1951 Mickey Mantle TYPE 1 Photo Used to Create His 1952 TOPPS Card is now at 20K...
 

NOT counting the juice! And there's still 3 1/2 Days left! Just how high do you think it will go?

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...x?lotid=130834

Ridiculous:rolleyes::p

actually
 

I actually had/have my eye on it and still might but it's getting out of hand. If it goes very much more I am not sure I could justify it. Great photo though.

I should add that when I say "justify" it, that pertains to my own situation. Whomever ends up with it needs no justification, it's a great photo.

The most prolific image of Mickey Mantle. It doesn't get much better than that.

I remember as a kid in the 80's going to card shows and seeing that 1952 Mantle in dealer cases for $500. Always, wanted to buy it, but I never had enough paper route money in my pocket.

Can't wait to see the final price on that Type I Photo.

Jimmy, its an iconic image, although not the best print (they did not do a good job on removing the masking), and my guess is it will go to a certain collector who already has a gem mint '52 Topps, as well as deep pockets and loves vintage photos - strike any notes?

This is one of the only early Mantle photos that I don't have and would be in except for the unrealistic price. With the Roger's acquisitions not likely to end in the near future, I believe additional Type 1 examples will surface and sell for much less.

As a Type 1 Joe Jackson just sold for $32,588 in REA's latest auction, it will be interesting to see how the Mantle photo compares. If there is at least one strong underbidder, I believe it could easily top the Jackson sale and wind up (with hammer fees, etc.) in the $45,000 - $50,000 range.

I am sure you have seen that there are also a number of very nice, early Gehrig and Joe D photos - good luck if you bid.

Craig

I'm definitely curious as all hell to see how high it can go.

I do agree with Craig about the whole Rogers acquisitions making it possible to find another, but I still think this is gonna get a LOT of action towards the end. The fact that in terms of the hobby, it's gotta be one of (if not THE) the most recognizable images of any player, doesn't hurt the fact. Saying that this could rival the Horner portrait of Wagner in terms of significance and price isn't hyperbole, and certainly, something that iconic is bound to make a lot of people super passionate (especially those with deep pockets) as the clock winds down.

No matter what, if you're a photo collector, I think you gotta smile knowing that this will bring more positive attention to a part of the hobby that is still capable of growing by leaps and bounds.

And Craig, any idea where/when this photo was taken? Obviously it was before the start of the '51 season, and I've seen a lot of other photos of him from the same ballpark, but I've never been able to track down a date. That sort of info would be vital for a painting! :p

Graig

Hi Greg - good to hear from you again! The date is 3/19/51. The ballpark is more difficult. The Yankees began their 1951 spring training in February at Phoenix, Arizona (switched from Florida for only this year).

I have several classic Type 1's of Mantle dating from Feb 5 - 28, 1951 in the same Phoenix ballpark ( as indicated by the signs in the background ). These all appear identical to the portions of the signs that can be seen in the '52 Topps photo (especially the original Corbis image which has not been cropped).

The Yanks began their '51 exhibition games with a three game series against the Cleveland Indians at Tucson, AZ on March 10 - 12. They then went on their west coast tour starting in Hollywood, then SF, Oakland and winding up at Bovard Field, USC on 3/26/51.

I also have several iconic '51 Type 1's of Mickey (LH vs RH, Kneeling with bat looking pensive, '51 Bowman pose, etc.) and on those which still have a paper caption, LA is listed as the location. However, since the signs in these somewhat later photos appear to be identical to those in the earlier photos listed above in Phoenix, my guess is that the Yankees training camp in Phoenix, Az is indeed the location of the '52 Topps photo.

In addition,since the captions for these LA photos are all rather generic and simply used to add even more hype for the new "wunderkind" as he arrives in each town, I believe they just used photos of Mickey that were taken between Feb 5 and early March in Phoenix.

Hope this makes some sense. I could be wrong but based on the photos that is my best guess.

Cheers,

Craig

Hey Craig,

Thanks so much for your input - that was exactly the kind of info I was hoping for.

