Orig type 1 photo question
 

I am wondering what the most desirable press photos to collectors are ...
portrait, action, etc. Your opinions appreciated

Portrait.

There are some great action shots (i.e., check out the Cobb sliding in the current RMY Auction), but often times actions shots leave me cold. Faces obscured, bad angles, etc. In the old days was much harder to take a good action shot based on the inherent limitations photographers had to deal with at the time.

Depends. I personally prefer close up action shots to portraits, but portraits to far away action shots. I really like team shots too. It all depends on the photo and personal taste. Like art, photography is very subjective which makes them fun.

I prefer action shots for the most part... seeing a player performing in his natural element is much more pleasing than a posed portrait.
A really good and unique portrait image can be hard to beat though.

Also to note pricing is Night and Day when talking in uniform and in their prime as opposed to in street clothes......you might say not even in the same ballpark regarding value.

Yes. Same goes for star baseball player fishing, shoot a rifle, trying to ice skate, etc.,etc.

type 1 photos
 

Interesting, I feel the same way as you. Also wondering if photographer makes a difference.

I prefer them to be in action with no boarders and large 8x10’s. I also prefer photographer Charles M. Conlon!

I love the action shots! I want to see the athlete, in his prime, just ripping the opposition to pieces! Below is a picture of young Gretzky doing his magic!

These questions are very difficult to answer.

Objectively, no one photo is "better" than another as art appreciation is subjective. For example, I would rather spend 50million, in my fantasy world, on a Renoir than a Jackson Pollock. Is one objectively better than the other? No. Is one better subjectively? To me, yes. Someone else might choose the opposite way. Neither is right or wrong. Another, and perhaps more appropos example is that I would rather buy a Kreindler painting than a Leroy Niemann. Is the Neimann more valuable? Yes?. Will i enjoy it more? No.

To me the word better implies some objective metric of intrinsic worth. One needs to specify what one means by better. It could be price, rarity, resale value/investment potential, or something else.

Photos are, for all intents and purposes, are art with a practical use. Pioneer sports photographers were making photos more for saleability to newspapers than as artistic expressions. Now we collect them basically as art.

IMO, since i started collecting them, as many have already said, in uniform shots bring stonger prices than non uni shots.

In action is a tricky description as there are many shots, like a lot of spectacular Conlons, that are of the player doing something but are actually posed. On the flip side, there are many "in game" action shots that are worth far less than those posed ones.

Like all rules there are always exceptions. There are many highly desirable/valuable plain clothes shots. It all depends on the content. It goes back to the 4Cs identified by Yee/Fogel in their book. They are Content, Clarity, Contrast, and Condition.

Collect what you enjoy. I collect Gehrig photos. I enjoy them in all shapes and sizes. I will buy what i like and what i can afford at the time. Would i love to buy Conlon's? Sure, but i cant afford them. If the photo speaks to me and its in my price range, I'll buy it. Simple. If they appreciate in value great. If not, that's ok. I will enjoy the photo regardless.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

To me it is photo by photo. A good action shot can be terrific and a average to poor portrait can be really disappointing in person when you think from a scan or photo of it that it is going to be pretty slick.

Here is my 1951 Mantle vs Feller to show that action shots can be awesome. :)

Type 1 photos
 

Thank you so much for your opinions

Yep, is no right answer. That’s why we all have opinions.