UHG... I will address this in more detail tomorrow as I am traveling. I have no doubt you are one to learn the hard way. Nothing wrong with that.. I am too. The last statement is not good. Also, nobody on the planet(other than a seller/owner) would make the the statements in that description. It is not about doing this for a long time. It is about common sense. Period and definitively bn2z. It is misleading at the very very best. Also, I am not telling you anything. I do not even know who you are in fact. My point is simply let the photos speak for themselves; without crazy outlandish claims. Ironically, I am saying what you are saying. The difference here is..i am not trying to sell a photo. My definitive statement is simply that this is not one of the best or THE best Ruth photos on the planet. I think most people would agree if they were being honest whether they have collected a long time or not at all. Do you think this is THE or one of the best Ruth photos on the planet/that exists?

Ben, I look forward to hearing you discuss this further. Discussions like this are interesting. The passion you regularly display for this segment of the hobby was one of the early factors that drew me to photo collecting. I had become bored with looking at cards and diatribes about grading companies and was looking for something new.

My friends and family have never understood the baseball collecting virus that has afflicted me all my life. I have numbed many of them with baseball cards. They always ask the same thing, "What's it worth?". When I show them an original potentially one of a kind photo of Willie Mays or Jackie Robinson they never ask that question. Such photos have a magical ability to capture your imagination and take you on a ride back in time. They also seem to elicit an emotional response from my friends that love baseball and indifference from my wife.

I have always enjoyed photography and already had an appreciation for art beat into me by a mother who drug me to every major art museum in Europe. She loved Michelangelo. Much to her dismay I was drawn to Goya and Bosch at an early age. She was convinced that I needed a psychiatrist. I know we aren't talking about high art here but the passion and opinions of aesthetic beauty are the same. Although my photo collection will never send any of my kids to college, I know what I like when I see it. Unfortunately I cannot afford much of what I like. I remain enamored by some photographs' ability to make me pause in appreciation. I like that there are so many beautiful and unique original images available to collectors of every budget. This Ruth may not be your Michelangelo but is my Goya. I am also painfully aware that I am forced by family obligations to be a fan and not a collector of such quality images. Nonetheless I doubt I have room on my Discover card to cover this Ruth or an old Goya painting.

Andy, I think this is an unfair statement. I am certain Ben doesn't feel his opinion matters more than yours or anyone else's - he asks me for mine all the time, and we disagree a lot. But I do think that because he has put a lot of years into this hobby, that he does feel a responsibility to share his thoughts with those who are newer to it. In this case, it isn't about the aesthetic value of the piece - it's about the value of the piece as a collectible. Ben is not trying to sell anything, so comparing his opinion to Rhys' is apples and oranges.

I have always thought that the overblown descriptions of items in ALL auctions is ridiculous and unnecessary, but everyone does it. Perhaps Rhys enjoys writing these descriptions and doesn't see any harm in it. I wrote some photo descriptions for an auction house once, and it was kind of creative and fun.

Bottom line is that if you can't make your own judgements based on the item alone, and your knowledge of what pieces are worth as collectibles (based on your experience and research), then you should keep your money in your pocket.

I had a huge comment, but deleted it all as I really don't want to come across as thick headed argumentative person.

I purely was wanting to give my opinion that the image is a lot more aesthetically beautiful than Ben believes it to be (again only opinion) and that I strongly disagree with his analysis of the auction description of the photo.

As far as Ben's question on if this was the best Ruth photo. No I don't, but it is up there in my opinion. There are certainly others that I have seen that I think invoke more awe inspiring emotion (There is one swinging that always gets me to stop, along with the back '3' image and a Boston Pitching), but this one's composition helps it stand out among the barrage of Ruth portrait and swinging photos available. Sometimes different is enough to make an image stand out, and that is what this one does for Ruth.

Andy, I don't think you are being thick-headed and argumentative, but I don't think you get Ben's point. I'm saying that because you keep focusing on his comments about aesthetics, and aesthetics are always simply opinion whereas collectible value is not.

Forgive me if this example is lame, but it's the best I can do on three cups of coffee: Let's say two new collectors got into a bidding war and one of them wins an aesthetically-pleasing photo for $2,000. Later, this collector has to sell his photos, and at auction gets $300 - the value that more experienced collectors felt it was worth all along, and the reason why they dropped out of the bidding at $300. What if he originally bid on the item because of a respected AH's description of its collectible merits, and the descriptions were misleading?

The above is starting to happen, but it's not happening to Ben. I think he's simply trying to help it not happen to you either.

I (like most people who currently collect Photos) started with Baseball Cards in the 1980's and just got bored! I get the same thrill on a daily basis from vintage photography as I used to going to a card show 20 years ago and finding weird type cards I had never seen before. With the Internet, those days are gone. With few exceptions I have seen just about every Baseball Card ever made and it simply has lost its appeal to me and something like T206 miscuts and rare backs are flat out boring as all hell.