So, I guess it's safe to assume that those shots in this park were taken in Phoenix in Casey's rookie school, before the real spring training began? I've been looking online for a bit to get more info about the ballpark, but can't seem to find the name of the place. Back to the ol' research drawing board...

Either way, the fact that we've narrowed it down to that makes me VERY happy.

Now, hows about you letting us see some of those Mantle photos you mentioned? :)

Thanks again,

Graig

Ah-hah!

It was the old Phoenix Municipal Stadium used by the Phoenix Senators of the Arizona-Texas Leagues.

http://www.digitalballparks.com/Cact...uni_640_2.html
http://www.digitalballparks.com/Cact...uni_640_5.html
http://www.digitalballparks.com/Cact...uni_640_6.html

Yay! Now I can paint some of those scenes with confidence. And that's important!

Graig

Great job Graig!!! Glad I could narrow it down for you. Posted photos will come eventually - once I get a scanner and some free time.

Here is an auction scan of one I got a few years ago that shows Mickey and some other rookies with Casey at the "Phoenix Municipal Stadium" on March 1, 1951.

Graig - One more Type 1 taken at the same ballpark with Joe D on Feb.5,1951

Ridiculous??? Why do you say that? This is the ONLY confirmed example to date and I doubt there is more than 10 that exist period(probably less). I would say less than 5 will ever enter the market if I had to make a guess.

Those are GREAT shots, Craig. I can't wait to see more!

If you need any scanner advice, let me know!

Graig

It looks like the lot has already surpassed the Joe Jackson CONLON as well as the first two choices in this poll.

nice
 

Well, I might as well wished for a T206 Wags... The photo is now at 42.5k plus juice, so call it 50k....with days left. Heck, if a few whales with high grade '52 Mantles want it bad enough I think it could hit 100k, by the way it's going now. Congrats to the consignor.

Whoever wins this will have no need for a Mantle Rookie card IMO. I would rather have an original photo(handful known or less) then any card it was used for. But, that is just me... wish I could afford this particular example. Whoever wins it will make money if and when they ever sell again. I really believe that. It sure would be interesting to see what that minty original Wagner Horner photo would go for now(used for the t206 card).

Wow 42,500! I think we're going to need a new poll. It looks like over 45 is going to happen.

I am with you Ben on both counts. If I remember correctly the Wagner photo went for around $25,000 in Christie's auction of the Baseball Magazine archives and an oversized 1927 Ruth and Gehrig photo sold for somewhere near $30,000. I believe that the previous high for a Mantle photo
was around $6,000 - a bending bat photo in one of Henry's auctions a couple of years ago.

Does anyone know what the highest price ever paid (private or public) for a vintage baseball photo is? I have a strong feeling this '52 Topps photo will be the new king.

I just got the OK from the wife to sell the house so I can buy this photo. Score!!!

Seriously though, someone is getting an amazing piece. Wow.

I'm sorry but I ca't see how it's worth so much. I know it's rare but come on it's a photo. I have a photo of Joe DiMaggio playing first and I'm sure it's the only photo out there and its not worth more than $50.

What exactly do you collect that you hold in such high regard? So you think that your photo should be worth as much as the Mantle or vice versa? Interesting logic..

No I'm not saying my photo should be worth as much as the Mantle. I know the Mantle is rare and should be worth money, but come on 45K plus, 75k plus for the 1948 Ruth final day at Yankee Stadium. I know their rare pieces and are worth much, but it's still crazy money for A Photo.

And I collect game used items.

Why do you think they are crazy money for a photo? Is it because you do not collect/appreciate them or don't have that kind of money?

Have you paid 4, 5 or 6 figures for any of your stuff? If so, what did you buy?

You know why I think it's crazy, because it's a photo. That's it, just a photo. And no I have never spent above $1,000 on my collection, because I'm a small time collector and don't make that type of money. And I do like wire photos and own several.

Ben, now you're just being a dickhead. The guy can have an opinion without having your cash flow requirements. This is exactly the bullshit I was talking about. Do you have an insecurity that forces you to belittle people who can't spend as as much on their collections as you do?

