Christie's Photos
 

What did you guys think of the prices on photos? Any good deal to be had? Some of the panoramas were very cool.

Steve,

I picked up a handful of keepers. I posted this over on card side but what the heck. I always regretted letting this one go and relieved to have it back. Only two more like this on my list. Thank goodness they didn't promote it being a card image.
I paid way below what I was willing so happy(rarely happens anymore).
RE: large format photos
With a zero guarantee on age, it killed many of them. Horners on mounts... easy. A mounted and trimmed 1917 white Sox photo.. yikes...

and speaking of mounted photos.

Noticed the 1917 Murnane All Star Game went for A LOT less at Christies then an unmounted at RMY:


$6250 (but they don't show shipping and tax, so this could be in the 8K neighborhood)
https://onlineonly.christies.com/s/g...raph-279/45757

$11,236.71
https://rmyauctions.com/bids/bidplace?itemid=26943

Cheap, cheap, cheap! Bargains galore in that auction, or the market has taken a dramatic turn for the worse. Unfortunately, my cash flow also at a low ebb right now!

RMY does better advertising for that type photo :)....

.

I won both Murnane's, looking forward to comparing them.

Picked this up too for My Babe Ruth card image collection
 

1927 opening day

Would love to hear more from the experts regarding the comments about photos on mounts - is this considered a no-no for photos?

Can I assume it's better for a photo to be standalone and just on the photo paper, and not on a cardboard mount?

Thanks for edumacating me on the topic!

Only a handful of photos were PSA certified Type 1s. While people may bitch a lot about card grading, I believe Henry Yee does all the PSA photo work. If I am wrong someone will correct me. Which leads me to assume that the PSA/Yee stamp of approval is worth Real money in many sales. Which leads me to wonder why someone would hold these photos for many years and when he goes to sell them not submit to Yee at $50 a pop for the thumbs up.
I know people will respond with stuff like "just enjoy the photo.... why is it all about grading all the time ....." and I get that. But if the difference between a PSA and no PSA cert is literally thousands of dollars, what kind of sane person would leave that on the table.
Some of you guys may think you are smart enough to deal with these photos from a scan and form a strong opinion of Type 1 vs 2. I'm not. Saying it's an "original" photo doesn't tell the buyer a whole lot.

Agreed Steve, there was a lot of risk in this auction and I think a lot of the prices reflected that. I was the under-bidder on the 1909 Philadelphia team photo with Jackson for example. Would have loved to have it and would have gone much higher with a PSA letter. Being framed and unable to see the back I just couldn't put any more money at risk.

If the mount is original, the mounted photo should be worth more.

With all due respect, Not all photos on mounts are on original mounts number 1. Number 2, a later printed photo or even a non first gen can always be mounted later as well. To make an a broad statement like this is not true.
Example: Items can be mounted later on vintage mounts(take an old mount from player ding dong and replace it with player popular and Ch Ching!
If you are concerned about whether something will pass psa as part of your investment, for example , then I would not take this all encompassing advice.

All other things the same
 

I said original mount, as in the mount is original to the photo. And I was comparing the otherwise same photo, except mounted vs. unmounted.

Ok. If one can determine the mount is original to the original photo than we agree!!! :)

I think the Cert situation and main decision variable is the same for autos and cards. If you think the sale price increase will be higher than the cost to Cert, it makes sense to do it just before selling.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Christies
 

I had this discussion with Christies and they said that many of these photos originally had PSA/DNA letters attached to them. However, Christies did not want to "advertise" or market these other third party grading companies and decided to run the auction without them. Did it cost money to the consignor ultimately? I think we can all agree on that it did but, Christies chose to do it a certain way and let the chips fall where they may.

I noticed this with one of the items (not a picture) that I won. When I picked it up, it was from the Merkin collection, and had LOA's etc., which were not mentioned in the listing.

I was able to find when the listing had sold at Hake's so I had assumed the authentication was included going in...

One would think there could have been wording used... something like guaranteed to pass third party certification or at least use the words Type 1 photo or type 2 etc. While I'm on my soapbox, I wonder who they had doing estimates? Josh Gibson estimate $600-$800, sold for $10,000 ; Matty and Smokey Joe Bain estimate $1000-$1500 sold for $10,600 etc....etc...

-Bad estimates

-Bad photos (not being able to enlarge)

-Bad descriptions (not disclosing Type 1's or not, the Gehrig D&M, photos used for cards not mentioned, they didn't even mention Christy Mathewson in the Title of the 1917 Reds Team Photo, etc. etc)

-Bad marketing (never heard anything about it until the post here on NET54 just days before it, had that post not been there even greater prices would have been had)

-Reputation itself of being Christies thus high prices may have turned some away, then the auction itself yields the reverse, low prices on some

-Their moronic shipping charges may have turned some off (yet if you figured it into your bid you were fine, but the initial turnoff of being excessive kept some away I'm sure)

-Bob Freedman being on an airplane when the auction was ending, not getting his bids in always keeps the prices down : )

All combined equaled "some" good prices for the buyers.