What makes Photo collecting fun is its closeness to art (whether you like it or not) and for each collector to have his own likes and dislikes. Some people like the portrait photos and the "definite" shots, while others like the weird and seldom seen stuff. There is no right or wrong answer and that is the beauty of it.

I've probably handled as many Babe Ruth photos as anyone in the World (or at least close to it) and for me, I LOVE that Braves photo and personally would put it at the top of my list for beauty and aesthetics. It is in the "top 50" Ruth photos of all time using an objective poll with value as a factor? Probably not which is what Ben's point is, and that's perfectly fine.

To each his own, and that is what is GREAT about this area of collecting.

(BTW, Writing 6000 item descriptions a year gets really cumbersome and the only thing that makes it somewhat interesting is trying to find accentuating details about each photograph to describe them. In isolation a large portion of these photos we sell IS "iconic" or "tremendous" or "important", the problem from the perspective of the bidder is that they ONLY SEE the "best of the best" whereas I dig through a Box of 2000 photos for hours and hours to find 2-3 that are Auction Quality. From my perspective these are the top 1% the hobby has to offer and I describe them as such. From the buyers perspective it is "just another Ruth" or "Just another Mantle". having said that, if anyone truly has an issue with my descriptions, please e mail me and I will change the wording around. My intention is never to try and sound "used car salesman" but Facts are boring and can be looked up, people trust my experience and most importantly my opinion and I try and give them that.)

Rhys Yeakley

All the conversation was about was the aesthetics. If he was changing the topic from aesthetics to collectible value that was not really illustrated. In the end he stated "this is not one of the best or THE best Ruth photos on the planet." He did not say that it wasn't worth very much and give an estimate.
To me collectible value is only based off aesthetics (the entire reason my baseball card type collection doesn't have an e91 or a lot of strip cards). Other's put collectible value at rarity, some even put it in resale value. Everyone has to decide for themselves what makes something of value when it comes to collecting.

Every person who pays money to collect items has to know what the value of an item is to that individual person. It should NEVER matter what everyone else thinks the item should be worth. If it is authentic and isn't a scam then it just doesn't matter. I understand it is Ben's thinking also that other's opinions shouldn't trump the facts which is why he says the auction house shouldn't give their opinion, but that's just it, it is only an opinion. I really don't think it matters if the auction seller says it is their all-time favorite. In all honesty they just now made it IMPOSSIBLE to say that about another Ruth photo so if they say it about the next one also then we can say that they have no accountability, but that isn't the case here. I believe when I see personal comments put into the auctions it just shows the passion of the seller.

Okay, I give up.

Andy, have you ever had to sell anything you've collected to recoup your money?

As a new photo collector, I appreciate Ben's comments and they help to provide good context. Personally, I find this portion of the auction item description misleading. Rhys seems like a good guy and I hope that he will take this observation to heart in preparing future auction item descriptions.

I ended up hitting that point where I came off as thick-headed didn't I. :o

You did just take a snip it because the very next statement I admit that if that wasn't Ben's perspective than it just didn't come off that way. The original conversation about this photo was talking about the eye appeal prior to Ben giving his opinion. Unless the term "artsy fartsy" is a term used for collectible value.


Lance,
Of course I have sold items from my collection to pay for other things, but when I purchased it I didn't think about the day I was going to sell it (except for the times it was bought for the specific reason to flip, in those cases I buy off research not personal feelings towards the piece).


Edited to add: I am really not wanting to come off as too argumentative if everyone wants to believe Rhys is wrong for giving his opinion, then that is your opinion. I don't have a problem with an auctioneer giving an opinion even if it does come off as fluff. I read the description as an after thought of looking at the item.

No, I really did give up. I don't want to get to the point where other forum members are telling me that I am repeating myself.

I do believe that 'artsy fartsy' is a technical term. ;)

Graig

Artsy Fartsy

I can't believe the first part of that term was ever applied to Babe, but I'll bet he let out some beer-and-hotdog-infused blasts that would have earned him the second title. It's a good thing the nickname "Babe" stuck early on. Can you imagine collectors clamoring over items featuring "Fartsy Ruth?"

I sometimes refer to mine as "Ruthian Blasts"

Hahahaha! That comment just made my afternoon, Scott.

Our Monthly Auction with over 300 quality images (and the Ruth photo that was discussed in this thread) ends tonight. Still plenty of time to register until extended bidding and it only takes a minute or two.

www.RMYAuctions.com

Any other winners last night?

I was very happy to come away with this one

http://www.net54baseball.com/picture...ictureid=14499