That was not my intention at all actually...I am tryiing to get an idea of why he thinks photos are not as important as game used items. He has probably spent much more on his items on average than I or anyone have spent on photos.
Myself, I do not own or have interest in owning game used stuff. PRIMARILY because they cost too much and I am not educated in the field/don't feel comfortable buying them with all the stuff in Harpers.

My post is in no way to talk about how much money one has or does not have. It was to understand why people think certain items are are/aren't worth crazy money .

As far as requirements and dickheads go, I am not concerned with things like that as clearly you are.

Please do not start crying poor mouth. We know what that Ruth photo went for in that last auction. You're doing fine.

Brock,
I am a collector too. I have spent/overexteded myself several times but for the most part, have less than 100 dollars in each photo on average. I went on your site and you said you have owned items other have dreamed about as well as made 50x more on an item. That is great!
My point was not to belittle you on money as I had/have no idea what position you are in nor do I care. So I hope you didn't take it that way.

I was just trying to make a point in that we all are passionate about different things in the hobby.

I think it is crazy to spend 100k on cards that are massed produced or millions on jerseys(without provenance) or 100k on a signed baseball without seeing it in person.
I do think that this photo is worth every penny it goes for though. I guess we are all crazy. :)

Are you on medication?

If red wine qualifies, yes.

And you neatly avoided my point.

What was your point?

You spent over $5k on a photo. You clearly have an interest in photos. Brock doesn't think theyre all that special and that's an indirect affront to photo collectors. So...

You challenge him by looking for some idea of what he thinks would be worth the kind of money in question. Thankfully he didn't take the bait. As a lover of Type I's I couldn't care less if someone thinks photos aren't worth the money.

Jake, That is a fact...I did spend that on a photo and it was worth every penny.
I do not care what you love or couldn't care less about...also fact.

You are saying I have monetary interest in photos and I felt threatened by one comment on net54? Drink more wine...
I don't think photo collectors have anything to worry about as far as investment goes based on current prices realized.
PS: I stand by the fact that it will be fun meeting you at the national. If Leon throws another dinner party, you are cordially invited to sit by me. I am putting my request in advance as I am sure people will be fighting over you.:)

$50K is a lot of money for this photo.

There I said it.

David, do you authenticate for Beckett? It is a lot of money but I do believe whoever wins it, will make money if they should ever sell it again.

If an item is worth what someone is willing to pay for it, then the Mantle photo is worth tens of thousands of dollars. At least 2 people think so, or it wouldn't have been bid up to that. If you or I are not willing to pay that much for it, that's fine, but it doesn't make the photo "worth" any less.

There's value as in "it's worth this much to me," and then there's consensus opinion of value (which seems to be the point of the original poll). In this case, whatever the range on the consensus opinion would be, clearly it's much more than $50.

like

If the photo is original and the only known example, I agree it is a significant baseball photo.

[QUOTE=Forever Young;998442]Jake, That is a fact...I did spend that on a photo and it was worth every penny.
I do not care what you love or couldn't care less about...also fact.

You are saying I have monetary interest in photos and I felt threatened by one comment on net54? Drink more wine...
I don't think photo collectors have anything to worry about as far as investment goes based on current prices realized.
PS: I stand by the fact that it will be fun meeting you at the national. If Leon throws another dinner party, you are cordially invited to sit by me. I am putting my request in advance as I am sure people will be fighting over you.:)[/

Whats with this business about meeting me at the National? Its been brought up multiple times now. Please kick my ass in front of hundreds of people over comments on message board so I can have you locked up. Please. I mean wtf is your problem??

Good point. Hasn't it been established that its not the only known example?

Actually it's the only known one at this time.

[QUOTE=Splinte1941;998480]There is nothing more to it than I think you are a colorful character and you will be fun to meet in person. I never brought up fighting.. I believe you did actually..lol. I am an adult(well most of the time) and have no interest in that sort of behavior.

I stand corrected Leon. I thought someone had mentioned it was confirmed that at least another example in a private collection.

Leon is correct. Jake is incorrect.

[QUOTE=Forever Young;998485]You're full of shit, but I believe it was Jimmy, the other tough guy, who was advocating my demise at Booth # 206 at your hands.

