Photo opportunities in legendary and in general

[Forever Young]

Hey guys. As many of you know, I have been sticking to Ruth purchases for my collection. Although it May appear there are a ton of high end blue chip pieces with various archives being sold.. It can not be further from the truth. The highest end Ruth, gehrig, joe Jackson's ect are so so rare. In many cases, the greatest images have already made their way into private hands from seemingly sealed existing archives. I cannot stress enough how rare the highest end images are. The key is desiphering between a good image and great image. Yes... Everyone have different tastes but the best will alwYs be the best. That being said, there are some kick ass pieces in legendary right now. And no... None of them are mine so I am not doing this to get bids if I was still actively buying outside of Ruth, I would keep my mouth shut and bid on about 10 of the very aggressively. But I am not going aggressive on anything..if I win at initial bids I will be happy For those of you who really want to build a world class photo collection, this is chance to start or add. I know it seams like there are a lot of photos with all these archives. There are, but not of the best of the best. There are certainly some in legendary that qualify. I just read a comment about the photos in hyee auctions and how many truly iconic images there were in that last auction. That was another opportunity to add as there was. However, Many of Those, like most of the ones in legendary were from advanced collectors collections; not a product of newly opened archives. In fact, I have not added one Ruth photo to my collection from any newly opened archive that would even crack my top 20 list of Ruth photos. My point? Idk really... Other than trying to help some of you up in coming photo guys. If you buy photos.. But the very best(that is if you are looking for investment on top of enjoyment as you will never go wrong). For those of you that made it through this run-on sentence...Thanks for listening to my iPhone ramblings.. I am bored at church. Happy photo collecting. Ben

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Hey guys. As many of you know, I have been sticking to Ruth purchases for my collection. Although it May appear there are a ton of high end blue chip pieces with various archives being sold.. It can not be further from the truth. The highest end Ruth, gehrig, joe Jackson's ect are so so rare. In many cases, the greatest images have already made their way into private hands from seemingly sealed existing archives. I cannot stress enough how rare the highest end images are. The key is desiphering between a good image and great image. Yes... Everyone have different tastes but the best will alwYs be the best. That being said, there are some kick ass pieces in legendary right now. And no... None of them are mine so I am not doing this to get bids if I was still actively buying outside of Ruth, I would keep my mouth shut and bid on about 10 of the very aggressively. But I am not going aggressive on anything..if I win at initial bids I will be happy For those of you who really want to build a world class photo collection, this is chance to start or add. I know it seams like there are a lot of photos with all these archives. There are, but not of the best of the best. There are certainly some in legendary that qualify. I just read a comment about the photos in hyee auctions and how many truly iconic images there were in that last auction. That was another opportunity to add as there was. However, Many of Those, like most of the ones in legendary were from advanced collectors collections; not a product of newly opened archives. In fact, I have not added one Ruth photo to my collection from any newly opened archive that would even crack my top 20 list of Ruth photos. My point? Idk really... Other than trying to help some of you up in coming photo guys. If you buy photos.. But the very best(that is if you are looking for investment on top of enjoyment as you will never go wrong). For those of you that made it through this run-on sentence...Thanks for listening to my iPhone ramblings.. I am bored at church. Happy photo collecting. Ben

Almost forgot... Mark my words...QUALITY trumps quantity every day of the week. ESPECIALLY in photos.

[thecatspajamas]

Ben, I agree completely with everything you wrote. There is an overwhelming amount of material out there these days, but only a tiny percentage of it is the true "cream." I admire your restraint in limiting your focus to the key pieces that you have managed to accumulate.

Me, I'm a "mudder" and have always been more of a quantity guy, slogging it out with bunches of mid- to low-end photos. Partly because I've always been more comfortable surrounded with "stuff" than with a safe deposit box somewhere with a few key items, but mostly because my interests are so varied and my eyes so much bigger than my wallet that when an opportunity for a key piece comes along, I'm flat broke Maybe one of these days I'll learn that it's much easier to move a few key pieces than to process a huge collection, but until then, I'm sure I can come up with another research project to justify the next round of mediocre purchases

P.S. You're writing this in the middle of church?!

