1951 Topps Mickey Mantle Type 1 photo for '52 Topps- the story

[Leon]

I am posting this for John Rogers. He feels the rest of the story is important for this spectacular and historically significant photo. I am glad to help.
.



"I am the consignor of the much discussed Mickey Mantle Type I image that was used for Mantles 1952 Topps baseball card. With the current discussions, I felt it was important for me to provide some facts as to the photos history, my personal experiences with our nations news archives, etc.

For a brief walk through of what my business is, you can read up on us at www.rogersphotoarchive.com.
History of lot # 1341 in the current Legendary auction:
This photo was discovered in one of the many news archives we acquired over the last three years.

We have been asked "How do I know there isn't another example?" Of the top 100 news papers, based on circulation in the U.S., I have either purchased, or physically examined 93 of the top 100. We have acquired 52 million images and this is the ONLY example we have located thus far. Besides the top 100 papers based on circulation, my staff has toured dozens of other smaller, regional papers plus archives currently housed in institutions, libraries, universities and museums. In fact, there is rarely a week that's gone by that I haven't been in a newly discovered archive, with hopes for a potential purchase.

Sadly, the vast majority of newspapers have not been good protectors of their photographic history. For every 6 archives we inspect, we only issue a proposal to one. I have been in our nations oldest and most storied news archives and most have no photos prior to 1970. When there is representation of pre 70's photos, too many times we discover the major stars, athletes, politicians, and especially baseball Hall of Famers, have long ago been donated, stolen, or thrown out.

I hear the same stories from the old time photo librarians time and again....."We threw them away years ago" and "When we moved to our current building in 1982, we left the old archive behind", or, "our corporate bosses made us downsize and we threw them in the dumpsters in the mid 1980's"

These stories are what drive me to continue to preserve this lost history.

So, could another example of this much discussed image of Mantle possibly exist somewhere in the world? I say it is possible but, HIGHLY unlikely. I feel like at this point I've physically viewed 95% or the news archives that are worth viewing and after 3 years of digging in Mantles file at every stop, this is the only example discovered to date. Besides me not having personally seen another physical example, I encourage collectors to go search the web and try to find any digital representation of this image BEFORE we presented it via Legendary. When you go to Corbis and Getty, you will see they have a combined 212 million images. This image of Mantle was not one of them. With there being no digital image anywhere on the web, it makes me say with confidence that I believe nobody else in the world owns one.

Moving past Mantle.....anyone who has been collecting original Negro league photos should be labeled "smartest guy in the room". There is ZERO representation of original negro league photos in any news archive I have viewed thus far. The only exception was The Sporting News Archive and I can count them on my two hands. Original Negro League imagery is non existent from my experiences. Almost the same goes for quality big name Hall of Famers from the pre 1920 era. I can count on my two hands how many original Joe Jacksons, Christy Mathewsons, or Wagners, from their playing days, that I have seen in my inspections and acquisitions.

I believe we are in the infant stages for all things photo collecting. I would compare it to where baseball cards were in 1982. I hope that makes sense!

Thank you to every member of net54 who regularly bids in our weekly Ebay auctions. We have a HUGE announcement coming in the next week of our most recent archive acquisition. For pre war baseball fans, it is exciting!

Thanks,

John Rogers
P.S. Excuse my typos....this was done on my Droid and my fingers are too fat!"



.
.

[scmavl]

Thanks, Leon. Great info on an amazing piece.

[Cardboard Junkie]

Effing amazing!!!! Keep up the GREAT work. and please please pretty please keep us net 54ers informed. Mahalo and Aloha, dave

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by Leon

I am posting this for John Rogers. He feels the rest of the story is important for this spectacular and historically significant photo. I am glad to help.
.



"I am the consignor of the much discussed Mickey Mantle Type I image that was used for Mantles 1952 Topps baseball card. With the current discussions, I felt it was important for me to provide some facts as to the photos history, my personal experiences with our nations news archives, etc.

For a brief walk through of what my business is, you can read up on us at www.rogersphotoarchive.com.
History of lot # 1341 in the current Legendary auction:
This photo was discovered in one of the many news archives we acquired over the last three years.

We have been asked "How do I know there isn't another example?" Of the top 100 news papers, based on circulation in the U.S., I have either purchased, or physically examined 93 of the top 100. We have acquired 52 million images and this is the ONLY example we have located thus far. Besides the top 100 papers based on circulation, my staff has toured dozens of other smaller, regional papers plus archives currently housed in institutions, libraries, universities and museums. In fact, there is rarely a week that's gone by that I haven't been in a newly discovered archive, with hopes for a potential purchase.

Sadly, the vast majority of newspapers have not been good protectors of their photographic history. For every 6 archives we inspect, we only issue a proposal to one. I have been in our nations oldest and most storied news archives and most have no photos prior to 1970. When there is representation of pre 70's photos, too many times we discover the major stars, athletes, politicians, and especially baseball Hall of Famers, have long ago been donated, stolen, or thrown out.