[QUOTE=Splinte1941;998492]be careful on the cussing....

[QUOTE=Leon;998496]I'll stop. Sorry.

Ben got a good deal on his Ruth photo from SCP. It's an iconic photo that was used on a number of cards such as the 27 Honey Boy. Iconic photos or photos from famous photographers like Conlon, Thompson, Oeyen, etc will bring top dollar. Same thing for photos used on cards as collectors like companion pieces. I am not surprised by the price of this photo b/c I always questioned the price of the 52 Topps Mantle b/c it's not that scarce. PSA has graded over a thousand of them and yet the price is still so high. If you think about it, this might be the highest price card relative to it's scarcity (or non-scarcity). (86 Jordan probably wins tho.) Now the Type I photo is truly rare. So where does that put the price? Right where it's going in Legendary.

And I thought there was only this kind of angered debating style and profane behavior on the signature side.

If you have the means and you like something, spend away. It's nobodies business how people should spend their money and Ben (who is wrong, photos are lame and Phil just said I'm getting a good old Maryland lecture for typing that) likes it enough to start a thread that should be respected. It's a historic if one of a kind.

Faberge Egges, artwork, upside down stamps, new cars, cardboard, outdoor pizza oven, whatever. Enjoy collecting.

DanC

P.S: I think you should arm wrestle him at the dinner.

Did someone say 'pizza?' A monster?

Graig

"The monster is in the oven? WELL TAKE IT OUT!!!!!'

DanC

You cannot say that Jake lacks passion!!!

I didn't read all the posts, I just came in when I heard someone mention pizza.

It'd be pretty funny, if someone then finds a folder with like 100 of these in it.

As someone who only dabbles in vintage photos, I have a question (and please forgive my ignorance...)

How unlikely is it that others will now surface? With all of the Newspaper companies going belly-up, isn't there a decent chance that more of these will turn up? Aren't there likely more copies stashed away in the archives somewhere?

It's an epic photo, and I understand the importance... But it also seems risky to pay over $50K when we don't really know how many others exist. As an example, Ty Cobb Tobacco Tins were considered to be exceedingly rare (with less than 5 known to exist). They're still rare, but at least 3 - 4 new examples have surfaced, since that one was showered with publicity a couple of years ago.

Would it be out of the question for that to happen in this case?

+1

This kind of money and attention will flush more out into the open.

Good morning fellow lunatics. This is your captain speaking...

Great point Mark. I love the photo and have zero issue with what the final hammer will be, but whether it's worth the risk that another will pop up down the road is up to the bidders.

On an unrelated note Mark, you have a tremendous collection and you have it displayed very well. Can you tell me where you get those plastic holders for your flat stuff? They're like plate holders, stands, etc? I need a bunch and don't like what I've found so far. thanks.

A major daily newspaper I worked at in the mid 1990s had a great library of first-generation and wire photos from the turn of the century. My duties as a copy and layout editor for the Sports department had me pulling file photos on almost a daily basis. You would be shocked at the manilla folders 2, 3 and 4 inches thick dedicated to photos of Cobb, Ruth, Shoeless Joe, etc. Routinely there were multiple photos of the same pose, many in pristine condition. I spent a lot of time browsing those folders.

This was at a newspaper in the South that never had an association with Major League Baseball. I can only imagine what rests in the bowels of newspapers in big-league cities.

Wow. And ouch.

[QUOTE=Splinte1941;998492]You're a madman Jake. I'm not the tough guy, I'm the crippled old man with "moxie".

However, if you're wandering why I got excited at the thought of you meeting up with Ben at the National? I got it from your exchange with him as I cut and pasted below. Ben wasn't choosing you off, he was simply stating that many people talk a whole lot of crap on a message board, but it takes a real man to say it face to face, with no keyboards getting in the way. And I happen to feel the same exact way, as Ben will be able to confirm.

Because a couple years ago, Ben and I did have a falling out, and we said things to each other that no man had ever said to either of us before. Which, come to think of it, is probably why we were able to work our way through it and now our friendship is one of mutual respect and honesty. But my guess Jake, is you're not real familiar with those words now, are ya?


