What would be the most valuable original baseball photo (if it existed)?

[glchen]

With the threads on the original photo used in the 1952 Topps Mantle card going on (Link and Link), it got me thinking of what would be the most valuable original photo from baseball, if it still existed? I believe it is known that the Horner photo for the T206 Wagner still exists. How about the photos used to create other iconic cards such as:

Baltimore News Ruth
M101-4/5 Ruth
Just So Cy Young
T210 Jackson

Would these photos (or others) break 100K?

Edit: Caveat is that it would be known that these photos used to exist (for example, they were known to have created a card) rather than fantasy photos.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by glchen

With the threads on the original photo used in the 1952 Topps Mantle card going on (Link and Link), it got me thinking of what would be the most valuable original photo from baseball, if it still existed? I believe it is known that the Horner photo for the T206 Wagner still exists. How about the photos used to create other iconic cards such as:

Baltimore News Ruth
M101-4/5 Ruth
Just So Cy Young
T210 Jackson

Would these photos (or others) break 100K?

Edit: Caveat is that it would be known that these photos used to exist (for example, they were known to have created a card) rather than fantasy photos.

The two that come to mind are the Horner Wagner and the Conlon Cobb sliding. I think large premiums are and will be had in the following TYPE 1 forms.

A)By GREAT photographers/artists-Conlon, Thompson, Bain, Burke, Van Oeyen, Horner..etc[/B]
These should be treated like artwork much like other well know photographers commanding 100s of thousands of dollars outside of the sports world which I find very interesting.

B) IMPORTANT IMAGES used for baseball cards, important publications and/or other baseball memorabilia.
Horner-Wagner, The 1951 Mantle image used for 52 card, the Gehrig used for his 1941 memorial day ticket(just finished in legendary)..etc.

C) IMPORTANT EVENTS in Baseball History-i.e. Maris 61st, Jackie's slide, Gehrig Day, BABE BOWS OUT,1927 Yankees etc.

D) ROOKIE IMAGES

E) Other ARTISTIC/GREAT images which do not fall under the above categories most likely of HOFs or popular players.


Obviously certain players under all of these will command higher premiums..i.e. Ruth, Gehrig , Joe Jackson, Mantle, etc.. Some images will fall under 2 or more of the categories above.

Great photos usually exhibit most if not all marks of the 4 C'S -Contrast, Clarity, Content, Condition. This is a great tip found in "A Portait of Baseball Photography".

This is what I see in the photo market today and what I think will be the cream of the crop in the future. Ben

[scmavl]

I'm going to go with the image used on Ruth's 1933 Goudey card.



He had four cards in the set, one of the full image, and two of the cropped image. If it even exists (I have no idea if there is an actual photo or not), I think it would go for a pretty penny.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by scmavl

I'm going to go with the image used on Ruth's 1933 Goudey card.



He had four cards in the set, one of the full image, and two of the cropped image. If it even exists (I have no idea if there is an actual photo or not), I think it would go for a pretty penny.

It DOES exist... it sold for 20k about 3-4 years ago in Hunt action. It is a CONLON too!! Definitely a GREAT CHOICE! Surely a top 10 by ANY account.
HERE IS LINK..http://www.huntauctions.com/LIVE/ima...=188&lot_qual=

[Splinte1941]

If it actually happened, Ruth's Called Shot would be high on my list.

[scmavl]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

It DOES exist... it sold for 20k about 3-4 years ago in Hunt action. It is a CONLON too!! Definitely a GREAT CHOICE! Surely a top 10 by ANY account.
HERE IS LINK..http://www.huntauctions.com/LIVE/ima...=188&lot_qual=

Wow... thanks, Ben. What a piece!

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by scmavl

Wow... thanks, Ben. What a piece!

Jarrod... I do think that that photo today would go for 2-3 times EASY. That is when the economy was worse(believe it or not) and photos were less appreciated/understood. I collected them back then but not as aggressive/educated. I was about 5 years behind. That is the way it goes I guess..What a piece that is indeed!

[jerseygary]

Has the photo from Mantle's 1952 Bowman ever surfaced? I'm not a fan of his or anything, but that is a beautiful card and pose.

[bcbgcbrcb]

How about an 1840's dag of the Knickerbockers baseball club w/Alexander Cartwright pictured?