I hear the same stories from the old time photo librarians time and again....."We threw them away years ago" and "When we moved to our current building in 1982, we left the old archive behind", or, "our corporate bosses made us downsize and we threw them in the dumpsters in the mid 1980's"

These stories are what drive me to continue to preserve this lost history.

So, could another example of this much discussed image of Mantle possibly exist somewhere in the world? I say it is possible but, HIGHLY unlikely. I feel like at this point I've physically viewed 95% or the news archives that are worth viewing and after 3 years of digging in Mantles file at every stop, this is the only example discovered to date. Besides me not having personally seen another physical example, I encourage collectors to go search the web and try to find any digital representation of this image BEFORE we presented it via Legendary. When you go to Corbis and Getty, you will see they have a combined 212 million images. This image of Mantle was not one of them. With there being no digital image anywhere on the web, it makes me say with confidence that I believe nobody else in the world owns one.

Moving past Mantle.....anyone who has been collecting original Negro league photos should be labeled "smartest guy in the room". There is ZERO representation of original negro league photos in any news archive I have viewed thus far. The only exception was The Sporting News Archive and I can count them on my two hands. Original Negro League imagery is non existent from my experiences. Almost the same goes for quality big name Hall of Famers from the pre 1920 era. I can count on my two hands how many original Joe Jacksons, Christy Mathewsons, or Wagners, from their playing days, that I have seen in my inspections and acquisitions.

I believe we are in the infant stages for all things photo collecting. I would compare it to where baseball cards were in 1982. I hope that makes sense!

Thank you to every member of net54 who regularly bids in our weekly Ebay auctions. We have a HUGE announcement coming in the next week of our most recent archive acquisition. For pre war baseball fans, it is exciting!

Thanks,

John Rogers
P.S. Excuse my typos....this was done on my Droid and my fingers are too fat!"



.
.

Another BIG thank you to Leon and to John. This really is great information and puts things in crystal clear perspective as John has without doubt viewed and had access to more vintage photos than anyone - bar none.

If true, and I now believe it is, this would also mean that International may be the only news service to have this image in a Type 1 format. Often several photographers from different agencies would cover the same event and you would see photos of the same subject(s) but taken from a slightly different angle, for example the posed shot of Mantle holding up the 565 Ft HR in 1953 by Associated Press vs United Press. Apparently this was not the case here and I have never seen this '51 pose from any perspective other than what is represented in the auction.

John's comments have changed my views significantly. Maybe this photo really will approach 100K.

Thanks again.

Craig

[GoldenAge50s]

Here's my question:

Obviously Topps and/or the artist that did the '52 Mantle had access to this photo, so isn't it reasonable to assume there is one in the Topps Archives or w/ the artist, or both?

[Splinte1941]

Originally Posted by GoldenAge50s

Here's my question:

Obviously Topps and/or the artist that did the '52 Mantle had access to this photo, so isn't it reasonable to assume there is one in the Topps Archives or w/ the artist, or both?

I would say it's very reasonable, however, if that particular version still exists (if it's not the one in question), is near impossible to say.

[mcgwirecom]

Excellent point. I would think there is another in one of their hands. Or was.

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by Leon

I am posting this for John Rogers. He feels the rest of the story is important for this spectacular and historically significant photo. I am glad to help.
.



"I am the consignor of the much discussed Mickey Mantle Type I image that was used for Mantles 1952 Topps baseball card. With the current discussions, I felt it was important for me to provide some facts as to the photos history, my personal experiences with our nations news archives, etc.

For a brief walk through of what my business is, you can read up on us at www.rogersphotoarchive.com.
History of lot # 1341 in the current Legendary auction:
This photo was discovered in one of the many news archives we acquired over the last three years.

We have been asked "How do I know there isn't another example?" Of the top 100 news papers, based on circulation in the U.S., I have either purchased, or physically examined 93 of the top 100. We have acquired 52 million images and this is the ONLY example we have located thus far. Besides the top 100 papers based on circulation, my staff has toured dozens of other smaller, regional papers plus archives currently housed in institutions, libraries, universities and museums. In fact, there is rarely a week that's gone by that I haven't been in a newly discovered archive, with hopes for a potential purchase.

Sadly, the vast majority of newspapers have not been good protectors of their photographic history. For every 6 archives we inspect, we only issue a proposal to one. I have been in our nations oldest and most storied news archives and most have no photos prior to 1970. When there is representation of pre 70's photos, too many times we discover the major stars, athletes, politicians, and especially baseball Hall of Famers, have long ago been donated, stolen, or thrown out.