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ladder7

all that would be left is a few knuckleheads that think cussing someone out on the internet makes them look like a hardass, when we all know it's just another way of seeking attention.


Originally Posted by Forever Young
I love it... I doubt that dude would ever agree to meet anyone in person and talk like that. Many of us will be at the National though if I am wrong
__________________




#27 05-17-2012, 01:29 PM
Splinte1941
Jake Sullivan
member Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forever Young
I love it... I doubt that dude would ever agree to meet anyone in person and talk like that. Many of us will be at the National though if I am wrong

I'll be at the National and eager to meet anyone that is willing.


Splinte1941
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Splinte1941
Send email to Splinte1941
Find all posts by Splinte1941
Add Splinte1941 to Your Contacts

#28 05-17-2012, 01:43 PM
Forever Young
Ben
Member Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The great white north.
Posts: 312



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinte1941
I'll be at the National and eager to meet anyone that is willing.

You got it..PM me when it gets closer.
__________________


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Forever Young; 05-17-2012 at 01:44 PM.




#29 05-17-2012, 01:48 PM
Splinte1941
Jake Sullivan
member Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 110



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Forever Young
You got it..PM me when it gets closer.

Will do.



Just want to refresh everyone's memory that the above comments ALL were provoked by Jake's classless and disgusting personal attack on fellow board member Scott Garner. If Jake would have sent along a PM to Scott he could have achieved much more than he did by acting, no make that 'playing' the school yard bully and trashing Scott for all of net54 to see for no good reason. And you wonder why you keep getting backlash?! Like I said... you are some piece of work...

I agree that it's possible that others exist, and a high-profile sale will be the quickest way to flush them out into the open if so. It never ceases to amaze me what scarce/rare items start pouring out of the closets once one sale takes place.

In this case though, the photo being a Type 1 will act as a sort of insulation since, by the time this print was produced, the wire photo process would have been in widespread use. While that doesn't guarantee that this is the only Type 1, it does increase the odds that if/when others do surface, they would be Type 3 wire photos. Even as I write that though, I do note that this photo surfaced was found in the archives of a regional paper (though it does not note which), so perhaps the smaller subscribers still weren't up to date on their technology even though the process had been around for over 15 years at that point? Regardless, my point still stands that for any given 1950's-era photo, the population of Type 3 wire photos is likely to be several times the population of Type 1 original prints of that same image. I can't help but wonder if the writer for Legendary was alluding to this when they said, "This likeness has never before been found in the form of a Type I original image." This makes me think it may have been found as a Type 3, but that is purely conjecture on my part.

Only time will tell as to whether this particular photo holds its value, but I still find the argument of "it's only a photo, I have one of another guy, so it can't be worth more than $50" to be as ludicrous as looking at a Wagner T206 and saying "it's only a baseball card, I have tons of those and used to stick them in my bike spokes so there's no way it's worth that much."

To a lesser degree, this is probably true for many collectibles (excluding one-of-a-kind items, game used, contracts, awards, etc.) - there is always the possibility of a future "find". In my opinion, what makes photos an important exception is the current Roger's acquisition program which is unlikely to end soon and specifically targets prime sources with huge numbers of vintage photos.

The '51 Mantle image for the '52 Topps card was extensively used in newspaper articles across the country from 1951-53 and to a lesser degree from '53-'55. I have several of these and the captions (or image) are approximately 50-50 between wire photos and first generation. In addition, I have had the good fortune to acquire large photo collections from former sports photographers and sports journalists (and in one case from someone who happened upon a garbage bin outside a major publishing house and simply removed hundreds of photos that had been tossed out). I can confirm what Rob D. posted that even in this modest sampling "there were multiple photos of the same pose, many in pristine condition".

My best guess is that the number of Type 1 photos of the '52 Topps image that exist is probably around 10-15. This number could increase from magazine archives (which typically used multiple prints in the editorial and reference processes). How many of these sources will be a target of acquisition is obviously unknown deceasing the likelihood that any of these will ever surface. On the other hand, as someone has already mentioned, the publicity generated from this sale would likely increase the probability of other examples coming to the market.