[jerseygary]

You know how the press photographers used to stand right by the batters box up until the 1940's? Well what if a couple of them snapped shots at the moment The Babe was gesturing at the plate in the 1932 World Series! Now THAT would settle a lot of arguments and fetch a pretty penny...

[mcgwirecom]

Carl Mays beaning Ray Chapman...

[Ladder7]

I wouldn't like to see the Chapman photo. Well, at least on my wall at home.

Cicotte hitting Maurice Rath signalling the fix was in. That would be some shot.

[scmavl]

Phil (bcbgcbrcb) is also looking for a pre-rookie of Christopher Columbus back when he was canoeing. 1489 or earlier...

[JimStinson]

Pre Rookie Columbus WoW ! What team did he play for and I will keep on the lookout. You never know. My vote would be a photo of Joe Jackson retrieving the $$$$ from under his pillow

[Splinte1941]

I'll take any pre-war Type 1 Ted Williams I can get my hands on and will pay a premium.

Whoops. Wrong thread.

[Shoeless Moe]

Satchel Paige pitching to Josh Gibson, photo taken from behind home plate with the outfield called in.......if that in fact happened as well, just like the "Called Shot."

[Splinte1941]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Satchel Paige pitching to Josh Gibson, photo taken from behind home plate with the outfield called in.......if that in fact happened as well, just like the "Called Shot."

I said it earlier in the thread, but the more I think about it, the better the idea of the Called Shot becomes. That would be in my top 3 easy.

[Shoeless Moe]

A Cobb shot of him in the crowd beating up the guy who was calling him a few unkind names.

Ruth getting thrown out stealing to end the '26 World Series.

Babe and Gibson.

[mcgwirecom]

I'm pretty sure I've seen a picture of Ruth getting thrown out in the '26 series...yeah I think they actually have it on film. It was used on Ken Burns baseball. Its real quick, Ruth slides, he's out and then he gets up runs off and Cards celebrate.

http://www.captainsblog.info/wp-cont...01/1926cs1.jpg

[stlcardinalsfan]

I saw a pucture of Ruth getting tagged out to end the 1926 world series. 5-7 years ago. I know that image exists...

[drc]

A good Horner portrait of T206 Wagner would rank up there. That might be a $100,000+ photo.

I think some very early historical photos that are rare types might rank high. I've seen some 1800s photos that should be more valuable than the Mantle.

Some of the Horner very large multi-team composites might seller higher than the Mantle some day.

A couple of the mammoth sized team photos by the Old Judge photographer (forgot his name at this moment, fill it in) would be worth a lot.

To me, a Goudey Ruth news photo or such wouldn't get near the Mantle, in part due to the plentitude. I think the Mantle was an aberation for that type of photo. That's mostly due to the popularity of the 1952 Topps Mantle card.

As someone who has specialized in photographs from all years and for many years, I will once in a while see a historical baseball photo that totally impresses me-- usually due to a some combination of subject, type of photo and size. I've seen a few 1800s baseball and football salt prints, and many people have no idea how rare those are. Those are museum pieces. The few James Creighton photos also belong in museums. And a couple of those Horner mammoth League composites are amazing.

In my mind, there's nothing particularly exceptional about the Mantle other than it's rare (so I'm told) and it has the famous pose. I'm not putting it down and I like news photos, just think $50,000 is a whole lotta money.

[esd10]

probably the photo of the t206 eddie plank or the original photo used for the 1869 peck & snyder cincinnati redstockings

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by drc

A good Horner portrait of T206 Wagner would rank up there. That might be a $100,000+ photo.

I think some very early historical photos that are rare types might rank high. I've seen some 1800s photos that should be more valuable than the Mantle.

Some of the Horner very large multi-team composites might seller higher than the Mantle some day.

A couple of the mammoth sized team photos by the Old Judge photographer (forgot his name at this moment, fill it in) would be worth a lot.

To me, a Goudey Ruth news photo or such wouldn't get near the Mantle, in part due to the plentitude. I think the Mantle was an aberation for that type of photo. That's mostly due to the popularity of the 1952 Topps Mantle card.

