What would your fantasy press photo find be?????

[billyb]

You are at a flea market thumbing through some old newspapers and falling out is a large envelope. Inside, there it is, a press photo, of Ruth or Cobb or Gehrig, or whomever, and it is your fantasy find.
Because many may select the same photo, the back is stamped by your favorite photographer.
Who would adorn your fantasy press photo, and what photographer captured that photo?

I would love to find a press photo of Ruth, in his first game with Boston, On the mound, in pitching motion. Photo taken by Louis VanOeyen. VanOeyen because he was the first official MLB photographer for the American League, and his photos seem to be more rare, plus, the tone he uses, to me, has that early vintage appeal.

[GKreindler]

Cool thread idea, Billy!

Narrowing it down to one would be REALLY hard.

I think I might go with a shot of Christy Mathewson in pitching motion, during the fifth game of the 1905 World Series. Ideally, the shot would have been taken from directly behind home plate, much like those World Series first pitch shots from the 1950s. So, you'd have Christy facing whomever on the Athletics, complete with a panoramic view of the Polo Grounds right behind him.

Photographer-wise, I can't really think of anyone specifically who would have been there to take such a shot, aside from Conlon. Though, that sort of thing wasn't necessarily in his wheelhouse anyways (or at least from what we know about surviving action shots that he took). I would just want the photograph to be clean and clear. And of course, enough for me to base a painting off of.

Graig

[Kawika]

Of all the terrific baseball photos ever taken, this shot from dugout level of Earle Combs at the plate would be my Holy Grail. I'd pay Mr Kreindler sick money to paint it. The caption states that Combs is hitting a single on Sept 9, 1928. The photographer is unknown to me. The Yanks swept a doubleheader from the A's that day. The catcher would have been Mickey Cochrane, the umpire Bill McGowan. Three Hall of Famers, such a deal.

[JoeyF1981]

Originally Posted by billyb

You are at a flea market thumbing through some old newspapers and falling out is a large envelope. Inside, there it is, a press photo, of Ruth or Cobb or Gehrig, or whomever, and it is your fantasy find.
Because many may select the same photo, the back is stamped by your favorite photographer.
Who would adorn your fantasy press photo, and what photographer captured that photo?

I would love to find a press photo of Ruth, in his first game with Boston, On the mound, in pitching motion. Photo taken by Louis VanOeyen. VanOeyen because he was the first official MLB photographer for the American League, and his photos seem to be more rare, plus, the tone he uses, to me, has that early vintage appeal.

+1....I was just reading about VanOeyen and looking at some of his photography. I agree his ohotos have the some of the nicest eye appeal. A first year ruth photo by him would be my ideal piece to own

[Mark]

Originally Posted by Kawika

Of all the terrific baseball photos ever taken, this shot from dugout level of Earle Combs at the plate would be my Holy Grail. I'd pay Mr Kreindler sick money to paint it. The caption states that Combs is hitting a single on Sept 9, 1928. The photographer is unknown to me. The Yanks swept a doubleheader from the A's that day. The catcher would have been Mickey Cochrane, the umpire Bill McGowan. Three Hall of Famers, such a deal.

A beauty of an action shot. Who was coaching 3rd those days for the Yankees? Was it Artie Fletcher? Or did Huggins do that back then?

[GKreindler]

I'm pretty sure that by '28, it was Fletcher, Mark.

Kawika, agreed. Straight up.

[Kawika]

Yanks had two coaches in 1928: Art Fletcher, 5'10", and Charley O'Leary, 5'7". Looks like the bigger man to me. Huggins was 5'6", by the way. By the sounds of it, Fletcher was a real firecracker.

[Mark]

Fletcher had a very long jaw. It's hard to tell from the photo, of course, but the 3rd base coach seems to have one, too. But even if he's not a hall of famer, he's an important figure in baseball history in his own right.

[Runscott]

Fletcher also had a super-cool autograph, which keeps all but the boldest of forgers from including him on their '27 team-signed balls.

[billyb]

So far, two great choices, kind of gives you the idea of what some guys like to look for.
Graig, the eye appeal from behind the hitter, I like those too, and like you said, it gives a good view of the stadium.

Kawika, what a great photo, I have not seen that before. If you were lucky enough to find that press photo, what photographer would put that over the top for you???
Remember, it is your fantasy.

Joey, VanOeyen was hired by MLB back in 1908, but he was taking photos before that as he was hired by the Cleveland Press in 1901. Later in his career, he was approached by Eastman to test their new product called the flashbulb. Thus, no more powder flashes.

