New Photographic Collectible Coming Online

[Imago]

The reason for this post is the unveiling of a new baseball photographic collectible. These photographs and their transmitted copies were called “Laserphotos.” These Original Prototype photographs were not included in the catalog where the naming of Type 1 and Type 2, etc. became a standard. I have been saving examples of these Type 1 photos for some 30 years, without any way of presenting them or proving what they are. 



So what are they?

Do you remember the usually crappy wire photos which showed the printed caption next to the image - all on one sheet? They were produced mostly by the Associated Press as WIREPHOTOS and by United Press International as LASERPHOTOS. From each Prototype hundreds of copies were made and sent to newspaper subscribers around North America. (see attachment One) Yet there is only ONE source photo - the Prototype - from which came all the copies sent to newspaper subscribers. Laserphotos were in use from the mid-1940s through the 1990s.



The Prototype photo (usually 8x10) is the original print with the original typed label pasted on it. Most are blank-backed.

Though I knew these photos to be valuable, there was no way to convince others of their importance. I had to PROVE what they are, and this was impossible - until recently. 



After a number of attempts, I convinced PSA to slab these photos for me - and the encapsulations have proved what they are. The label reads Type 1, “ONE of a KIND.” (see attachments TWO and THREE)
Some are in B&W and some are in color.


If anyone is holding photos of this type, keep hold of them. They may soon become a healthy addition to the baseball photo market. 
I will present more on this subject sometime soon. Any information or discussion will be welcome. 


[doug.goodman]

Laughable on various levels.

Does your opinion seller of choice get a cut of the potential (alleged?) value?

Doug

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

Laughable on various levels.

Does your opinion seller of choice get a cut of the potential (alleged?) value?

Doug

LOL. Thanks Doug. Badly needed chuckle.

[Lucas00]

Let's say this is true and not speculation. People still don't want a giant caption on their photo. It looks like crap to say the least. I would take a type 3 soundphoto with no caption on the front any day over these.
Also 80s and 90s photos are definitely not the best examples to use. I'd like to see type 1 clarity on these alleged type 1 "prototypes" on photos from the 40s or 50s.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

Let's say this is true and not speculation. People still don't want a giant caption on their photo. It looks like crap to say the least. I would take a type 3 soundphoto with no caption on the front any day over these.
Also 80s and 90s photos are definitely not the best examples to use. I'd like to see type 1 clarity on these alleged type 1 "prototypes" on photos from the 40s or 50s.

It's type 1
It's original
It's authentic
It's one of a kind

It's all right there on the pretty opinion seller's label.

What more do you need, just send him your wallet, he'll return it with your change.

Doug

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

LOL. Thanks Doug. Badly needed chuckle.

That's what I'm here for...

[GoCubsGo32]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

LOL. Thanks Doug. Badly needed chuckle.

+1

[steve B]

I'm not seeing how the B+W one can be type 1.
Unless it's a pasteup that doesn't show in the scan, adding the caption would be done with a copy negative.

The color one, The caption looks added, but the registration bars don't. So either a copy negative, or a digital print.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

That's what I'm here for...

The baloney sanwich I had for lunch is also a confirmed 1 of 1.

Accepting offers for the half I didn't eat.

[D. Bergin]

I'm having a hard time digesting how PSA was convinced into adding the "One of a Kind" designation at the bottom of those flips.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

I'm having a hard time digesting how PSA was convinced into adding the "One of a Kind" designation at the bottom of those flips.

Hahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahah.

Really?

Hahahahahhahahahahaha.

I'll tell you how :

THEY GOT PAID. I wasn't kidding when I asked Mr First Post on Net54 (who has gone noticeably silent, by the way) if the opinion seller was getting a cut.

They don't give a F**K about this business that many of us like to treat as a hobby except how it effects their bottom line.

[doug.goodman]

Well, that and it just looks "one of a kind" doesn't it?

I'm sure the opinion seller got completely valid proof of it's one of a kind-ness, too.

I know I trust them completely to know what they are talking about.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

Hahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahah.