As someone who has specialized in photographs from all years and for many years, I will once in a while see a historical baseball photo that totally impresses me-- usually due to a some combination of subject, type of photo and size. I've seen a few 1800s baseball and football salt prints, and many people have no idea how rare those are. Those are museum pieces. The few James Creighton photos also belong in museums. And a couple of those Horner mammoth League composites are amazing.

In my mind, there's nothing particularly exceptional about the Mantle other than it's rare (so I'm told) and it has the famous pose. I'm not putting it down and I like news photos, just think $50,000 is a whole lotta money.

COMPLETELY disagree on the Goudey Ruth.. it is NOT just a news photo.. it is a TYPE 1 by CHARLES CONLON.

[drc]

Everyone ignore my comment of about Babe Ruth. I was drunk and didn't realize anyone was listening. Didn't mean to suppress the market.

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by esd10

probably the photo of the t206 eddie plank or the original photo used for the 1869 peck & snyder cincinnati redstockings

The 1869 P & S already is an original photo...however somewhere in the literature I read that mammoth plates of these Peck and Snyders were made, though to my knowledge none have survived.

There is a photo in the Spalding Collection at the New York Public Library which I feel would be the most valuable in the hobby. It's a mammoth plate salt print of the 1860 Brooklyn Excelsiors featuring James Creighton. If that one were for sale I think a quarter of a million dollars would not be unreasonable.

[drc]

My motto is I can tell you what a photo is worth, but not what an insane rich person would pay for it.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by drc

My motto is I can tell you what a photo is worth, but not what an insane rich person would pay for it.

Interesting... one can research sales of like items, same items, rarity, condition, etc etc etc.. but no one can tell what the $$ worth of a one of a kind item is IMO. Unless he or she is yoda, smoking a magic pow pow stick … or drunk..haha jk David. An item is worth what someone is willing to pay plain and simple.

How are you defining worth? In terms of monetary value?

[Splinte1941]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Interesting... one can research sales of like items, same items, rarity, condition, etc etc etc.. but no one can tell what the $$ worth of a one of a kind item is IMO. Unless he or she is yoda, smoking a magic pow pow stick … or drunk..haha jk David. An item is worth what someone is willing to pay plain and simple.

How are you defining worth? In terms of monetary value?

An item is worth what someone is willing to pay for it, but only to that person. Just because I paid X doesn't mean it's necessarily worth X on the open market.

I said necessarily...

[drc]

If it isn't already clear, I include jokes in my posts. For example, those who know me in person know I don't drink. My motto was half tongue in cheek, half my serious opinion. I don't think something's financial worth is always what the highest bidder paid. World's records, in tight rope walking to marathons, are inherently about extreme instances that don't mean much to the rest of us.

And I don't pretend to be or advertise myself as an appraiser.

[Splinte1941]

Originally Posted by drc

I don't think something's financial worth is always what the highest bidder paid.

I find it very difficult to argue this point. Shill bids in online auctions IMO are as rampant as ever to boot.

IMO.

[drc]

That's even another good point. When you see an auction price, you can't even be sure if the price was legitimate. Beyond shilling, you sometimes don't even know if the transaction went through. How can you use an price as an iron clad value, when you don't even know that price was ever paid?

Quite a few buyers have later deduced they were probably shilled when they try and resell the item and can't even get half.

For various reasons, I think going by a single sales prices is a dubious way to determine value. Obviously, savvy dealers buy things based on what they think they can sell it for later on. They are in the very business of knowing something's real financial worth is often different and changing from what the is the purchase price. The dealer didn't pay $500 because he thought it was worth $500. He paid $500 because he thought it was worth $800. He essentially bought it because he thought the $500 price tag was wrong.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by drc

That's even another good point. When you see an auction price, you can't even be sure if the price was legitimate. Beyond shilling, you sometimes don't even know if the transaction went through. How can you use an price as an iron clad value, when you don't even know that price was ever paid?

Quite a few buyers have later deduced they were probably shilled when they try and resell the item and can't even get half.


For various reasons, I think going by a single sales prices is a dubious way to determine value.

COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT.

JAKE, Good point on the X statement. Two might tango on a rare item. Then another will surface and one bidder is out of the equation.

PS: I knew you weren't drunk David...hence my attempt at humor with yoda and boom boom stick... aparently some people believe Yoda truly does exist

[Splinte1941]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT.