I would like to here some of the top dogs with their fantasy find, Ben, Mark, Steve, Lance and others, let us here if you have that fantasy photo still out there. I know there is so many choices, it is tough, but what would really open your eyes???? What photo would you have to hold away from you to keep it dry so your drool wouldn't get it wet...LOL

[Bob Lemke]

Portrait in uniform, ballpark setting, Eddie Gaedel . . . so I could make a custom card.

[billyb]

Originally Posted by Bob Lemke

Portrait in uniform, ballpark setting, Eddie Gaedel . . . so I could make a custom card.

Ha ha, Bob, spoken like a true cardboard junkie.

[billyb]

I am going to give another. After all, my thread, my rules...lol

Okay, one of Cobb's fights, doesn't matter which one. Nice background of fans and players alike. Conlon would be best for this one.

[BBSD]

Good call David. When I first saw this shot it really struck me. Thought it would be wonderful for the office. It really epitomizes baseball in the 20's. The pic does not to it justice, it really is a striking photo.

[billyb]

Barry,
Wow, nice job. That looks absolutely stunning.
Tell us about your football gear on top of the curio.

[BBSD]

Thx. 49er & USF stuff.

[thecatspajamas]

My tastes tend to lean more toward the esoteric and obscure than the big-name stars, so I would like to see something along the lines of Al Schacht and Nick Altrock clowning around before a World Series game. And since this one is falling into my lap, throw a HOFer or two in there that would normally price the photo out of "spending on myself" range. Just what are they doing in this photo, anyway?

Or, before Bob swiped my idea, I was also going to say a shot of Eddie Gaedel, only with him at bat just as the ball zips over the plate, and from an angle to also catch the expression of frustration on Bob Cain's face as he realizes he's thrown just a little high, again.

Or even better, how about a photo OF Charles Conlon taking his famous photo of Cobb sliding, from the perspective of the guy standing a few feet behind Conlon. Cobb is still caught coming in hard, dirt flying, but in the corner you see Conlon with his finger instinctively triggering the shutter on his camera.

Failing all that, just make it a sharp Bain photo of a slim, trim rookie-era Babe Ruth circa 1914. Any pose will do, just make sure it's one that Ben has never seen because when it goes to auction, I want to be able to pay off my house with the proceeds

[billyb]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

My tastes tend to lean more toward the esoteric and obscure than the big-name stars, so I would like to see something along the lines of Al Schacht and Nick Altrock clowning around before a World Series game. And since this one is falling into my lap, throw a HOFer or two in there that would normally price the photo out of "spending on myself" range. Just what are they doing in this photo, anyway?

Or, before Bob swiped my idea, I was also going to say a shot of Eddie Gaedel, only with him at bat just as the ball zips over the plate, and from an angle to also catch the expression of frustration on Bob Cain's face as he realizes he's thrown just a little high, again.

Or even better, how about a photo OF Charles Conlon taking his famous photo of Cobb sliding, from the perspective of the guy standing a few feet behind Conlon. Cobb is still caught coming in hard, dirt flying, but in the corner you see Conlon with his finger instinctively triggering the shutter on his camera.

Failing all that, just make it a sharp Bain photo of a slim, trim rookie-era Babe Ruth circa 1914. Any pose will do, just make sure it's one that Ben has never seen because when it goes to auction, I want to be able to pay off my house with the proceeds

Lance,
Al Schacht and Nick Altrock, great characters in a great era. I always enjoy photos of them.
Great idea, catching Conlon on film taking a famous photo. And still retaining all the content of the original photo, good one.
You know Ben is thinking right now, "what photo of a 1914 Ruth would I like?" It would be an interesting choice. But Lance, this is your fantasy, you would sell your fantasy?????

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by billyb

But Lance, this is your fantasy, you would sell your fantasy?????

Picking one really expensive photo that I could sell and buy lots of cheaper (but equally attractive) photos is really just my way of saying, "I would wish for a thousand wishes." Like I said, I like the oddball & unusual stuff, not necessarily the most expensive.

[71buc]

"Ain’t no man can avoid being born average, but there ain’t no man got to be common." Satchel Paige

I have always dreamed of owning an original of this Life magazine photo...it's just so cool and just so.... Satchel Paige I doubt I would ever find it under the circumstance described in this thread but we are talking fantasy aren't we?

[billyb]

Originally Posted by 71buc

"Ain’t no man can avoid being born average, but there ain’t no man got to be common." Satchel Paige

I have always dreamed of owning an original of this Life magazine photo...it's just so cool and just so.... Satchel Paige I doubt I would ever find it under the circumstance described in this thread but we are talking fantasy aren't we?

