Question Regarding MEARS / Legendary Photos

[ejharrington]

Hello,

I am relatively new to the hobby and have a question that I hope someone can answer. In the November 2009 Legendary auction, lot # 1055 was a photograph of John Collins of the Red Sox that had some what looked like unique notations on the back. It sold for $100 plus commission.

I was just browsing the current MEARS auction and saw what looks like the exact same photo with the same exact notations on the back listed with a current bid of $25. Apparently the only difference is a Sporting News Collection sticker at the bottom right of the back below the notations.

Can someone explain how this can be? I can understand multiple Type I photos of the same image but would not expect the back notations to be identical. The only thing I can think of is that the buyer from the Legendary Auction turned around and consigned with MEARS but that doesn't make sense to me.

Any assistance would be appreciated.

Eric

[Leon]

Originally Posted by ejharrington

Hello,

The only thing I can think of is that the buyer from the Legendary Auction turned around and consigned with MEARS but that doesn't make sense to me.

Any assistance would be appreciated.

Eric

Hi Eric
Welcome to our forum, Net54baseball.com. Personally, I buy from many auctions and those things could easily end up in another auction, even very soon afterwards. It happens all of the time with many collectors/flippers/dealers. Maybe whomever bought it the first time thought they got a good enough deal to flip it and make money? I am curious why this wouldn't make sense to you? Take care

[ejharrington]

Thanks Leon for the quick response; I guess it doesn't make sense to me because his $100 bid was the only one (it wasn't like there was deep demand for it) and I would guess that if someone wants to pay $100 plus a 18.5% premium for a photograph he would want to keep it for awhile. But I guess that must be what happened.

[baseballart]

Leon

If they are the same photo, then the TSN hologram was added after the photo had been sold by Legendary. I think the post is questioning why this would have been done by TSN after the photo had left the TSN archives

[Leon]

Originally Posted by ejharrington

Thanks Leon for the quick response; I guess it doesn't make sense to me because his $100 bid was the only one (it wasn't like there was deep demand for it) and I would guess that if someone wants to pay $100 plus a 18.5% premium for a photograph he would want to keep it for awhile. But I guess that must be what happened.

IF you keep watching the hobby long enough this type situation won't make your "top 1000" of strange things that happen .Since I am in the hobby as an addicted collector, help run a small (but growing ) auction house, help moderate this forum and am doing a start up self-service auction venture, I have seen quite a bit. The scenario you quoted is actually very normal. Happy collecting and once again, welcome aboard!!!

[bcbgcbrcb]

I'm not sure in what scenario it would be appropriate for a TSN hologram to be applied during the past year on an item that sold without it at auction in 2009? (Personally, I don't believe that the TSN hologram makes any difference in value one way or the other)

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

I'm not sure in what scenario it would be appropriate for a TSN hologram to be applied during the past year on an item that sold without it at auction in 2009? (Personally, I don't believe that the TSN hologram makes any difference in value one way or the other)

I'm with Phil here, I don't see what value if any the TSN hologram adds. Also as Leon has noted this buying at one house and flipping at another is a very common scenario.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by baseballart

Leon

If they are the same photo, then the TSN hologram was added after the photo had been sold by Legendary. I think the post is questioning why this would have been done by TSN after the photo had left the TSN archives

That is not the way it looks to me from the response given to my initial post (though the sticker question could be a minor add on question). The main question was more regarding the quick flipping of the photo. As for the sticker, my guess is that it was actually on there before and after the original auction. And I agree with Phil to a certain extent. And why I say "to a certain extent" is that, so far, I have not seen any of the TSN photos be mislabeled vis a vis the players on them. As we all know there is quite a bit of mistaken identity with photos, so when I see one with one of those stickers I know that most likely it is not a mistaken identity. Just my thoughts.... regards

ok...after re-reading the original question it does look like both scenarios were being questioned equally. I have no idea why a hologram would be added after the fact...and I am sticking to my original thought that it was probably there but just missed, originally.

[drc]

Could be that MEARS, or someone associated, was the consigner of the Sporting News photos and photos that didn't sell or meet reserve in the last MEARS auction were put in the Legendary auction. MEARS had a large Sporting News photos collection a while back. It's also possible that it was a consigner to MEARS that then consigned unsold photos to Legendary. I don't know when the MEARS auction ended or what sold where.

That minimum bids changed between auction houses is nothing abnormal. Discretion of the auction houses.

This is just an idea. I have no special inside information.

As a collector, I think a Sporting News hologram is nice, but I would not triple my bid for it. I don't triple my bid for nice. Might double it for excellent. Raise it by 1/3 for sexy.