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Ben, I agree completely with everything you wrote. There is an overwhelming amount of material out there these days, but only a tiny percentage of it is the true "cream." I admire your restraint in limiting your focus to the key pieces that you have managed to accumulate.

Me, I'm a "mudder" and have always been more of a quantity guy, slogging it out with bunches of mid- to low-end photos. Partly because I've always been more comfortable surrounded with "stuff" than with a safe deposit box somewhere with a few key items, but mostly because my interests are so varied and my eyes so much bigger than my wallet that when an opportunity for a key piece comes along, I'm flat broke Maybe one of these days I'll learn that it's much easier to move a few key pieces than to process a huge collection, but until then, I'm sure I can come up with another research project to justify the next round of mediocre purchases

P.S. You're writing this in the middle of church?!

Nothing to admire believe me. I wish I could collect and buy everything!! I hate it when great photos outside of my scope go really cheap I have to be ready financially for the next big item though It is a great time to pick up the "cream" as buyers have this misconception. Yeah.. Unfortunately the turn the other cheek gospel never really resonated with me. I was drawn to this damn phone during the homily. Maybe one day the priest will find a way to incorporate babe Ruth photos so I can follow along and understand.

[Lordstan]

Wait... How is Babe Ruth not in the Homily? What the heck kind of cult do you belong to that would exclude the savior?? After all, he did save baseball after the Black Sox scandal.

[bobfreedman]

Ben, I could not agree with you more (I do have a couple of photos in the auction as a disclaimer) and it along with the Michaels collection there is another "Photography"section that has Joe Jackson's, Lou Gerhigs, 1916 Red Sox, 1919 White Sox, Jackie Robinson, etc...

The Clemente photo that was used for his 1956 Topps photo is truly Iconic IMO. It is also the only one known as well as other photos that were used for baseball cards are very inexpensive at this point and all of them meets your criteria, great content, great photographers, and great clarity.

You make great points in your thread Ben and you continue to be a leader in this area of collecting!

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

Wait... How is Babe Ruth not in the Homily? What the heck kind of cult do you belong to that would exclude the savior?? After all, he did save baseball after the Black Sox scandal.

No sh @t right? I'm telling you...no idea how this was not addressed in Vatican II .

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by bobfreedman

Ben, I could not agree with you more (I do have a couple of photos in the auction as a disclaimer) and it along with the Michaels collection there is another "Photography"section that has Joe Jackson's, Lou Gerhigs, 1916 Red Sox, 1919 White Sox, Jackie Robinson, etc...

The Clemente photo that was used for his 1956 Topps photo is truly Iconic IMO. It is also the only one known as well as other photos that were used for baseball cards are very inexpensive at this point and all of them meets your criteria, great content, great photographers, and great clarity.

You make great points in your thread Ben and you continue to be a leader in this area of collecting!

That Clemente is one of the ones on my list . Not only was it used for the card but it is also a dynamic 1955 rookie shot. If I had a lot of coin to throw around , I would also go big on the gehrig conlon I once owned . Always regretted letting that one go; only one I have seen, 8x10 and gehrig Conlons are rare as hell. The 1919 joe jizno would be on my list too among a handful of others. Pretty rare stuff in this auction. I hope peeps on the board can pick some of them up.

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Almost forgot... Mark my words...QUALITY trumps quantity every day of the week. ESPECIALLY in photos.

Unless, of course, you can have a quantity of quality!!!

Craig

[drcy]

Or you want to collage wallpaper.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Frozen in Time

Unless, of course, you can have a quantity of quality!!!

Craig

That would be pretty pricy these days

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by bobfreedman

... is truly Iconic ...

Nice.

I think photo sellers should start using this new term to distinguish such photos from the ones they describe as 'iconic', which aren't.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Nice.