71 Buc
Yes, we are talking fantasy. Good choice.
Have you tried to contact Life to see where they store their Original photos or negatives. Maybe you can get a copy from them. That would make a great piece to put on a wall.

[71buc]

They do sell copies but I want an original. I have two nice Ruth images that I would trade for one in a heartbeat!

[billyb]

Originally Posted by 71buc

They do sell copies but I want an original. I have two nice Ruth images that I would trade for one in a heartbeat!

Good luck 17buc, maybe someone reading this can help you.

[glchen]

I'd like a nice clear original photo of Ruth with Baltimore in uniform. Ruth pitching would be nice, but I'd "settle" for the photo used to make his 1914 Baltimore News card. :-p

[billyb]

Originally Posted by glchen

I'd like a nice clear original photo of Ruth with Baltimore in uniform. Ruth pitching would be nice, but I'd "settle" for the photo used to make his 1914 Baltimore News card. :-p

As a fantasy, you get to choose which photographer took your photo, who would be your choice??

[glchen]

I'm not picky there. Van Oeyen, Paul Thompson, or even Conlon would be good.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

My tastes tend to lean more toward the esoteric and obscure than the big-name stars, so I would like to see something along the lines of Al Schacht and Nick Altrock clowning around before a World Series game. And since this one is falling into my lap, throw a HOFer or two in there that would normally price the photo out of "spending on myself" range. Just what are they doing in this photo, anyway?

Or, before Bob swiped my idea, I was also going to say a shot of Eddie Gaedel, only with him at bat just as the ball zips over the plate, and from an angle to also catch the expression of frustration on Bob Cain's face as he realizes he's thrown just a little high, again.

Or even better, how about a photo OF Charles Conlon taking his famous photo of Cobb sliding, from the perspective of the guy standing a few feet behind Conlon. Cobb is still caught coming in hard, dirt flying, but in the corner you see Conlon with his finger instinctively triggering the shutter on his camera.

Failing all that, just make it a sharp Bain photo of a slim, trim rookie-era Babe Ruth circa 1914. Any pose will do, just make sure it's one that Ben has never seen because when it goes to auction, I want to be able to pay off my house with the proceeds

Lance,
Awesome post and some terrific choices. Well done!

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

Lance,
Awesome post and some terrific choices. Well done!

Thanks, Scott! I had to stop myself there before I just started listing all of the obscure D-level minor league teams that I've never seen a photo of, which would probably either suck all the life out of the thread or have me dismissed as a kook (or both). I'll just pretend I found that Ruth photo, and continue my imaginary spending spree in my head

[billyb]

This thread has got me to thinking about another question, so since this thread appears to be dying, I would like to ask your opinions about my new question.
The top of the heap, regarding press photos, the Cobb sliding into 3rd base and Ruth's eyes by Conlon, the Pulitzer prize shot of Ruth leaning on his bat, etc....the top tier photos, is there room at the top for other photos similar to those, or would they be judged harshly in comparison to these iconic photos.
What I mean about similar is, another photo of Cobb sliding into third, another Ruth's eyes photo, or another Ruth leaning on his bat, but maybe with different variations, a different top tier photographer perhaps.
With new photos coming out almost every week, there is that possibility.
I know that without seeing a photo to compare this is next to impossible question to answer, but imagine a similar photo, but done by a Thompson, or VanOeyen or another top photographer. Can their photos be judged fairly????
Or are these top photos, now in place, incomparable and unapproacjable, in your minds.

[71buc]

The three photos you listed are works of art. However, what constitutes beauty in art is obviously highly subjective. The two Conlons you mention are, in my humble estimation, very striking. The Nat Fein photo has never really appealed to me. This may call my taste into question. Nonetheless, I think all three pale in comparison to this one.

http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/.../2006/645.html

[Runscott]

I think the shot of DiMaggio completing his swing would be right up there.

All-in-all, I like the Combs picture more than any of them.

Another good fantasy pic would be a hitherto undiscovered action shot of Babe Ruth from 1914 with the Red Sox, of iconic composition caliber, perhaps delivering a pitch to another future HOF-er.

[thecatspajamas]

A beautiful, crisp, finely-detailed photo will always be appreciated for its visual presentation, regardless of the photographer, subject, or ability of the viewer to put into words what exactly makes it a "nice picture."

