Net54baseball.com Forums

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)
-   Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   1915 Ruth Red Sox Pitching Staff Photo (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=246006)

Snapolit1 10-10-2017 08:41 PM

1915 Ruth Red Sox Pitching Staff Photo
 
Am I the only one who thinks this 1915 Ruth photo in the last RMY auction auction was a good grab for the price? Asking for a friend...

https://rmyauctions.com/bids/bidplace?itemid=28605

http://insider.si.edu/2012/04/babe-r...pitchers-1915/

Rhys had it as Type 1 timing but not off the original negative.

Bicem 10-10-2017 08:57 PM

1920 stamp but a well known 1915 image. Because of PSA standards won't get a type one letter. Plus obviously significantly cut down.

That said, was still a pretty good deal in my opinion.

Shoeless Moe 10-10-2017 10:11 PM

I dissent, seems like an awfully strong price for size 3 x 7 (muy poquito) and not considered a Type 1.

prewarsports 10-10-2017 10:32 PM

The Underwood stamp on the back is known to have existed in 1918 and possibly earlier and is well known in 1919 so it is a 1915 photo with a back stamp from c. 1918. You are correct though, by the PSA standards this would not get a Type 1 designation as it is clearly off a duplicate negative. I think the biggest room for upward mobility in the photo industry is in images like this. People act like "Type 1" is synonymous with "original" and "Type 3" is similar to an autograph failing authentication, but that is just not the case. This is just as "original" as any other Ruth Red Sox image as far as the vintage goes. If E121 cards are going to go for 20k because he is pictured with the Red Sox on the card, its hard to argue this was not a good deal! I would take this over many of the other Ruth items I see selling at auction for bigger prices all day long.

drcy 10-10-2017 10:53 PM

I think collectors give too much of value premium on a photo merely because it's a 'rookie year' photo. Just my opinion.

Honestly, I think it's a pretty marginal photo, and people value it highly just because it's an early Ruth.

Bicem 10-10-2017 11:51 PM

I'd argue rookie photos are underpriced compared to rookie cards. Especially in Ruth's case where his rc is a 1916 issue.

drcy 10-10-2017 11:57 PM

I was expressing my personal sentiments. Clearly, many bidders disagree.

Bicem 10-11-2017 12:23 AM

Well stop being wrong David. ;)

drcy 10-11-2017 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bicem (Post 1709231)
Well stop being wrong David. ;)

Considering my favorite Stooge is Shemp, I've been an outlier before.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_eg5MBDlGIc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Snapolit1 10-11-2017 05:39 AM

Collecting can sometimes be all about enforcing your rules (and others) and making them the be all and end all. That’s cool. But sometimes the rules are a little nuts.

To use the example Rhys uses in his classification rules, if Conlon took a great Ruth and ran back to his darkroom to develop it it’s a Type 1. But if he prints that Type 1 and notices one of Ruth’s teammates in the background picking his nose, he then takes that dude out of the picture and takes a new picture off the print. Destroying the original. The copy is printed one hour after the original and he signs off on that. The photo is now somehow a $5000 photo and not a $75000 one. Seems pretty arbitrary to me.

Forever Young 10-11-2017 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snapolit1 (Post 1709248)
Collecting can sometimes be all about enforcing your rules (and others) and making them the be all and end all. That’s cool. But sometimes the rules are a little nuts.

To use the example Rhys uses in his classification rules, if Conlon took a great Ruth and ran back to his darkroom to develop it it’s a Type 1. But if he prints that Type 1 and notices one of Ruth’s teammates in the background picking his nose, he then takes that dude out of the picture and takes a new picture off the print. Destroying the original. The copy is printed one hour after the original and he signs off on that. The photo is now somehow a $5000 photo and not a $75000 one. Seems pretty arbitrary to me.

Arbitrary except for a little thing like quality of the photograph/image. :) The type 1 examples of this particular subject are off the charts in clarity vs this. There are reasons why Type 1 photos are higher valued and more sought after than later prints or prints of lesser quality. Those who state otherwise typically have not so objective motives.
It is a great vintage piece but not close to the quality of a 1915 type 1 example.

