RMY Auction - Conlon Prints
 

There were about a zillion large-format Conlon prints auctioned off last night by Rhys - great stuff with loads that had full borders. I think Pop Lloyd would have brought much more with larger, ragged edges. I went after one I had been looking for for a long time (Kling), and ended up with 17. This was a great chance to pick up a signed Conlon - hopefully no one who was looking for one missed out. There were actually so many that I couldn't get all of my bids in - completely missed the triple-exposure Clemente, which seemed to go very low.

My favorite was Bob Feller, but the Black Sox Outfield brought a startling price - anyone here get it?

2 1927 photos
 

I won the Gehrig Van Oeyen And the Waner Conlon. I cannot wait to trim them both. :)
Well done on all those Conlons Scott . I set my alarm wrong:( out of all my bids, only 2 survived the night. I loved the Feller too as well as the Bottomly(for the money). The Hugh was also coo. Lots of Conlons blown out at one time.. def a chance to pick some up cheap.

Anybody here win the Conlon Hughie Jennings T206 picture lot 27? Someone outbid me at 2am after I just fell asleep. So salty!

If you only could own one Conlon, either Feller or Jennings could have been your Conlon rep in a early baseball photography museum.

I wanted Kling because of his billiard connection. Thanks to all for laying off.

Ben - u soooooo fawny.

I grabbed the Feller way below my high bid! Glad you slept through it Ben!! can't wait to trim that bad boy up..:D

I got caught up in that one and missed out getting outbid on the 1913 W.S. Matty. I love the "in the game" feel of that one. You don't see that much of that in the early 20th Century photos.

Paul, I doubt most collectors on this board have even seen a raggedy-edge 1910 silver gel print. I will go dig around and find some of mine (images) from the days when they were common, and start a thread.

This one wouldn't even trim up to be presentable! (you can see where someone tried along the right edge)

Frances Burke (Burke & Atwell) - Josh Devore

I was in on the Waner for a while. Got a few of the 1929 A's Conlons though.

Got these two for Conlon's notes, and enjoyed the fact that they were both about bunting. Might matt/frame them with the backs showing:

I won the Matty family portrait and the ‘28 Cobb talking to a fat guy.

These are my first Conlon photos, Max Carey and Mule Haas. I wanted the Mule Haas photo to go along with his game used bat that I have.

I picked up these two RPPCs:

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...%2012%2016.png
*
The one on the left is from 1919 in training for the Willard bout.* The one on the right is from 1923 while JD was in training for the Gibbons fight.

Was in on the Max Carey and Shotton. Gonna take a last stab at them before regrettably being drawn into Diners, Drive-ins and Dives. Grrrrrr. Haha. Two minutes late to final bid.

Congrats on the Mule Haas photo to go with the bat. I like to collect photos to go along with my bats, too. When you get the Carey photo, please take a close look at the knob of his bat and let us know if there's anything that is visible and interesting there.

Adams and Cooper
 

Glad to see that many of the photos found good homes. I thought that these 2 Pirates pitchers belong together, and so I picked them up.

Thank you Mark. I was looking at that too. It looks like a Spalding mark but I'm not certain. I should be able to tell when I get the photo in. Congrats on your photos to.

Only recently did I discover that Haas is buried about a half mile from my house. And went to the local high school in NJ.

Ernie Koob by Charles Conlon
 

I was successful at picking up an original 1917 Charles Conlon photo of St. Louis Browns pitcher Ernie Koob.
Ernie Koob is credited with being part of a MLB first:

On May 5th, 1917 Koob no-hit Eddie Cicotte and the visiting CWS 1-0.
St. Louis hurler Bob Groom repeated the feat by no-hitting the White Sox the following day in the 2nd game of a double header 3-0. This was the first time that no-hitters were pitched in consecutive days in the same series.

This is a definite rarity, as it has only occurred twice since:
HOF Gaylord Perry and Ray Washburn did it on 9/17/68 and 9/18/68 respectively @ San Francisco.
Jim Maloney and Don Wilson also repeated this on 4/30/69 and 5/1/69 @ Cincinnati.

One definite regret is not winning the Harvey Haddix action photo that appears on this 1961 Topps card. I thought the auction was over and I had won, so I went to bed. The next day I was shocked when I discovered that someone else managed to outbid me. Bummer!
Oh well, I won one of the two that I was going after...
Someone added a nice photo to their collection. :o

How soon before a couple of hundred Conlons flood eBay at BINs 4 and 5 times what they just sold for. If it hasn't already happened.

not a Conlon but funny you should say


https://www.ebay.com/itm/HISTORIC-19...p2047675.l2557


and one week later.....


https://www.ebay.com/itm/Babe-Ruth-1...sAAOSwuhFaOJLL

Henry may be the most honest above board guy in the world, but isn't it a little weird that he's the grader on photos that he sells? Seems like a minor conflict of interest, no?