That said though, visual presentation alone does not always translate to $$$ when a piece goes up for sale, which is the angle it sounds like you are approaching this question from. Subject matter is important, in that a photo of a HOFer will almost always bring more than a similar one of a "common" player, and all else being equal, photos shot by "known" photographers also tend to bring more.

I know you get all that already, but another factor to consider is the notoriety of the image itself. One of the reasons that everyone, even those who are not sports enthusiasts, will recognize Conlon's photo of Cobb sliding, or Fein's photo of Babe Ruth bowing out, is that they were recognized as being top-tier images from the start and have been used and reused and reprinted and seen over and over and over, so that the original works that those countless iterations were derived from have been elevated to iconic status. They are not just images OF icons, but rather the images themselves are iconic. That kind of notoriety takes time and exposure to imprint on the general consciousness. So while I think it would certainly be possible to find a new photo that SHOULD rival the old icons in terms of the "four C's" and notoriety of the photographer, I think any newcomer would have difficulty in challenging an original iconic photo in terms of price realized at auction.

That doesn't mean that they would be "judged harshly" or go unappreciated. I just don't think it would be possible for a new image to supplant one of the "old guard" in the public consciousness so quickly, if at all. As Mike's top pick illustrates though, you don't have to have the "best"/most-well-known photo to have a darn nice one that will turn the head of anyone who encounters it and/or bring a handsome sum on the auction block.

Just my 2 cents. And just so you know, you're killin' me, Bill

[billyb]

Thanks Mike, but it seems that you have put those two Conlon photos up there as incomparable, thus, no photo could compare, no matter what other photographer took the photo, And no other photo of same content, could be a work of art also.
So I assume, there is no other room near the top with the iconic works of art.
By the way, I agree, the photo you provided is superior.

[billyb]

Thanks Lance, that was the same feeling that I was getting, that the top photos mentioned and the like, are already implanted as icons. And over the years they have earned that level of excellence.
The value of any newcomer was not what I was looking at, but, I guess, respect, may be a better word, and that any newcomer may be judged as violating, or crowding one of the iconic photos, more so in terms of same content, regardless of quality.
Sorry Lance.

Scott,
I agree with that DiMaggio's shot also, that would be one of the etc. I mentioned. Too many to list.
And nice fantasy photo, what photographer would be your choice to take that photo of Ruth?

[71buc]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

I know you get all that already, but another factor to consider is the notoriety of the image itself. One of the reasons that everyone, even those who are not sports enthusiasts, will recognize Conlon's photo of Cobb sliding, or Fein's photo of Babe Ruth bowing out, is that they were recognized as being top-tier images from the start and have been used and reused and reprinted and seen over and over and over, so that the original works that those countless iterations were derived from have been elevated to iconic status. They are not just images OF icons, but rather the images themselves are iconic. That kind of notoriety takes time and exposure to imprint on the general consciousness. So while I think it would certainly be possible to find a new photo that SHOULD rival the old icons in terms of the "four C's" and notoriety of the photographer, I think any newcomer would have difficulty in challenging an original iconic photo in terms of price realized at auction.

Interesting response Lance. Do you think the perception of a photographic image as iconic can be subjective as well? I would think not. However, I often see it used as a descriptor of photos in auctions.

[71buc]

Originally Posted by billyb

Thanks Mike, but it seems that you have put those two Conlon photos up there as incomparable, thus, no photo could compare, no matter what other photographer took the photo, And no other photo of same content, could be a work of art also.
So I assume, there is no other room near the top with the iconic works of art.
By the way, I agree, the photo you provided is superior.

Incomparable? No. Exemplars of Conlon? Absolutely. Van Gogh's Starry Night is both an exemplar of his work and an iconic image. However, it is not an incomparable work of art. I really like Lances definition of what constitutes an iconic image. When considering the three images you presented as the icons of baseball photography, I believe there are many more attractive specimens of baseball photography as art. There are actually a few in the current RMY auction that I think are much more pleasing artistically. That being said I believe there is much room at the top with the three iconic images you discussed initially.

[Forever Young]

I would want one of two fantasy photos:

1) A portrait with the same feel as my Gehrig by bain(pictured below) of Ruth at St. Marys in his playground uni.

or

2) an shot of Ruth at the plate from behind the pitching mound waiting for a pitch in the St Mary's playground with the opposing catcher.. pitcher.. "ump(whatever kid was doing that maybe a nun??-haha)" by Charles Conlon.