As some on this forum know, my primary focus is on early (1949-1951) Type 1 Mantle photos. This is one of the only vintage news service photos of Mickey that I do not have (been looking for almost 25 years now) and, if I had unlimited resources it would be mine.

Finally, I would like to raise again a question that I asked in an earlier post on this thread - Does anyone know what the highest price to date (private or public) ever paid for a baseball photo is?

Thanks,

Craig

Hey Craig,

I'm definitely no authority on this, but I think the highest figure a single unsigned vintage photograph has reached may have been the almost-$90,000 for the ginormous Addie Joss benefit game panoramic from 1911. Here's a link to Heritage's 2005 auction:

http://sports.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleN...No=19707#Photo

I had forgotten about this one, even when the Joe Jackson Conlon photo hit its final number of $32,588 (and I think that was without the juice?).

They're definitely been a lot of other contenders for high figures, including that Horner Wagner photo from the Sotheby's auction. I feel like a LOT of the other five figure prices reached for photos have been for Conlons, be they Mastro's Ted Williams portrait or some of the shots of Gehrig's and Ruth's eye closeups. And, they're also those wonderful early 1920s Paul Thompson shots of Ruth, also from Mastro's collection, which I think ranged from 10k to 18k.

Granted, Jimmy, Ben, Lance and the others could probably chime in with better researched info...

Graig

Just a guess...
 

...and I'm sure John Rogers and others who have been looking into this have a pretty good idea of what might be out there, but it seems likely to me that the great majority of large archives of old photos have been long since consigned to the dumpster, meaning that the relatively few to have survived will produce a comparatively small enough number of truly top quality Type I prints to keep prices high in the future, especially given the increasing demand for them among collectors.

I agree. I already thought about the value if other type 1's like this one being auctioned came out. Unless a large stack of them came out I don't think it's price gets hurt. I can sort of relate it to cards. I paid a ton (relatively speaking) for the T207 Red Cross Weaver I have. When I nabbed it there were only approximately 5 T207 Red Crosses known. A couple of years ago there were approximately 5-6 more that came out. My guess, and this is only a guess, is that those new ones to the hobby didn't affect the value of the card I have...and there is a chance they even increased it's value with more awareness.

Thanks very much Graig. I had forgotten about the Addie Joss photo. I believe that the Wagner went for $25,000 and an oversized Ruth and Gehrig from Christie's auction of the Baseball Mag. archive was around $30,000. Gonna be interesting to see where the Mantle finally winds up!!!

Cheers,

Craig

PS Attached is what you asked about. Again, its an image from an auction that I won but does provide a much closer view of Mickey (muscle striations in the Popeye left forearm, '51 patch, ball big as life and Feller's facial expression ( really means business).


Hope you like!

I disagree. The mind-set of many people who work at newspapers is that not only do they help to report the news (and history), they help preserve it for future generations. Unlike baseball team front-office types who see no value in old player contracts that collectors would love to own, newspaper people realize that dumping an archive of photos is in effect throwing away history. For the most part, I would say the importance is realized, and steps are taken to try to preserve rather than destroy.

Hank,

This is a very good point and I agree. One caveat (as indicated by the apparent source of this photo) is the enormous number of smaller, regional papers that have probably not gone the digitization route and may well still have archives of hard copies - as well as the possibility of collections of local sports writers that may have been passed down to family members but are just lying around somewhere.

Having considered yours and other excellent related points recently posted, I have changed my opinion slightly and now believe that we may only ever see
one or two Type 1's of this image in comparable condition in a future public auction.

The only first-hand knowledge I have is of my hometown, Washington, DC, papers. At one time, there were four major dailies, and none of their photo archives have survived. Even the survivor, The Washington Post, has only a thin file of vintage photos remaining. The rest were purged long ago.

More food for thought: The paper I currently work at, which is one of the largest in the state, has used a digital library for photo retrieval for at least the past 15 years. Some of the hard copies of photos, which haven't been digitally archived, are still on site. The remainder are housed in an off-site facility. As far as I know, management has no plans destroy this massive photo archive.