That’s a great photo and went lower than I expected. Also, based on recent realized prices, the seller has some decent deals too...
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1917-White-...edirect=mobile

How is this different than auction houses who do not use PSA?

That could be true, but I've seen Rhys' prints go for twice what mine sat on ebay for at fixed price unsold for months - the exact same first generation print in the same condition.

In any case, I hope they get re-sold for 4 and 5 times what Rhys got. Now that I will have 17 of them - just like bitcoins.

I was able to pick up some of the Conlon's for my Collection. Super Happy :)

Missed out on one that I really wanted as well "Konetchy"


1- Shotten
2- Killerfer
3- Pratt
4- "Wildfire" Schulte
5- Demaree
6- Cracker Jack Photo (Not Conlon)

What does that mean?
I like Henry a lot, we have a great rapport, but there is a little conflict when selling something you graded yourself. That said I would buy something from him, that he graded, in a heartbeat. But yes, there is a little conflict in "arms length" type transactions of photos he sells and grades. No doubt he stands behind his stuff 100%. I trust him a lot but again, no different than when I sell something and give my thoughts on it, there is a bias. I think Henry is good enough to be fair on every single thing he grades, whether his or not.

It means exactly what I said.
First of all, he doesn’t grade anything.. he authenticates. So, for example, if auction houses call something a type 1 yet don’t have a psa letter.. what’s the difference? It’s either authentic or it is not.
Besides, It’s a tired comment. This happens in bats, uniforms packs etc. etc. Must be a slow day on Net54 ;)

Is there an example in the last auction that someone thinks was authenticated incorrectly?

So WTF about grading vs authenticating, it's the same thing we are talking about (arms length transaction).
It's not a tired comment to most of us, just you. .. Must be a slow day for one of us and it's not me LOL.....

As I had said, I trust him regardless of if he "authenticates" it or not and sells it himself or not. Thanks for your contribution though..

Merry Christmas:)

Happy Hanukkah....

Now that photo has some sharp edges.

I trust Henry (and Rhys) before I trust most of the companies who get paid for the opinions.

Before our "hobbies" were ruined by the people who get paid for their opinions, everybody who sold stuff graded / authenticated their own stuff, and their reputations spoke for them. Some were bad, but that was the cost of learning. Still cheaper than the costs today.

Doug "I could be wrong" Goodman

Next time you buy a house I am sure you'd have no issue whatsoever if the independent home inspector turns out to be the same dude you are buying the house from. Sure no problem at all. And when he tells you there is absolutely nothing wrong with the house, I'm sure you'll believe him and not be the slightest bit uncomfortable. I mean what ulterior motive could he possibly have?

Steve, that is way different. If no one else has explained it to you by the time I get to a real keyboard, then I will. But I do understand where you are coming from.

Ok. Henry is beyond question a very legit guy. I get that. But I always thought the point of an authenticator is that they are an impartial third party to the transaction. No skin in the game so to speak.

Henry doesn't need the PSA authentication to sell his stuff; however, since everyone knows he does the PSA authentication, it might make people wonder if there was no PSA Loa with his auctions. It is an odd situation to be in as a seller.

But the basic selling situation is no different than Rhys including his Loa with photos.

It is also relatively no different than me, Ben or David including our 'word' when we sell;e.g-if I bought a photo from David or Ben I would tell the next owner where it came from if they doubted my personal level of expertise (i am not all that famous).

As long as it is only authentication the buyer is concerned about, it all comes down to trust in the seller's skills as an authenticator.

Grading is a different thing, as grading your own cards or photos adds incentive for manipulation.

I guess it comes down to integrity and expertise. Frankly, when it comes to something other than assessing the condition of a card, there are issues that go beyond simply taking the item at face value and judging condition. If there is someone who has expertise and a good reputation, there is nothing wrong that person stating a position; give the opinion the credence or lack of credence that you wish. I am not willing to say that financial interest = dishonesty. It may indicate a need to look closer.

The underlying issue is anxiety caused by lack of expertise. With all due respect, if you are so unschooled in what you are buying that you have to place blind faith in a third party, you need to do some more homework before you jump in. One nit that I do tend to agree with picking is the lack of transparency in the process and the marketing. I'm all for showing your work, so to speak, in these situations. If the authenticator has a financial interest, I want to know and I will engage in some further due diligence if I can. If all the info is up front, the burden to investigate more is on the bidder.