Snapolit1 10-11-2017 07:30 AM

Ben - I wasn't suggesting for a moment that they are equal quality. Obviously they are not. But questioning the proportionality of it. If a Type I photo is developed at 10 am and the photographer disregards it and "fixes" something an hour later, hard to understand in the abstract why the latter photo would be considered to be worth a fraction of what he threw in the trash. The fact that Henry Yee reviews something in his office and utters ". . . yeah, Type 1. . . off the original negative and the timing works out" catapults something into a higher realm. Just like when PSA says that cards a 10 and not a 9 all of a sudden it goes from a value of $9,000 to $130,000. If the same Ruth photo was sold by another auction house and they didn't qualify it and just said Type 1, this would have gone for much more and no one would be questioning the quality of it.

PSA could change their who photo classification scheme tomorrow anyway.

Forever Young 10-11-2017 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snapolit1 (Post 1709286)
Ben - I wasn't suggesting for a moment that they are equal quality. Obviously they are not. But questioning the proportionality of it. If a Type I photo is developed at 10 am and the photographer disregards it and "fixes" something an hour later, hard to understand in the abstract why the latter photo would be considered to be worth a fraction of what he threw in the trash. The fact that Henry Yee reviews something in his office and utters ". . . yeah, Type 1. . . off the original negative and the timing works out" catapults something into a higher realm. Just like when PSA says that cards a 10 and not a 9 all of a sudden it goes from a value of $9,000 to $130,000. If the same Ruth photo was sold by another auction house and they didn't qualify it and just said Type 1, this would have gone for much more and no one would be questioning the quality of it.

PSA could change their who photo classification scheme tomorrow anyway.

Comparing s type 1 is to a psa 10 as a vintage type 3 is to a psa 5(or whatever number) is simply not comparable imo(other than the psa). There is no registry for photos to begin with so they are not bought and sold like a stock market. One glaring difference.
My position on this has not changed even when I owned one photo in the beginning. I will always want off original neg as close to when the photo was originally taken. As a knowledgeable collector the variance in price does not seem too out of sorts to me. I want original paintings, not lithographs. I want original cards, not reprints. I want vintage playing days autographs not almost dead sharpies examples. Several "semi-comparable" :)

Dealers, auctioneers , people looking to flip etc are always looking for as much gray area as they can to make extra money. Psa type system can hinder that for them sometimes so they bash. It is a huge pet peeve of mine. Promote the item fir wgat it is rather than tear down what it's not. I'm not pointing at you at all Nap.. I know you are a relatively new photo collector... and I hear what you are saying and respect your opinion.
I too feel there is value in say the piece you posted. I just don't think if the original is worth 15-20k, that this price you showed is out of line.
Bottom line is, people will and should collect what they want. If collectors , actioneees , dealers etc want non type 1s.. that is great(I have some too). I felt the need to respond in my voice to text again sorry if this post is all over the place. Again, great vintage Ruth piece. I have a type 1 and one like this that I can post after work to show the difference. I do think photos in general are undervalued as it related to say cards.

Bpm0014 10-11-2017 08:04 AM

Honestly, I think it's a pretty marginal photo, and people value it highly just because it's an early Ruth.

As a collector of photos, I couldn't agree more. This photo is thoroughly unimpressive.

Bicem 10-11-2017 08:28 AM

I'm shifting my collecting focus to "almost dead sharpies."

Forever Young 10-11-2017 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bicem (Post 1709315)
I'm shifting my collecting focus to "almost dead sharpies."

that would be a mistake.. but by all means do... quit shifting it to mine:)

T206Jim 10-11-2017 08:46 AM

Jeff, to have a true Type 1 Almost Dead Sharpies collection are you going to use the PSA style within two years prior to death range or a five year range like Rhys uses for photos?

Bicem 10-11-2017 09:06 AM

Ha, morbid yet hilarious.

btcarfagno 10-11-2017 09:57 AM

ALS - Autographed Letter Signed
TLS - Typed Letter Signed
ADS - Almost Dead Sharpie.

I like it.

Tom C

prewarsports 10-11-2017 10:33 AM

Type 1 images are the cream of the crop, no doubt. I dont think anyone would argue that. They should sell for a large premium and they do. My comment was not meant to compare the two in any way, just to illustrate that sometimes a nice Vintage Type 3 or a Type 2 from really close to the original year dont get the love they deserve.

In the sports world though, people use "Type 1" synonymous with "original" and that is just not the case. People will say "Henry FAILED this photo" and it gets a Type 3. It is just a misunderstanding of what those numbers actually mean that sometimes stunts the value of otherwise beautiful images that are completely original but off copy negatives.

Any thread about photos is a great one in my opinion!