JAKE, Good point on the X statement. Two might tango on a rare item. Then another will surface and one bidder is out of the equation.

PS: I knew you weren't drunk David...hence my attempt at humor with yoda and boom boom stick... aparently some people believe Yoda truly does exist

I really hesitate to go off my shill bid rant, but suffice to say, the FBI needs to investigate the technology involved in proxy bids and how easily auction sites have access to that information. That's where the scam is.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Splinte1941

I really hesitate to go off my shill bid rant, but suffice to say, the FBI needs to investigate the technology involved in proxy bids and how easily auction sites have access to that information. That's where the scam is.

I agree man... it is a big problem and I think in teh long run it would help realized prices as peeps would feel comfortable.

I did max bids in many auctions and never felt I was shilled.
BUT THEN..I did max bids in one particular MAJOR auction house about 3 years ago on 4 items(first time I did it with them). All the items were higher end. Low and behold.. I was maxed up to all of them..and not outbid on one at the end. I will NEVER bid in that auction house again as the probability was so small that this could happen on all 4 items at those high price ranges/all those bids. There was NO DOUBT in my mind I was screwed...NO DOUBT.
I have not felt that way in any other auction..probably because I have not done it to that extent. Now I just stay up all night and bid emotionally and overpay anyway. HAHA
I guess moral of the story is, trust who you buy from and expect to pay your max bid...now I do.

[Splinte1941]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

I agree man... it is a big problem and I think in teh long run it would help realized prices as peeps would feel comfortable.

I did max bids in many auctions and never felt I was shilled.
BUT THEN..I did max bids in one particular MAJOR auction house about 3 years ago on 4 items(first time I did it with them). All the items were higher end. Low and behold.. I was maxed up to all of them..and not outbid on one at the end. I will NEVER bid in that auction house again as the probability was so small that this could happen on all 4 items at those high price ranges/all those bids. There was NO DOUBT in my mind I was screwed...NO DOUBT.
I have not felt that way in any other auction..probably because I have not done it to that extent. Now I just stay up all night and bid emotionally and overpay anyway. HAHA
I guess moral of the story is, trust who you buy from and expect to pay your max bid...now I do.

Wow Ben, for the life of me, I can't imagine which auction house that might be. You were bid up to your max and never outbid on 4 items???? Talk about brazen!

Some people (read, those who run these scams) never learn their lesson...

[glchen]

Is shilling legal, btw? I saw this quote from a major auction house in a thread once. (I have replaced the name of the auction house w/ the generic auction house.) I guess owners bidding on their own lots in this case isn't strictly shill bidding?

(1) {Auction House} and {auction house} employees do not shill bid.

(2) {Auction House} does not bid on their own items other than by placing reserves. I will note that owners placing bids on their own items at auction is quite legal; we will identify this when we determine that it is happening on an auction floor.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Splinte1941

I really hesitate to go off my shill bid rant, but suffice to say, the FBI needs to investigate the technology involved in proxy bids and how easily auction sites have access to that information. That's where the scam is.

You are approximately 5 yrs behind. They are probably already looking for ways that auction companies counter the proxy technology.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by glchen

Is shilling legal, btw? I saw this quote from a major auction house in a thread once. (I have replaced the name of the auction house w/ the generic auction house.) I guess owners bidding on their own lots in this case isn't strictly shill bidding?

(1) {Auction House} and {auction house} employees do not shill bid.

(2) {Auction House} does not bid on their own items other than by placing reserves. I will note that owners placing bids on their own items at auction is quite legal; we will identify this when we determine that it is happening on an auction floor.

My understanding is that shill bidding issues are state law. That being said I think a lot of what an auction house can and can't do is by the wording in their own rules, almost as much as law. They can't legally say they don't do something when they do. On the converse many times they can do things, by putting them in their rules, that we would call unethical or illegal. A few auction houses have in their own rules that they will bid on items under any number of circumstances. In my small auction company we have written rules against it. If you want to know what an auction can and can't do many times reading their rules will tell you. That all goes by the wayside if they are doing illegal stuff. I am confident that the authorities are still keeping an eagle eye on parts of the hobby especially the auction houses.

[Jlighter]

This brings to mind the question, Why aren't there more real time Internet auctions. It would solve some of these problems plus I like the feel of more classic styled auctions.