Really?

Hahahahahhahahahahaha.

I'll tell you how :

THEY GOT PAID. I wasn't kidding when I asked Mr First Post on Net54 (who has gone noticeably silent, by the way) if the opinion seller was getting a cut.

They don't give a F**K about this business that many of us like to treat as a hobby except how it effects their bottom line.

Also use of the word "Proof", just to wind you up a little bit more.

I have lots more questions about those slabs, but just don't have the energy.

[perezfan]

It is refreshing to see (here on the Memorabilia side of the forum) that most people realize how worthless PSA's bogus certification is. Try pointing that out on the Card side, and you'll get hate mail (despite mountains of "before and after" evidence of alteration and fraud).

PSA apologists and hypnotized sheeple in the Card world seem to care only about the number on the slab. Even if you prove to them that the card is altered, they'll say it's worth whatever the number says on the flip. This can mean a difference of $50,000.00 or more, between what PSA claims is a "9" vs. what is truly an "A".

The corruption runs rampant.

[Swadewade51]

Originally Posted by perezfan

It is refreshing to see (here on the Memorabilia side of the forum) that most people realize how worthless PSA's bogus certification is. Try pointing that out on the Card side, and you'll get hate mail (despite mountains of "before and after" evidence of alteration and fraud).



PSA apologists and hypnotized sheeple in the Card world seem to care only about the number on the slab. Even if you prove to them that the card is altered, they'll say it's worth whatever the number says on the flip. This can mean a difference of $50,000.00 or more, between what PSA claims is a "9" vs. what is truly an "A".



The corruption runs rampant.

+1

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[Econteachert205]

I see.

[Imago]

This mockery sounds very familiar. It may be just what I want to hear.
This is what I have received at each stage of my collecting career.

In the 1980s when I began buying baseball memorabilia from antique dealers - they mocked. They laughed and told me what a fool I was. "No one wants this stuff." I said — keep laughing and bring the stuff to me.

Then in the 1990s I began buying baseball photos by the box load, as newspapers sold off their morgues. Again I heard how stupid I was. Even sports auction leaders claimed that no one would want old photographs - they are not cards. Mock on, I said, as I turned photographic prints, which I paid $2 or $3 dollars for into Thousands. It can be quite profitable to be a fool !

So - watch and wait. It’s another opportunity to be mocked - or another opportunity to take advantage of.

[Snapolit1]

Just curious. . . if you've been at the vanguard of baseball memorabilia collecting for more than 4 decades, what happened last week that caused you to finally join the world's largest and most influential Internet board dedicated to collecting vintage baseball cards and memorabilia?

Originally Posted by Imago

This mockery sounds very familiar. It may be just what I want to hear.
This is what I have received at each stage of my collecting career.

In the 1980s when I began buying baseball memorabilia from antique dealers - they mocked. They laughed and told me what a fool I was. "No one wants this stuff." I said — keep laughing and bring the stuff to me.

Then in the 1990s I began buying baseball photos by the box load, as newspapers sold off their morgues. Again I heard how stupid I was. Even sports auction leaders claimed that no one would want old photographs - they are not cards. Mock on, I said, as I turned photographic prints, which I paid $2 or $3 dollars for into Thousands. It can be quite profitable to be a fool !

So - watch and wait. It’s another opportunity to be mocked - or another opportunity to take advantage of.

[SAllen2556]

Ok, I mis-read the original post. The op is claiming he has the original photo that was sent over the wire that other newspapers received in crappy paper format.

Ok, why is that so worthless? They are type 1 photos. I have many of these original photos because my dad worked at the Detroit Free Press as a photographer. The photographer took the shot, it was developed and possibly used in the paper or possibly sent over the wire if was maybe a playoff game or something worthy of national attention.

The reporter wrote the blurb, and off it went over the wire to other papers. I have a couple Michael Jordan photos from this time period because the Bulls and Pistons played in the playoffs every year. I don't think the Jordan photos are worthless. They're from 1989-90 and color 8 x 10s. I even have a few with the reporter's original writing for the caption that was later attached.