I think photo sellers should start using this new term to distinguish such photos from the ones they describe as 'iconic', which aren't.

Uhh... yeah. It would be nice if the word "Iconic" would only be used for images that we have seen at least once

This term among other have been used very recklessly by photo sellers as of late. It is very annoying and manipulative IMO. It muddies the waters which doesn't help educate new collectors.

BUT..I guess if buyers fall for such crazy talk, it is their own fault.

[thecatspajamas]

Just another in a long list of valid terms fallen victim to the American Auctioneer's Big Book of Puffery. *sigh*

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

That would be pretty pricy these days

Only if your sources are auctions, dealers or private sales. A considerable amount of time and research can often pay unexpected dividends - even in today's market.

[bn2cardz]

I had started a post 2 years ago with the intentions of possibly begin collecting vintage photos. At that time I bought three wire photos. Then never bought another one or really researched it again. Then when I saw the Legendary offering I told my wife I really should start collecting photos. She asked me why and I pointed out how nice some photos can really be, she agreed. She either forgot or I never told her about the original wire photos I bought. I pulled out the Musial/Mantle pose that I had quickly put in a wal-mart frame when we were moving from house to house. As soon as I pulled it out she said we should hang it up because it looks nice (this is saying something because we haven't even hung pictures of our children yet).

So I went ahead and plunged into the latest RMY offering and bought three photos (shown in that pickup thread). I haven't received them yet, and though I am not prepared to entirely leave cards, I think I am going to be collecting photos now.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Frozen in Time

Only if your sources are auctions, dealers or private sales. A considerable amount of time and research can often pay unexpected dividends - even in today's market.

Agreed...a lot has to do with the era one is interested in collecting as well(as far as availability). I have built my collection from the ground up by countless hours of research. I do not even want to know how many hours I have in my collection as it is probably a sin somewhere.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

I had started a post 2 years ago with the intentions of possibly begin collecting vintage photos. At that time I bought three wire photos. Then never bought another one or really researched it again. Then when I saw the Legendary offering I told my wife I really should start collecting photos. She asked me why and I pointed out how nice some photos can really be, she agreed. She either forgot or I never told her about the original wire photos I bought. I pulled out the Musial/Mantle pose that I had quickly put in a wal-mart frame when we were moving from house to house. As soon as I pulled it out she said we should hang it up because it looks nice (this is saying something because we haven't even hung pictures of our children yet).

So I went ahead and plunged into the latest RMY offering and bought three photos (shown in that pickup thread). I haven't received them yet, and though I am not prepared to entirely leave cards, I think I am going to be collecting photos now.

Welcome to the club. It is very addicting I must warn you. Try and focus or have an initial goal(s)would be my suggestion. Lmk if ya have any questions... I would be more than happy to help.

[JoeyF1981]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Welcome to the club. It is very addicting I must warn you. Try and focus or have an initial goal(s)would be my suggestion. Lmk if ya have any questions... I would be more than happy to help.

Hey ben I finally got a chance to check out all your photos on your website and I had to change my pants a few times...lol...your collection is amazing. If I owned even one of those photos id be proud.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

I had started a post 2 years ago with the intentions of possibly begin collecting vintage photos. At that time I bought three wire photos. Then never bought another one or really researched it again. Then when I saw the Legendary offering I told my wife I really should start collecting photos. She asked me why and I pointed out how nice some photos can really be, she agreed. She either forgot or I never told her about the original wire photos I bought. I pulled out the Musial/Mantle pose that I had quickly put in a wal-mart frame when we were moving from house to house. As soon as I pulled it out she said we should hang it up because it looks nice (this is saying something because we haven't even hung pictures of our children yet).

So I went ahead and plunged into the latest RMY offering and bought three photos (shown in that pickup thread). I haven't received them yet, and though I am not prepared to entirely leave cards, I think I am going to be collecting photos now.

Andy, you've already crossed the first (probably biggest) hurdle in having a spouse who is supportive of your photo collecting. Glad to hear you're not letting the opportunity go to waste

[Forever Young]

Auction ends tonight..May the photo phorce be with you all.

[Exhibitman]

What's been said goes double for non-baseball stuff. There is a wide variance in prices that can be exploited to get some really great stuff. Of course, everyone has their own likes and dislikes. My tastes run towards team issues and athlete promotional issues, which have a card 'feel' to them.



I also like Hollywood issues, especially when they are linked to a known photographer or were studio pieces, lobby cards, etc.:







For the subjects I actively collect, I tend to grab any interesting image, regardless of 'iconic' status. I also tend to pick up pieces that come from studios with studio embossing, signatures, etc.:

A double-weight wet signed portrait of Georges Carpentier from the Geisler-Andrews studio, a business that operated from 1917-1921.



Hall of Famer Fred Welsh in a 1911 photo by George Grantham Bain



10.5" x 13" portrait of Jim Jeffries embossed with the logo of the Dana Studio in San Francisco.

[SAllen2556]

Don't know if any of you photo guys have ever run across this website:

http://dlxs.lib.wayne.edu/cgi/i/imag...vmc;page=index

Back in the 80's I think, the Detroit News donated a ton (or two) of their negatives to the Walter Reuther Library at Wayne State University in Detroit. They have scanned a fraction of them for public viewing. There is an amazing collection of old sports photos you can browse or search for. Many of the photos are by William Keunzel (Detoit's Charles Conlin if you will) You can also download the image. My grandfather was actually a photographer with the Det. News and many of his photos are on the site as well - which is how I originally found the site.

Check out this non-iconic but historically significant shot of Lou Gehrig the day he sat down at Tiger Stadium (from the website):

[perezfan]

Gosh, that IS a great shot of the Iron Horse!


Adam:
I am struck by 2 things after viewing your post...

1. Gene Tunney's lack of muscle tone (as compared to today's fighters)
2. Fred Welsh's stiking resemblance to Eli Manning. A dead ringer!

Ok... 3... Those are some incredible images!

[Runscott]

That's the most gorgeous non-iconic photo of Gehrig I have ever seen.

If we all stare at it for several days, I think we can legally declare it 'iconic' and be correct.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Runscott

That's the most gorgeous non-iconic photo of Gehrig I have ever seen.

If we all stare at it for several days, I think we can legally declare it 'iconic' and be correct.

Oh Scott.. You and your sarcasm

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

Don't know if any of you photo guys have ever run across this website:

http://dlxs.lib.wayne.edu/cgi/i/imag...vmc;page=index

Back in the 80's I think, the Detroit News donated a ton (or two) of their negatives to the Walter Reuther Library at Wayne State University in Detroit. They have scanned a fraction of them for public viewing. There is an amazing collection of old sports photos you can browse or search for. Many of the photos are by William Keunzel (Detoit's Charles Conlin if you will) You can also download the image. My grandfather was actually a photographer with the Det. News and many of his photos are on the site as well - which is how I originally found the site.

Check out this non-iconic but historically significant shot of Lou Gehrig the day he sat down at Tiger Stadium (from the website):

Scott,
Who was your grandfather, if you don't mind me asking?

My namesake, Scotty MacGregor, was also a sports photographer for the Detroit News for many years.
Here is an early photo of Scotty MacGregor and boxing champ Jack Dempsey sitting on a porch in Detroit checking out Scotty's camera equipment. Scotty MacGregor was my grandfather's best friend growing up in Detroit.

BTW, I accessed the link that you posted, but I was unable to find the photos that you mentioned. Can you PM me with some hints on how to get to these?
Thanks!

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Oh Scott.. You and your sarcasm

Well, I had forgotten about the 'iconic' thing until you forced me to look at the photos in the Legendary auction - I saw several 'iconic' photos that were not labeled as such, and it made me wonder what was less effective: labeling a photo no one's ever seen as 'iconic', or failing to label an iconic photo as such.

...so my re-emerging sarcasm is your fault.

[JoeyF1981]

Some of these prices are insane. The 1919 type 3 ruth photo sold for $150 on ebay and now its up to $700???? wow!

[SAllen2556]

Inherited and sold in a Leland's auction about 20 years ago. At least I had a negative made of the original. You photo collectors need to search out families of old newspaper photographers. Many of us are sitting on piles and piles of old photos and negatives.

Yes it's real...and spectacular!

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by JoeyF1981

Some of these prices are insane. The 1919 type 3 ruth photo sold for $150 on ebay and now its up to $700???? wow!

Huh?? No .. That sold on Hyee for over 1k

[JoeyF1981]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Huh?? No .. That sold on Hyee for over 1k

Ya i just saw that but I also same the exact same photo sell on ebay in 2013 from memory lane for $150 and it only got 2 bids

[JoeyF1981]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1919-VINTAGE...ht_2261wt_1220

[bobfreedman]

Originally Posted by JoeyF1981

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1919-VINTAGE...ht_2261wt_1220

I was the buyer (therefore the seller) of said photo and I paid $1100 originally and it sold for about the same in Legendary. The difference in price can probably be attributed to the condition, the one on eBay is torn and wrinkled and the one I sold was slabbed.

[JoeyF1981]

Originally Posted by bobfreedman

I was the buyer (therefore the seller) of said photo and I paid $1100 originally and it sold for about the same in Legendary. The difference in price can probably be attributed to the condition, the one on eBay is torn and wrinkled and the one I sold was slabbed.

Oh ok its a nice photo I was just curious when I saw that.

[billyb]

Scott A.

Nice Ruth photo, glad to see you are still keeping an eye on this web site. I may have to start researching the families of photographers, you have some great examples.

Bill Boyd

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Well, I had forgotten about the 'iconic' thing until you forced me to look at the photos in the Legendary auction - I saw several 'iconic' photos that were not labeled as such, and it made me wonder what was less effective: labeling a photo no one's ever seen as 'iconic', or failing to label an iconic photo as such.

...so my re-emerging sarcasm is your fault.

Haha!!!! Sorry Scott.

[SAllen2556]

Originally Posted by billyb

Scott A.

Nice Ruth photo, glad to see you are still keeping an eye on this web site. I may have to start researching the families of photographers, you have some great examples.

Bill Boyd

Both my father and grandfather were newspaper photographers. They both had darkrooms in their houses and so, as kids and grandkids, our childhoods were documented photographically as if we were royalty!

I would offer one bit of advice to anyone buying "rare" photos: Every photographer wants his photo to be plastered across the universe. Never, ever assume you are buying the only copy of a photo. If there's one for sale, there are probably at least dozens more out there. With wire photos, probably way more than that since they were distributed to every newspaper across the country who subscribed to that wire service: ap, ups, etc. And anyone who worked at a newspaper had easy access to those photos.

I've been in the darkroom at the Detroit Free Press and News back in the 70's and 80's and I know from experience, those photographers experimented with cropping and different exposures and always made multiple copies of photos. Once the negative was produced, if the photo was a keeper, they made lots and lots of copies and regularly smuggled them out to give away.

And wire photos were considered junk and regularly scrapped as such. I'm blown away by the interest and prices being paid for them. To me they're no more valuable than a photo copy.

Now the guy with the original negative....that's the guy with the gold! But the hobby hasn't quite come to that conclusion yet. Photos are still fetching more than negatives it seems. I really think that will change as time goes on. There's only one original negative.

Crappy wire photo:

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

Both my father and grandfather were newspaper photographers. They both had darkrooms in their houses and so, as kids and grandkids, our childhoods were documented photographically as if we were royalty!

I would offer one bit of advice to anyone buying "rare" photos: Every photographer wants his photo to be plastered across the universe. Never, ever assume you are buying the only copy of a photo. If there's one for sale, there are probably at least dozens more out there. With wire photos, probably way more than that since they were distributed to every newspaper across the country who subscribed to that wire service: ap, ups, etc. And anyone who worked at a newspaper had easy access to those photos.

I've been in the darkroom at the Detroit Free Press and News back in the 70's and 80's and I know from experience, those photographers experimented with cropping and different exposures and always made multiple copies of photos. Once the negative was produced, if the photo was a keeper, they made lots and lots of copies and regularly smuggled them out to give away.

And wire photos were considered junk and regularly scrapped as such. I'm blown away by the interest and prices being paid for them. To me they're no more valuable than a photo copy.

Now the guy with the original negative....that's the guy with the gold! But the hobby hasn't quite come to that conclusion yet. Photos are still fetching more than negatives it seems. I really think that will change as time goes on. There's only one original negative.

Crappy wire photo:

Let me guess...you Are sitting on negatives? so...do you value an original conlon Ruth,for example, the same as a photo copy and think there are stacks of them available? Or are you speaking of 70s and 80s?

How many Mantle topps rookies, Ruth Goudeys, and Wagner t206 were printed? Howmany of them survived? And what are the current prices of those?? Time is not forgiving... We will leave it at that.

[bobfreedman]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

Both my father and grandfather were newspaper photographers. They both had darkrooms in their houses and so, as kids and grandkids, our childhoods were documented photographically as if we were royalty!

I would offer one bit of advice to anyone buying "rare" photos: Every photographer wants his photo to be plastered across the universe. Never, ever assume you are buying the only copy of a photo. If there's one for sale, there are probably at least dozens more out there. With wire photos, probably way more than that since they were distributed to every newspaper across the country who subscribed to that wire service: ap, ups, etc. And anyone who worked at a newspaper had easy access to those photos.

I've been in the darkroom at the Detroit Free Press and News back in the 70's and 80's and I know from experience, those photographers experimented with cropping and different exposures and always made multiple copies of photos. Once the negative was produced, if the photo was a keeper, they made lots and lots of copies and regularly smuggled them out to give away.

And wire photos were considered junk and regularly scrapped as such. I'm blown away by the interest and prices being paid for them. To me they're no more valuable than a photo copy.

Now the guy with the original negative....that's the guy with the gold! But the hobby hasn't quite come to that conclusion yet. Photos are still fetching more than negatives it seems. I really think that will change as time goes on. There's only one original negative.

I have no idea where you are getting your information because you cannot be more further from the truth. Ask anyone that has gone through these archives and ask them how many Conlons, Bains, or, Thompsons they have found? They search through a million photos to find ten decent photos. Take a look in eBay and see what photos are up there. See what was in Legendary last night? It was about 1000 wire photos and about 10 famous photographer photos.

I have no clue where you are getting your information from besides your Dad which is only one data point. Try doing some research next time.

[thecatspajamas]

Anybody here divert your attention from Legendary last night long enough to pick up this lot from Hunt? If so and you would be willing to part with the Altrock shots (top left, and second from top in right column) let me know.

http://www.huntauctions.com/phone/im...9&lot_num=1116

[Runscott]

Haha Lance - I had my eye on several Hunt lots, then forgot about them last night while following Legendary. It happens every time.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

Now the guy with the original negative....that's the guy with the gold! But the hobby hasn't quite come to that conclusion yet. Photos are still fetching more than negatives it seems. I really think that will change as time goes on. There's only one original negative.

You just talked about all the variations of prints that the photographers created from THEIR negative - isn't that the real art? Collectors value the work that the photographer-artist put into creating the actual prints, near the actual time they were printed. True - the negative is unique, but you can't display a negative as a piece of art, and if the photographer has been dead for 100 years, he can no longer create a piece of art from the negative. And you certainly can't - as nice a job as John Rogers has done with the Conlon original negatives, they don't come close to the original prints that Conlon produced with vintage techniques, vintage tools and equipment and his own artistic genius.

Still, negatives are doing pretty well these days.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Haha Lance - I had my eye on several Hunt lots, then forgot about them last night while following Legendary. It happens every time.

It sucks.. I miss out on so many lots as I cannot deal with teh website navigation nor the lack of good descriptions, picture and back scans of photos.
I don't even look at the auction anymore.. EVER. It is a shame. I wonder if anyone else has got to this point too.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

It sucks.. I miss out on so many lots as I cannot deal with teh website navigation nor the lack of good descriptions, picture and back scans of photos.
I don't even look at the auction anymore.. EVER. It is a shame. I wonder if anyone else has got to this point too.

I have never bid with Hunt, because it is hard to navigate. I try looking through, but then never go back. They really should change to the standard Simple Auctions software (I have no vested interest, I just like that it has become the standard).

[Runscott]

Enough people look at Hunt to keep the prices up - I used to enter their auction looking for 'anything' that might be interesting, and I bought stuff I could not have imagined.

I picked up some spectacular pieces at their Fenway auction a couple of years ago, and the NFC Championship game ball at their Super Bowl auction this year. On the other hand, I did place a few strong bids last night and got shut out, so they aren't completely hidden to collectors.

[perezfan]

I almost always bid in Hunt. True, the website is archaic and awful. And I had numerous headaches last night, just trying to deal with it. Their damned back button always throws you back too many pages, and you have to work like hell to get back to the right place.

But no other auction seems to consistently get the type of material I collect as often as Hunt's. I know this is a photo thread, but outside of photos they really are consistent in their offerings. A love/hate relationship, for sure!

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

And wire photos were considered junk and regularly scrapped as such. I'm blown away by the interest and prices being paid for them. To me they're no more valuable than a photo copy.

Now the guy with the original negative....that's the guy with the gold! But the hobby hasn't quite come to that conclusion yet. Photos are still fetching more than negatives it seems. I really think that will change as time goes on. There's only one original negative.

I don't think you will ever see a market for negatives that will challenge the market for photos, because negatives do not satisfy either of the potential customer bases as well as vintage photos do.

I used to do Hollywood memorabilia sales retail at shows and wholesale to the tourist places in Hollywood, including lots of photos, so I have a business background in a very similar product. I had an extensive inventory of original press photos and also a lot of negatives, slides and transparencies. The old photos always were the big sellers. As the vintage inventory sold off, I decided to make new prints from the reproducible media. Guess what? No collectors wanted the modern prints, even if they were the same images. I could sell a yellowed, crazed, back-stamped, even warped, vintage still all day long for good money but that the same image reproduced from an original neg onto first rate modern paper was nearly worthless.

Then I thought about it. The market is either the retail end user--the collector--or a wholesale vendor--the dealer. An old negative ain't pretty to look at. With little or no aesthetic value for display purposes on a wall or in an album, negs have low retail appeal. Most collectors would rather have a vintage photo that they can look at or hang on the wall, so they pay for wall-ready examples of vintage images of their heroes. They pay even more when the markings and wear on the image peg it to a specific time and place. At the wholesale level, negatives are tools valued strictly on what can be done with them, i.e., make prints. Unfortunately, what sells for next to nothing are modern prints. If all you can do with an old negative is create low value modern prints, then the old negatives don't have much value to wholesale buyers either.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

An old negative ain't pretty to look at. With little or no aesthetic value for display purposes on a wall or in an album, negs have low retail appeal.

That's the way I always felt also, but then I bought a group of five large-format glass negatives, and they are actually pretty cool to look at, but I think it's just because they are old, solid items and it's nice to imagine the photographer pulling them out of his camera, creating prints, etc. At some point I will have prints made from them and find some way to display the entire mess. Still, as you say - the aesthetics just don't add up for negatives, especially film.

[Exhibitman]

I have a couple of magic lantern glass slides, so I understand what you mean, but they aren't anywhere as convenient to enjoy as a postcard.