I know that two papers I previously worked at -- one a midsize and the other a large paper -- are doing the same thing.

That really varies from one paper to the next, and nowadays more than ever, the finances of the paper can have a big effect. In many cases, I would wager that the only reason the paper still maintains an archive of decades-old photos is that they are kept in-house in a building that is already paid for in a space (basement) that is not in-demand for their day-to-day operation since they certainly aren't growing in terms space needed for their staff. It's simply easier to leave them where they are, and on the off chance that they need a photo of an old-time ballplayer to run, they don't have to pay the AP or Getty Images or whoever for it. If the paper is going under, consigning the old photo files to the dumpster (or whatever staff wants to cart them off) is still a very real possibility.

That is one of the biggest reasons that I think John Rogers has been so successful in prying these photo archives away from the various publications. Not only does he negotiate the purchase of the physical photos, but also returns to the paper a digital archive of the images so that they will still have those available for further publication. Most of the papers he has worked with see it as a win-win-win: they free up the space of the physical archives, they get the images in a more readily-usable form, and most importantly, they get an infusion of cash.

Wow!!

You guys have me changing my position every few seconds!!! Let me put it this way, independent of how many of these '52 Topps Type 1 photos are out there and how many really do surface and are offered for sale - I JUST WANT TO GET ONE THAT I CAN AFFORD!!!!!!

I really do hope we see some more in the next few years but as Leon has posted, with this sale it is unlikely they will go for much less. Oh well, I can always dream.

little mickey
 

Craig, I think there was a Mickey Mantle child photo(very small phoo booth with a cowboy hat on) that went in the 5 figs if memory serves me right(in lelands several years back. I cannot find it on the site though. Do you remember that one by chance?

Ben

Ben, you are absolutely correct. It was a very cute photo of Mickey and I was tempted to bid but the extremely small size eventually kept me from doing so.

Over the years, Leland's has had a number of original early photos of Mickey most of which I believe originated from the families of childhood friends in Commerce.

With all due respect, I doubt there will ever be 10-15(TRUE TYPE 1s) that ever hit the market. With all of the archives already opened, this is the only one documented. Heck..I have never seen 10-15 or more of one TYPE 1 Rookie image Documented PERIOD(pre-1960s). That doesn't mean that it can't happen of course. I just think that a true rookie image taken in 1951 developed, FROM THE ORIG NEG(not wired) within those 2 years is way rarer then say a 1956 triple crown shot when he was a bigger story/well known. Hence the 2 year type 1 debate and one reason why that requirement was set. If this was printed in 1956 because of his records, popularity etc.. it would be less valuable in my eyes..not period. That is just me.
This could be compared to a 1952 topps mantle vs 1956 topps mantle card..both have images from 1951..(main image in 1952, and the diving in stands in 1956 topps).The difference is when the cards were created/published.

I do agree with two main points that were made below.

A) This sale should bring out a percentage of any out there.
B) The additional photos that surface will not affect the price as the supply is simply too few and the demand is high.

Jimmy-I was wondering how long it was going to take you to respond Mr. Toughy pants.:)

Mr. Toughy Pants? His rant was well worth the wait. I'm afraid the poor guy spilt his Cheerios all over himself in the heat of the moment.

Ben,

I agree with you. As I posted in an earlier response to Hank, I believe we may only see 1 or 2 (hopefully) Type 1 photos of the '52 Topps image ever surface and become available in future auctions.

Mickey actually was a very big story in 1951 - the most publicized rookie in a number of years (mostly due to the NY press, Casey's ranting and his pre-season accomplishments). Over the years I have accumulated a significant number of Mantle Type 1 Rookie photos. Based on what I have, what I have seen in auctions over the past 20 years or so and my discussions with other Mantle collectors I can say with certainty that I know of at least 7 or 8 examples of a number of different and documented Type 1 Rookie Mantle photos. Interestingly, this is actually much more then I have or have seen from any other year - although this part may be somewhat biased since my primary focus has been on these early years ( I do, however, have a multitude of Type 1 photos that span his entire career).