The clarity of the photos was not always the greatest on these because newspaper photographers were using 35 mm film and blowing them up to 8 x 10. Old wire photos were from 4 x 5 negatives.

The photos he showed are one of a kind because they're the original photo that was created by a specific newspaper and then sent over the wire. I don't understand why they would be less valuable than other type 1 photos.

Edited to add: Color photography was just in the beginning stages for newspapers in the late 80's, and the process to put a color photo on page 1 of a newspaper was a pretty complicated process.

[Swadewade51]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

Ok, I mis-read the original post. The op is claiming he has the original photo that was sent over the wire that other newspapers received in crappy paper format.

Ok, why is that so worthless? They are type 1 photos. I have many of these original photos because my dad worked at the Detroit Free Press as a photographer. The photographer took the shot, it was developed and possibly used in the paper or possibly sent over the wire if was maybe a playoff game or something worthy of national attention.

The reporter wrote the blurb, and off it went over the wire to other papers. I have a couple Michael Jordan photos from this time period because the Bulls and Pistons played in the playoffs every year. I don't think the Jordan photos are worthless. They're from 1989-90 and color 8 x 10s. I even have a few with the reporter's original writing for the caption that was later attached.

The clarity of the photos was not always the greatest on these because newspaper photographers were using 35 mm film and blowing them up to 8 x 10. Old wire photos were from 4 x 5 negatives.

The photos he showed are one of a kind because they're the original photo that was created by a specific newspaper and then sent over the wire. I don't understand why they would be less valuable than other type 1 photos.

The caption blasted on the front is pretty unappealing but that's just my opinion. Same holds true for any wire photos with the caption attached to the front.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Imago

This mockery sounds very familiar. It may be just what I want to hear.

I enjoy mocking those who deserve it.

Turning a little money into a lot of money doesn't mean I won't mock, it just gives me more opportunities to mock. You can make a billion dollars selling these things with their fancy little labels and slabs, I will still think they are a cause for mockery, just as I mock every successive owner of the Wagner I posted earlier. Worth millions? Evidently. Mock-able? Abso-f**king-lutely.

Just because you got an opinion seller to give you an opinion does not make that opinion valid to me.

Just because the two of you are attempting to push :

It's type 1
It's original
It's authentic
It's one of a kind

Down our throats does not mean I believe it is all (or any) of those things.

I believe there is a chance that you made it, which would then make it three of those things.

Hitting pause on my mocking for a moment, I have four individual questions for you, each very similar so I will pose them as one question :

Regarding the Alomar item : how do you, or the opinion seller, know that it is each of those things? Type 1. Original. Authentic. One of a kind.

Answer those questions and I will potentially stop my mocking of you and anybody else who thinks these things are, as you say, a "New Photographic Collectible".

Doug "but probably not" Goodman



PS - look at all the weird stuff that I collect, I am as mock-able as anybody on this site

[EddieP]

Educational purposes only ( I AM NOT TAKING A SIDE ON THIS TOPIC): people who collect photos of the photojournalism type put a premium on the ones with the caption underneath because it means the photo was “ Newsworthy” and it was used in publication. So if you enter a shop that sells only photos and NOT involved in sports memorobilia and if he is pricing a non-captioned photo higher than a captioned one, then you know he is ripping you off and you should be able to negotiate a lesser price. The opposite is true in sports memorobilia.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by EddieP

Educational purposes only ( I AM NOT TAKING A SIDE ON THIS TOPIC)

So you won't tell us if you are for or against mocking?

Insert smiley face here.

[SAllen2556]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

I enjoy mocking those who deserve it.

Turning a little money into a lot of money doesn't mean I won't mock, it just gives me more opportunities to mock. You can make a billion dollars selling these things with their fancy little labels and slabs, I will still think they are a cause for mockery, just as I mock every successive owner of the Wagner I posted earlier. Worth millions? Evidently. Mock-able? Abso-f**king-lutely.

