Damnit! Looks like I have more competition.:)

BTW.. CARDS ARE COOL AND WHY I ORIGINALLY GOT INTO THE HOBBY AS A KID BUT THIS IS ONE REASON I LIKE PHOTOS.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/141028627120

Oh the WORLD CLASS photo(s) I could buy with this amount of money.

Ben,
I have been doing a lot of studying on press photos and the photographers, especially VanOeyen. In your experience, do you find that some of these photographers, especially VanOeyen, did not place their stamp on a lot of their photos?
I have come across a few that I was able to match a negative from the VanOeyen archive, to a press photo, and I have seen other posts stating they had photos done by other photographers, but the photographer stamp was not present on the back of press photo.

Bill, I am not sure what your definition of a lot is or what the percentage would actually be but yes, it definitely happens. There are a ton of reasons why it would happen. It could be that the photographer simply didn't do it or that a news service made a copy of the original ...and everything in between. The short answer to your question is, yes.
There are a ton of Conlons with his own hand writing on the back with no stamp(example).

Great Pick-up for the price, love the little niche items, would have paid $30 easy for that . Enjoy that great piece.
Mike

Ben,
A lot was the wrong term, I should have said that it was not uncommon for a photographer to not put his stamp on the back of his photos. I have been researching my cousin's Ruth collection, and I have found 8 to 10 press photos, without photographer stamps, but matched negatives that are in the VanOeyen collection in the Western Reserve Historical Society.
The only stamp on the back is Cleveland Press with date. No article, but I have found success locating newspaper articles, which include the photos.


Bob,
Great photos, that Buck Weaver is special, along with that close up on Gehrig.

thats why graded card collecting went around the bend a good while ago. insanity for sure.

That Pete Rose 1971 versus the Ruth/Cobb Type I in the REA auction. The buyer could have had that Ruth Cobb photo instead! What is the better piece. Ridiculous.
Cards have their attributes, but their original demand in the non computer age was to receive information - images and statistics of players. and a piece of gum. There is still demand for the aesthetics of cards, and there should be, and the looks do relate much to condition.
But I think there is a clear, great value in buying photos and other memorabilia for aesthetics/investment versus the vast majority of cards at present. Everyone knows of cards, not everyone knows of vintage memorabilia (the top houses, SCD, net54 and other forums, Type I photos, game used, and large advertising pieces). So more of the population involved in cards versus memorabilia at present. I think this is the disconnect. I think Type I photos and game used will have a nice ride up relative to cards, though there are cards that will have a nice ride up as well. We have seen photos and game used go up a real amount in the past 2 years. Ruth jersey 3 mil , Mantle jerseys 500-750k, Joe Jackson photos 30k, etc. Game used and photos get you as close to the actual game as possible, I think this is what is great about them. Cards really take me to the candy store, or the tobacco store. They are beautiful lithographs, and other forms of art. And they take you back to the day. And I like a number, particularly the 1914 Ruth, and of course T-206. To me though most cards take me to the store, whereas game used and photos and other items like large advertising lithos take me more to actual play.