I recently had an analogous situation with an autograph authentication. I couldn't get a TPG to issue a COA when I first got the item years ago because there were so few exemplars out there. So I did a ton of my own research and found enough signed items over the years that I was completely comfortable with offering the item as signed. I put that opinion up, in writing and with back-up documentation, when I sold the item. If the buyer believes in the quality of my research and agrees with my opinion, that's all that counts.

I hear what you guys are saying, but Henry is not the
Same as one of you expressing an opinion. He is THE opinion in the field. For THE opinion in the field to be grading stuff that he is then going to put up for sale... we’ll Ive expressed my opinion. No offense to any of you, but none of your opinions are the be all and end all. His are.

Well-said, Adam.

I avoided the issue of less-than-highly-knowledgeable photo 'collectors' buying something based entirely on an LOA or not buying for lack thereof. Having been in this hobby for a decent amount of time now, I no longer feel it's a worthwhile expenditure of my time to be concerned about protecting such people. We've given them a zillion ideas for how to get into a hobby safely and yet there are still those whose first purchase is a $1,000 print or a T206 Cobb.

Whether something is a type 1 photo is an opinion. It is not a fact. In some cases there is good evidence and in some cases it is sketchy. It is an educated opinion. If any of you are 100% sure looking at scans that somethingnisna Type 1 photograph, well more power to you.
Steve A. posted a Gehrig photo here last month and some of the most learned opinions on this board disagreed as to whether is was Type 1, 2 or 3. It’s not so simple.

That is only true if, as a potential buyer, you think it is true. As long as you have an opinion one way or the other as to his expertise, then this loa stuff is irrelevant. It's the same for Rhys' buyers and the same for mine or David's or yours or anyone else's. That PSA LOA is only magical if a buyer thinks it is. (It is not magical to me, but Henry's expertise is somewhat - the two just happen to be tied together).

But I have to admit that it is very frustrating to be absolutely positive you are right about something, and have people question you, especially if you are more than willing to consult others in the field when you are unsure about something. I'm sure Henry is that way; however, as you say, very few ever question his opinion.

Well to that I’d say it’s not my opinion at all. It’s the markets opinion. If there is a Babe Ruth 1918 Red Sox portrait that Henry deems Type 1, it is a $30K picture. Maybe more. If Henry says it’s Type 3 it’s a $700 picture. That’s the reality of the Marketplace. See it happen every month.

Appreciate your views a lot. I stand by mine. We all offer opinions on stuff that we sell. And most of you guys know more than I do. But none of you move the market. If I had to succinctly state my opinion it would be this:

If someone is broadly recognized as an expert in authenticating or grading collectibles, there is at least the appearance of a potential conflict of interest where they authenticate/grade items they personally own and plan to offer for sale. It's not a great practice. Regardless of how upstanding the person is.

Not ness. true, Ben himself said the recent Ruth by Henry went for a steal, if he is the be all end all wouldn't it have obtained top dollar and not went for what Ben feels is below retail?

Besides the fee they get paid for their "knowledge".

Those quotation marks are meant sarcastically.

Doug

That Jackie Robinson 1945 UCLA pic, designated Vintage 1, sold by RMY for $1500 in March. It sold again last week by RMY for $127, this time accompanied by a PSA designation as a Type IV. Would love to know that story.

Not the same image. edit... actually after looking back at them, it is. My bad,,,

I appreciate what Henry Yee has done to build and advance our hobby. Henry’s early auctions were instrumental in showing the desirability and value of great vintage photos. It seemed that each new auction would bring in more $$$. The $$$ pushed for more exploration into archives. More and more super photos were rediscovered, sold and sold again. The prices continue to climb. I don’t think there is any doubt about Henry’s positive influence on the hobby. That being said, I feel that Henry Yee is an opinion in the photo field. I don’t feel that he is the opinion in the field. There are others with deep experience and expertise regarding photo format, paper stock, production means, etc. It isn’t just the sellers who are the experts. There are many collectors who really know their stuff as well. Henry’s opinion isn’t “be all and end all.”
Regarding whether it is appropriate for Henry to sell the photos he authenticates, I ask why not? Auction houses do it. Other collectors do it. It is just an opinion. If a seller also wants to assign a grade to a photo that they are selling, that is fine too. Authentication and grading are just opinions.

If it isn't your opinion then you shouldn't buy photos he authenticates. If it is everyone else's opinion then they should. He is benefiting from a reputation he built. I see no problem with that.

Agreed regarding grading of anything, not authentication of photos. Authentication of some other items could also be a problem.