Just because you got an opinion seller to give you an opinion does not make that opinion valid to me.

Just because the two of you are attempting to push :

It's type 1
It's original
It's authentic
It's one of a kind

Down our throats does not mean I believe it is all (or any) of those things.

I believe there is a chance that you made it, which would then make it three of those things.

Hitting pause on my mocking for a moment, I have four individual questions for you, each very similar so I will pose them as one question :

Regarding the Alomar item : how do you, or the opinion seller, know that it is each of those things? Type 1. Original. Authentic. One of a kind.

Answer those questions and I will potentially stop my mocking of you and anybody else who thinks these things are, as you say, a "New Photographic Collectible".

Doug "but probably not" Goodman



PS - look at all the weird stuff that I collect, I am as mock-able as anybody on this site

I would agree that absolutely proving it's type 1, authentic, and one of a kind may be impossible. I suppose the best way would be to find the wire photo version of his original Alomar photo and match it up. I also think, like an autograph of, say, Buddy Bell, why forge it to begin with? It isn't worth $5, in my opinion, so what would be the point? And we all know practically any collectible can be faked.

If I understand correctly, what he's pushing is that he has the original wire photo before it was sent out. The one actually created by the specific newspaper that sent it out. I think, if it's a cool enough photo, there might be some added value there. Personally, I think the ones he showed are basically worthless. But if it's a Jordan photo? I think it might get more than the duplicated press photo would get, similar to having the original painting of one that was used to create a limited edition print run.

I have hundreds of press photos from the late 70's to the early 90's. I put them in 4 binders, displayed them at a garage sale and asked $1 apiece. I sold......two.

People collect barbed wire. To each his own.

[EddieP]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

So you won't tell us if you are for or against mocking?

Insert smiley face here.

First of all, it’s nice to know PSA is recognizing this type of photo genre. Which is a plus considering they ( PSA) do not recognize photo/rotogravures.

However( and I’m not mocking the OP), he’ll really have an uphill battle in selling this. People who collect photos will pay a 1/100 of what a sports memorabilia collector would. Because of the aesthetics and skepticism, a sports memorabilia collector will not pay top dollar. And those who are willing to buy it , will only buy at very steep discounts.

Again, not mocking, to the OP, I wish you luck.

[midmo]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Just curious. . . if you've been at the vanguard of baseball memorabilia collecting for more than 4 decades, what happened last week that caused you to finally join the world's largest and most influential Internet board dedicated to collecting vintage baseball cards and memorabilia?

To be fair I know people with very deep vintage collections that are not on here.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

I'm having a hard time digesting how PSA was convinced into adding the "One of a Kind" designation at the bottom of those flips.

The photo is unique because it is the original that made all the wire photos that was sent through the machine. The strip on top a separate strip and is typed and then glued to the top. The TWO pieces are transmitted as one. On the receiving end is the wire photo, the Type 3.

If you type in the cert number in the psa website, it explains it right there for you.

Not sure what all the fuss is about here. It looks like it’s labeled correctly to me a a neat piece

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

Ok, I mis-read the original post. The op is claiming he has the original photo that was sent over the wire that other newspapers received in crappy paper format.

Ok, why is that so worthless? They are type 1 photos. I have many of these original photos because my dad worked at the Detroit Free Press as a photographer. The photographer took the shot, it was developed and possibly used in the paper or possibly sent over the wire if was maybe a playoff game or something worthy of national attention.

The reporter wrote the blurb, and off it went over the wire to other papers. I have a couple Michael Jordan photos from this time period because the Bulls and Pistons played in the playoffs every year. I don't think the Jordan photos are worthless. They're from 1989-90 and color 8 x 10s. I even have a few with the reporter's original writing for the caption that was later attached.

The clarity of the photos was not always the greatest on these because newspaper photographers were using 35 mm film and blowing them up to 8 x 10. Old wire photos were from 4 x 5 negatives.

The photos he showed are one of a kind because they're the original photo that was created by a specific newspaper and then sent over the wire. I don't understand why they would be less valuable than other type 1 photos.

