even count how many times I've experienced a conflict on the same night as a big auction (simply because the auction date wasn't provided with adequate lead-time).<br /><br />Just FYI... another major Auction House out of Chicago does post their event schedule for the entire calendar year, and it is most beneficial.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>scgaynor</b><p>Mark, the next catalog auction will go be in May, I don't have an exact date yet, but will know a couple of months in advance and will make it known.<br /><br />The December internet auction is online now. There are several photo lots (Clemente collectors will be happy!) but not as many as normal. Most of the great stuff that we had ready to go was in the November auction that ended last week. Next month there will be more. <br /><br />Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Looks like there is plenty of nice stuff in this current auction. Got my bid in on the 1941 Rose Bowl pics. For the memorabilia guys there is a very nice vintage baseball jersey with athletic sweater.