[billyb]

Mike,
I agree that there are more works of art regarding baseball photos, I listed the three with an etc... as too many to list. I too believe there is room at the top regarding different content within the photo.
My question was photos of same, or similar content. For example, I believe it was Lance who posted, one of his fantasy photos would be of Cobb sliding into third, but done by another photographer and catching Conlon in photo taking his famous photo of that slide. Or another example would be another Ruth's eyes, but done by a Thompson, or Bain or VanOeyen, or Burke.
That is where the biggest judgment of comparison will come into play.
The newby photos, I know, will not get the praises the established icons have already received, but because of same or similar content, how fairly can they be judged, even though they may or may not be exemplars for a Thompson or Burke, etc.....

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by billyb

Mike,
I agree that there are more works of art regarding baseball photos, I listed the three with an etc... as too many to list. I too believe there is room at the top regarding different content within the photo.
My question was photos of same, or similar content. For example, I believe it was Lance who posted, one of his fantasy photos would be of Cobb sliding into third, but done by another photographer and catching Conlon in photo taking his famous photo of that slide. Or another example would be another Ruth's eyes, but done by a Thompson, or Bain or VanOeyen, or Burke.
That is where the biggest judgment of comparison will come into play.
The newby photos, I know, will not get the praises the established icons have already received, but because of same or similar content, how fairly can they be judged, even though they may or may not be exemplars for a Thompson or Burke, etc.....

Do you have examples you want to share? There is nothing that is saying this is impossible. The Conlon Eyes are iconic as they were done in 1927 of murderer's row(one of the most storied-if not the most group in baseball) and shot by Conlon and published a ton. There have been other done since but obviously not the same for various reason. Maybe not as well done, done after, ect ect ect.

[billyb]

Ben,
It's about time we heard from you, I, in particular, was wondering what your fantasy photo or photos would be like. Good choices.
Would those fantasy choices include Brother Gilbert in the coaches box???

No Ben, I do not personally have any similar photos to share. I wish I did. But some of the fantasy responses posed that question in my evil mind.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by billyb

Ben,
It's about time we heard from you, I, in particular, was wondering what your fantasy photo or photos would be like. Good choices.
Would those fantasy choices include Brother Gilbert in the coaches box???

haha..sure. that would be a nice addition for sure

[Exhibitman]

To keep, not for resale:

Hank Aaron from his first game in the Negro League.

Rocky Marciano's first publicity photo as a pro.

Wilt Chamberlain debuting with the Harlem Globetrotters.

Jim Brown's first TD.

Gordie Howe's first goal.

[thecatspajamas]

Bill, sorry about assuming your questions were down to $$$, which wasn't the case. I'm not sure if that makes the questions easier or harder to address, but either way, it's fun trying

Originally Posted by 71buc

Interesting response Lance. Do you think the perception of a photographic image as iconic can be subjective as well? I would think not. However, I often see it used as a descriptor of photos in auctions.

I guess one's perception of an image as "iconic" could be subjective depending on one's level of exposure to the image, which could vary geographically, culturally, or even within certain circles of interest, depending on the individual. To me, "iconic" is equivalent to "most recognized." Based on that, a photograph would become "more iconic" the farther its general recognition reaches. (I'm thinking along the lines of baseball card collectors vs. sports enthusiasts vs. general population of the U.S. vs. worldwide recognition). I don't think that "most iconic" necessarily equates to "best" though, and I'm not sure the two should really be compared.

Another way of looking at it would be that while a photograph's visual quality (the "4 C's") is fixed from the moment the print is produced, its "iconic" status is not. Where one image went from the obscurity (literally) of a darkroom to achieve worldwide recognition over the years, an equivalent or better photograph may have been used once (or not at all), and languished unviewed in some archive without gaining comparable status. A lack of notoriety shouldn't lessen a photo's "worth" either in terms of appreciation, but we often can't help but heap greater praise on the "iconic" photo simply because it is easily-recognized.

And I would strongly agree though that the descriptor of "iconic" is overused in auctions, along with all the other flattering terms and puffery that is all designed to get the reader to loosen their grip on their wallet and bid with fervor. It's all part of the auction (and advertising) game, and I'm sure there are examples of images that have become "iconic" simply because they were described that way over and over.

[billyb]

Lance, understand and agree.


Exhibitman,
You are testing the magic fantasy genie with 5 choices. You covered the big 4 in sports and Boxing. I really like the first goal of Howe, my childhood Hockey favorite by far. I have had the pleasure of meeting and talking to Gordie on several occasions, one of the nicest men on the face of the earth.
I really don't believe in collecting autographs, but he is an exception and I do have his.