Edited to add: Color photography was just in the beginning stages for newspapers in the late 80's, and the process to put a color photo on page 1 of a newspaper was a pretty complicated process.

Good post

[Republicaninmass]

I'm thinking of having my next sub labeled

"One of a kind collection"

[Bicem]

Agreed with Ben, don't understand at all why the animosity/mockery.

Great original photos.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

The photo is unique because it is the original that made all the wire photos that was sent through the machine. The strip on top a separate strip and is typed and then glued to the top. The TWO pieces are transmitted as one. On the receiving end is the wire photo, the Type 3.

If you type in the cert number in the psa website, it explains it right there for you.

Not sure what all the fuss is about here. It looks like it’s labeled correctly to me a a neat piece

I think it's an absolutely silly thing to claim on a slab for what is essentially a "Type 1" press photo.

No more, no less.

Caption on the front, caption on the back....it's the same thing.

Not a "One of a Kind Proof"

Even if you "think" that's what it may be. It's just silly.

I say this acknowledging that the 60's to the modern time period has a dearth of high quality press photos, because of the laser, tele, wire, sound, radio, etc...movement, in the press industry.

.......but they are out there......and they're no different then a Type 1 Press photo, from when they were printing multiple copies from the negative in the 30's, and trucking them to as many locally sourced newspapers as could be manage-ably reached by press time the next day.

You want them to sell for a premium because they are scarce, let them sell for a premium because they are scarce.

What's on those PSA labels is nothing more then a cynical form of yelling "Synergy" during a Corporate Event, and expecting everyone to oooo and ahhhh about how clever you must be to have just re-invented the wheel.

Lastly, these aren't original photo negatives (which by the way can also be copied). These are prints. How can anybody be sure these were the only prints made up to transmit the wire/laser/tele photos? Back-ups were never made?

Are we saying it's unique "Press Art", because no two mock-ups and captions are exactly alike...therefore it's a "One Of A Kind", like any other piece of original art?

Again.....many will disagree with me.....but I think it's silly and unnecessary.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Bicem

Agreed with Ben, don't understand at all why the animosity/mockery.

Great original photos.

For what it is worth, I am mocking the opinion seller and the multitude of ways the label claims that this item, which could potentially be a fantasy piece, is unique and real.

I am mocking the fact that after the slab says "Type 1" it then says authentic, which seems a bit redundant.

I am mocking the slab saying "one of a kind" because I'm curious how they could know that there aren't others, which I suppose would cause it to be "One of a kind (of multiple copies)"

Certainly some of my mocking is aimed at the OP just because he posted this grand press release of this "new collectible" (that is 50 years old).

Also, I have no animosity towards anyone (except the opinion sellers), I hope the items are all real, I hope they are all worth a fortune, I hope a new sub-genre to the hobby was born of this thread, I hope that Jimmy Carter happily lives to see his 100th birthday.

I hope most for that last one.

Doug "waiting on the OP to answer my question(s)" Goodman

[Dewey]

If I had a famous Jackie Robinson photo with attached caption that could be proven to be the parent image of its wirephoto children, and thus the source image of why it became a famous, widely-distributed photo in the first place, it would be neat.

If interest in this category of photo took off, along with the prices, how would we know that someone didn't just glue a piece of vintage paper to the photo? And do you trust PSA to judge that? Those are the questions. We'll all answer them the way we see fit.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Dewey

If interest in this category of photo took off, along with the prices, how would we know that someone didn't just glue a piece of vintage paper to the photo? And do you trust PSA to judge that? Those are the questions. We'll all answer them the way we see fit.

Therein lies one of my issues.

And the short answer to your second question, for me, is "no"

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Imago

........... I had to PROVE what they are, and this was impossible - until recently. 



After a number of attempts, I convinced PSA to slab these photos for me - and the encapsulations have proved what they are. The label reads Type 1, “ONE of a KIND.” (see attachments TWO and THREE)
Some are in B&W and some are in color.


...........Any information or discussion will be welcome. 


A PSA label on an encapsulated item proves NOTHING about what the item truly is.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

A PSA label on an encapsulated item proves NOTHING about what the item truly is.

Agreed.

He proved it to the people who graded this card, I am asking him to prove it to us.

Doug

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

A PSA label on an encapsulated item proves NOTHING about what the item truly is.

Agreed as well.

[Snapolit1]

I guess we will see what the market thinks. I can't see getting excited about these but maybe it will turn into the next NFT craze.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

I guess we will see what the market thinks. I can't see getting excited about these but maybe it will turn into the next NFT craze.

I think they are kind of cool and are a physical thing, much unlike NFTs.
.

[Swadewade51]

Aesthetically speaking (since this is a visual art medium), at worst it's a "type 1" with a second hand caption pasted on the front, PSA is duped and labels it whatever OP is trying say is one of a kind. At best its a "type 1" with a caption pasted on the front of it with bragging rights yours was the source photo.

Eh.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[D. Bergin]

I suppose every "Type 1" press photo with a caption on the back, is also a "One Of A Kind", "Proof", for whatever newspaper used it as a source photo for that days publication.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

I suppose every "Type 1" press photo with a caption on the back, is also a "One Of A Kind", "Proof", for whatever newspaper used it as a source photo for that days publication.

And everything that the opinion seller entombs in a slab is the only one entombed in THAT slab, so it's definitely "one of a kind" too!

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

The photo is unique because it is the original that made all the wire photos that was sent through the machine. The strip on top a separate strip and is typed and then glued to the top. The TWO pieces are transmitted as one. On the receiving end is the wire photo, the Type 3.

If you type in the cert number in the psa website, it explains it right there for you.

Not sure what all the fuss is about here. It looks like it’s labeled correctly to me a a neat piece

So.... what camera added the registration bars?

NOT from an original negative =Not type 1.

It's neat, but they've gone well outside even their own silly definitions.

[doug.goodman]

And the OP remains noticeably silent.

Probably busy watering his chia pet collection.

[SAllen2556]

Well I'm getting pretty excited about all this! I may have the ultimate one of a kind. I have an original press photo (Laimbeer and Kareem) with the hand-written note from the photographer or reporter describing the photo. This would have been even before the typed up note for the release over the wire. So there!

The Isiah photo has the caption pasted on like the op's "one of a kind". It seems to be a type of tape that has been typed upon and then stuck on the photo - or possibly the photo was just put into the typewriter.

The third one has the same markings as his Alomar photo for the various colors. They seem to be little pieces of photographic paper glued on.

The Ainge photo is hard to see, but the caption is actually just typed right onto the photo - like someone inserted the photo in a typewriter and went at it.

All these photos are from the late 80's. If I send these to PSA will they be worth more than the $1 I was asking at my garage sale?

IMG_4672.jpg
IMG_4673.jpg

[ooo-ribay]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

I guess we will see what the market thinks. I can't see getting excited about these but maybe it will turn into the next NFT craze.

Isn’t the NFT craze over with?

I think it ended while I was cataloguing my Beanie Babies.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

Well I'm getting pretty excited about all this! I may have the ultimate one of a kind. I have an original press photo (Laimbeer and Kareem) with the hand-written note from the photographer or reporter describing the photo. This would have been even before the typed up note for the release over the wire. So there!

The Isiah photo has the caption pasted on like the op's "one of a kind". It seems to be a type of tape that has been typed upon and then stuck on the photo - or possibly the photo was just put into the typewriter.

The third one has the same markings as his Alomar photo for the various colors. They seem to be little pieces of photographic paper glued on.

The Ainge photo is hard to see, but the caption is actually just typed right onto the photo - like someone inserted the photo in a typewriter and went at it.

All these photos are from the late 80's. If I send these to PSA will they be worth more than the $1 I was asking at my garage sale?

Attachment 590877
Attachment 590878

I’d give a buck apiece for some of them.

Who’s the two Michigan players?