[Lordstan]

These questions are very difficult to answer.

Objectively, no one photo is "better" than another as art appreciation is subjective. For example, I would rather spend 50million, in my fantasy world, on a Renoir than a Jackson Pollock. Is one objectively better than the other? No. Is one better subjectively? To me, yes. Someone else might choose the opposite way. Neither is right or wrong. Another, and perhaps more appropos example is that I would rather buy a Kreindler painting than a Leroy Niemann. Is the Neimann more valuable? Yes?. Will i enjoy it more? No.

To me the word better implies some objective metric of intrinsic worth. One needs to specify what one means by better. It could be price, rarity, resale value/investment potential, or something else.

Photos are, for all intents and purposes, are art with a practical use. Pioneer sports photographers were making photos more for saleability to newspapers than as artistic expressions. Now we collect them basically as art.

IMO, since i started collecting them, as many have already said, in uniform shots bring stonger prices than non uni shots.

In action is a tricky description as there are many shots, like a lot of spectacular Conlons, that are of the player doing something but are actually posed. On the flip side, there are many "in game" action shots that are worth far less than those posed ones.

Like all rules there are always exceptions. There are many highly desirable/valuable plain clothes shots. It all depends on the content. It goes back to the 4Cs identified by Yee/Fogel in their book. They are Content, Clarity, Contrast, and Condition.

Collect what you enjoy. I collect Gehrig photos. I enjoy them in all shapes and sizes. I will buy what i like and what i can afford at the time. Would i love to buy Conlon's? Sure, but i cant afford them. If the photo speaks to me and its in my price range, I'll buy it. Simple. If they appreciate in value great. If not, that's ok. I will enjoy the photo regardless.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk