Original negative from historic event, or Type 1 photo of same?

[TCMA]

Pick any historic event in baseball history... Babe Ruth's called shot, Jackie Robinson's first day in the Major Leagues, Mazeroski's home run, etc. Now, which is more desirable and why: an original negative that shot the event, or a Type 1 photo of the same event. I can think of a few arguments for both. Discuss .

This list may help:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...eague-baseball

[GKreindler]

Cool question, Andrew. I guess my biggest concern would be, is it for display purposes, or moreso owning a piece of such historical significance? If the it's the former, then I think a photo is gonna win out 9 out of 10 times.

[sphere and ash]

I've always felt that the greatest image of a historic baseball event doesn't capture the event directly. I'm referring to George Silk's image of the 1960 World Series for LIFE (disclosure: I own it). What photographer would leave the stadium for a shot of the final inning of the World Series? Silk missed Mazeroski's home run, but got something much better. I think it's one of the greatest baseball images ever taken.

As to your question, while the negative was "there" at the event, there are only a handful of negatives that would sell for more than a vintage print--I'm thinking of Nat Fein's negative of 'Three Bows Out' and Conlon's negative of Ty Cobb sliding into Jimmy Austin.

[sphere and ash]

Here is the image

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by sphere and ash

Here is the image

Always felt this was a phenomenal shot.

[mcgwirecom]

OK heres another angle on the topic. I collected a load of original 35mm slides of Mark McGwire. I was told that since I have the original negative I own the rights. So is that the case with old negatives?

[JollyElm]

I'm neither a photograph nor a negative collector, but I'll take an odd approach and say what immediately jumps out at me. The negative was in the camera and the image it contains was created as the historical event happened. It was there, an actual witness to the event. The photograph itself was printed elsewhere (I assume) and, literally speaking, has no true attachment to the occurrence itself. So, give me the negative.

[ramram]

I think the negative would be the most historical item as it captured the actual event. The photo would be the best display of that historic event, but once removed from the event.

Rob M.