T206Jim 10-11-2017 11:34 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Rhys, I agree that non Type 1's should get a little more love. A perfect example of that are artistic Deadball Era composites. This is an Underwood one from 1911 for Opening Day featuring Bender and President Taft, absolutely original to 1911, absolutely not Type 1, but I love it just as much!

Attachment 290638

Snapolit1 10-11-2017 11:37 AM

I was hesitant to post this but am really happy at the responses. A diversity of views; none right or wrong, all representing a continuum of views. And all informed and smart. Cool stuff.

Bicem 10-11-2017 11:44 AM

Agreed 100% on the non-type 1's that are period, will be VERY interesting to see where this Ruth rookie composite photo (that I posted in another thread) ends up. Not a type 1 because of how it was produced but still from 1915.

Ruth


Great example too Jim!

Runscott 10-11-2017 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prewarsports (Post 1709214)
This is just as "original" as any other Ruth Red Sox image as far as the vintage goes.

And so are pictures of Ruth from 1918 publications.

The "duplicate negative" makes all the difference. Doesn't matter how close to 1915 it was printed if it is of inferior quality due to not being printed from the original negative.

One of the things I've hated to see happen since vintage photos took off in popularity, is all the 'collectors' who are now collecting photos the way cards are collected. Photos are great because of the clarity and composition of their images on the print. It's super-great when you can find a print made from the original negative very close to when the negative was created; however, we can also appreciate great prints made many years later from original negative. On the other hand, it's tough to appreciate a blurry print made from a second-generation negative, then trimmed down to tiny size.

Two enthusiastic thumbs down.

prewarsports 10-11-2017 12:22 PM

Agreed. In MANY cases (like about 99% of all Ansel Adams prints) there is no such thing as a Type 1, as almost all of his images were struck more than two years after they were originally taken. To educated buyers of his art it does not matter at all. Photos are not cards and I tell people they are similar to game used bats. Working, functional, tools of a trade that now have tremendous value after the fact. There is no right or wrong, just an emerging collectible that is finding its way in the world.

I agree that all the educated opinions are great!

Michael B 10-11-2017 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prewarsports (Post 1709393)
Agreed. In MANY cases (like about 99% of all Ansel Adams prints) there is no such thing as a Type 1, as almost all of his images were struck more than two years after they were originally taken. To educated buyers of his art it does not matter at all. Photos are not cards and I tell people they are similar to game used bats. Working, functional, tools of a trade that now have tremendous value after the fact. There is no right or wrong, just an emerging collectible that is finding its way in the world.

I agree that all the educated opinions are great!

Rhys,

I think that Adams is a good example. Certain people are defining a 'type 1' is a photo printed within a certain period of time after the negative was created. It seems the parameters are arbitrary. If it is printed using the original negative on quality paper it would not seem to matter. Especially if the photographer's stamp is on the back or if there is a blind stamp. If Adams, or any other photographer for that matter, spent a year in the wilderness photographing, several weeks developing then printing a few months later is it not considered 'type 1'or does it fall outside of the arbitrary parameters?

I mean single prints using the original negative, not limited editions. I would also not consider prints made by the Center for Creative Photography which owns the Adam's negatives.

I guess Brett Weston is an interesting consideration. He destroyed his negatives before he died. No one else can create new prints. I believe he said that the photo and the print were his art and he did not want others trying to recreate what he did.

"But Mr. Weston declared that he had destroyed his negatives simply because he alone could print them the way he intended, and he didn't plan to leave them around for someone else to print after his death. And his actions were hardly the whim of an old man. In fact, it was more than a decade ago, in a 1980 monograph on his work, that he first announced his intention to destroy his negatives when he reached the age of 80."

Brett's brother Cole has control of their father's (Edwin Weston) negatives and continues to print those using handwritten instructions from their father.

Forever Young 10-11-2017 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prewarsports (Post 1709354)
Type 1 images are the cream of the crop, no doubt. I dont think anyone would argue that. They should sell for a large premium and they do. My comment was not meant to compare the two in any way, just to illustrate that sometimes a nice Vintage Type 3 or a Type 2 from really close to the original year dont get the love they deserve.

In the sports world though, people use "Type 1" synonymous with "original" and that is just not the case. People will say "Henry FAILED this photo" and it gets a Type 3. It is just a misunderstanding of what those numbers actually mean that sometimes stunts the value of otherwise beautiful images that are completely original but off copy negatives.

Any thread about photos is a great one in my opinion!

