Quote:
Originally Posted by thecatspajamas
With all due respect to Steve, I think this is conflating the idea of something being collectible or valuable with it being aesthetically pleasing. There are very few areas of collectibles in which vintage examples are valued equally with modern reproductions, even if made identically using the same means and materials. They may appear identical and have the same utility and aesthetics, but there is nearly always a premium placed on vintage/original examples of any collectible that I can think of.
|
I totally get the originality aspect, it's common throughout every hobby I'm in.
With photos though, to me it becomes a bit arbitrary.
As an example, I met someone who collected bike racing stuff and had what would be the most incredible collection in pretty much any hobby as long as monetary value wasn't the primary concern. *
He bought some publications entire library of Cycling photos, which included the libraries of several other publications that one had bought. Stuff going back at least to the 1930's. Picture several pallets of photos and negatives.
Many of them had never been published. Almost all included the original negatives. And with few exceptions he also got the publishing rights. (Which apparently kept his IP lawyer busy for at least a couple years!) Most of the photos had only one copy made to keep with the negative, newer stuff often only had contact sheets.
The way the pictures were handled by the publication was that they made some copies of the ones they published or that were licensed right away by someone else. If someone licensed an image a few years later, They made a few copies.
So lets say there's a photo of a famous racer, nice, but they used a different one in an article about a race. Different racer, one taken a bit earlier or later, whatever.
5 years later, they're doing an article about that racer and want a picture of him starting that race. They have it, so they get out the negative and make the copies they need.
Now in cycling photos, that's not a big deal, it's "original" . But if it's a baseball photo, it's not a type I, but a type II. And probably worth less, even if there really aren't any type I examples.
To me that seems a bit arbitrary, and not quite right. I can understand a later commercial copy of a file photo that was used for decades not being worth as much as one from the original release, but one from what would be he original release that just happened x years after the picture was taken?
* He's friends with a lot of the old riders, and has helped some of the guys who never made much financially. He mostly collected jerseys, and despite being friends with Eddy Merckx didn't have one of his. When Merckx asked him why it was because he valued being able to meet up when he was in Belgium and go out to dinner or have a couple drinks while watching a race more. Merckx response was that he had one from everyone else, and MUST take one of his so he was ordered to visit him at home the next day. Merckx opened a closet and told him "since I won the most, you have to have more of my jerseys." the closet was organized by race and jersey. Here's one from the World championships, here's a Tour yellow jersey, a Giro pink jersey... etc till he basically had a box with an entire set representing every major race and award. All race used.
That's the equivalent of Ruth personally giving someone a game used jersey from each world series or season.