"henry fails this photo"... you have an exact example of this? What matters is how they purchased it I would imagine. If they purchased, for example, with a guarantee that this will pass psa as a type 1(clearly the seller is taking advantage of a higher selling premium in doing so) and psa does not give it a type 1, then it did fail.

RE: ANSEL ADAMS- I would still want one printed as close to when the shot was actually taken even if both were produced off the original neg.

RE: Composite
Again, a composite is a composite. They do just fine by themselves... not sure what the type system has to do with them. I see this example come up a lot. All you have to do is call it a composite.

Jeff...it will be interesting...:)

prewarsports 10-11-2017 02:16 PM

I was not saying anything about Henry, who is awesome. I was just referring to a photo that is anything but a Type 1. Its not PSA's fault, but the perception among uneducated collectors who are used to cards and autographs, that's all. I have just heard that saying "Henry failed this photo" on several occasions from collectors who have a vintage Type 3 or an early Type 2 and it makes me laugh. There are many original images by Bain for example that are really nice Type 3 photos. Are they worthless? of course not, but people treat them like a fake signature or an altered baseball card because of the dreaded "Type 3" designation.

Ben is right, if it is sold as a Type 1 and it does not pass, then that is the same as an autograph or card that comes back an unauthentic or fake. Just like cards and autographs though, PSA is just an opinion. I have NEVER seen anything bad that they passed, but there are photos that are Type 1 that they fail or do not render an opinion on to be safe and that is a HELL of a lot better than letting bad things slip into the market as good! I have no issues with PSA and Henry does a fantastic job!

Just to clarify, I think everyone who says Type 1 photos are the best are right, absolutely. They are rightfully what everyone should want. My only comments were in regard to the negative way some Type 2 and Type 3 photos are treated when they are still quality, vintage items. Type 4 photos can suck it :)

Forever Young 10-11-2017 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prewarsports (Post 1709443)
I was not saying anything about Henry, who is awesome. I was just referring to the way people treat any photo they send in that gets anything but a Type 1. Its not PSA's fault, but the perception among uneducated collectors who are used to cards and autographs, that's all. I have just heard that saying "Henry failed this photo" on several occasions from collectors who have a vintage Type 3 or an early Type 2 and it makes me laugh.

Just to clarify, I think everyone who says Type 1 photos are the best are right, absolutely. My only comments were in regard to the negative way some Type 2 and Type 3 photos are treated. Type 4 photos can suck it :)

But the people that tell you this, did they buy with a Guarantee it passes as a type 1? Or are these just random odd comments? Clearly if they were going for a psa type 1, and didn't get it.. that would be a failure at some level if we all agree a type 1 is best.

I do agree all types of photos have some value like everyone else. I just don't agree that those are drastically undervalued compared to a documented psa type 1 example. 3k for the one originally posted here vs 15-20k for a type 1 is the example given.

prewarsports 10-11-2017 02:53 PM

I think we can all agree that Type 4 photos can suck it!:)

Forever Young 10-11-2017 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prewarsports (Post 1709460)
I think we can all agree that Type 4 photos can suck it!:)

Haha. Poor type IVs...:)

Runscott 10-12-2017 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Forever Young (Post 1709434)
RE: ANSEL ADAMS- I would still want one printed as close to when the shot was actually taken even if both were produced off the original neg.

Back in the early 1980's I bought two giant framed Ansel Adams posters, framed for about $50 each. They appeared to be crystal clear and hung on my walls for years. That was before I collected photographs.

But now, as a collector, I always watch the old super-clear Ansel Adams prints when they sell at auction. Yikes. Good thing the 1980's posters are super-clear and display well. Not so for many baseball images, but true for many others.

Rhys - regarding that little 3x4" snapshot of Ruth in Tacoma that you sold last month: It was a perfect example of a fabulous image that was very clear, that was actually a type I (I think?), even though it was a snapshot a fan in the stands took. And it was from 1924, which is pretty old for a Ruth, even though he was a Stankee by then.

So I ended up being the underbidder on that photo, but stole your jpeg image and blew it up and framed it. It is on my living room end table, complete with your watermark for free advertising.


...so I'm just saying that I love well-composed clear photos, even if they were printed yesterday and have an RMY watermark on them.

Here's a great photo that I just printed on nice paper and plan on putting on my wall. Not being political or anything :)

prewarsports 10-12-2017 10:38 PM

That is a cool image!


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:17 AM.