I hear the same stories from the old time photo librarians time and again....."We threw them away years ago" and "When we moved to our current building in 1982, we left the old archive behind", or, "our corporate bosses made us downsize and we threw them in the dumpsters in the mid 1980's"

These stories are what drive me to continue to preserve this lost history.

So, could another example of this much discussed image of Mantle possibly exist somewhere in the world? I say it is possible but, HIGHLY unlikely. I feel like at this point I've physically viewed 95% or the news archives that are worth viewing and after 3 years of digging in Mantles file at every stop, this is the only example discovered to date. Besides me not having personally seen another physical example, I encourage collectors to go search the web and try to find any digital representation of this image BEFORE we presented it via Legendary. When you go to Corbis and Getty, you will see they have a combined 212 million images. This image of Mantle was not one of them. With there being no digital image anywhere on the web, it makes me say with confidence that I believe nobody else in the world owns one.

Moving past Mantle.....anyone who has been collecting original Negro league photos should be labeled "smartest guy in the room". There is ZERO representation of original negro league photos in any news archive I have viewed thus far. The only exception was The Sporting News Archive and I can count them on my two hands. Original Negro League imagery is non existent from my experiences. Almost the same goes for quality big name Hall of Famers from the pre 1920 era. I can count on my two hands how many original Joe Jacksons, Christy Mathewsons, or Wagners, from their playing days, that I have seen in my inspections and acquisitions.

I believe we are in the infant stages for all things photo collecting. I would compare it to where baseball cards were in 1982. I hope that makes sense!

Thank you to every member of net54 who regularly bids in our weekly Ebay auctions. We have a HUGE announcement coming in the next week of our most recent archive acquisition. For pre war baseball fans, it is exciting!

Thanks,

John Rogers
P.S. Excuse my typos....this was done on my Droid and my fingers are too fat!"



.
.

I took John's advice and looked on Corbis and found the attached image.

I'm confused.


Mickey Mantle Holding Baseball Bat
Stock Photo ID: BE002468
Date Photographed: ca. 1951
Model Released: No Release
Property Released: No Release
Credit: © Bettmann/CORBIS
License Type: Rights Managed (RM)
Category: Historical
Collection: Bettmann
Max File Size: 8 MB - 3470px × 2718px • 11.00in. × 9.00in @ 300 ppi

[Splinte1941]

Originally Posted by Frozen in Time

I took John's advice and looked on Corbis and found the attached image.

I'm confused.


Mickey Mantle Holding Baseball Bat
Stock Photo ID: BE002468
Date Photographed: ca. 1951
Model Released: No Release
Property Released: No Release
Credit: © Bettmann/CORBIS
License Type: Rights Managed (RM)
Category: Historical
Collection: Bettmann
Max File Size: 8 MB - 3470px × 2718px • 11.00in. × 9.00in @ 300 ppi

WTF??

I would assume an explanation is forthcoming? It's a larger version of the exact photo.

Again, WTF?

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by Splinte1941

WTF??

I would assume an explanation is forthcoming? It's a larger version of the exact photo.

My guess is that CORBIS owns the original negative but that still doesn't explain John's statement.

[Splinte1941]

Originally Posted by Frozen in Time

My guess is that CORBIS owns the original negative but that still doesn't explain John's statement.

What's the original negative worth?? I'll take that please.

And the question still remains if the photo in Legendary is THE photo used by the Topps artist, which is impossible to know I guess.

[yanks12025]

My thinking is, considering he's the consignor couldn't you just say that there's an unlikely chance of more being found but at the same time you own several but arn't saying so to drive the market price up?

[Splinte1941]

Originally Posted by yanks12025

My thinking is, considering he's the consignor couldn't you just say that there's an unlikely chance of more being found but at the same time you own several but arn't saying so to drive the market price up?

As a businessman, you'd have to be pretty stupid to say you had more than one if that were the case.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Splinte1941

As a businessman, you'd have to be pretty stupid to say you had more than one if that were the case.

When I spoke with John (hi John) today he made it very clear this is the only one he has seen, knows about, or has heard about.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Frozen in Time

My guess is that CORBIS owns the original negative but that still doesn't explain John's statement.

Here is a response from John.....

"Yes, Corbis owns EVERY original negative from the International News and UPI archives. While you will find scans from their full NEGATIVES, you will not find a digital image anywhere on the web, including Corbis or Getty of the original, final production International News Photo being sold in lot #1341. This leads to the common sense assumption that there is no other original International News photo of this image."





.
.

[Splinte1941]

Originally Posted by Leon

When I spoke with John (hi John) today he made it very clear this is the only one he has seen, knows about, or has heard about.

Just to be clear, I was in no way accusing John of anything. He's a hero to photo collectors.

[yanks12025]

Originally Posted by Splinte1941

Just to be clear, I was in no way accusing John of anything. He's a hero to photo collectors.

Me either, was just saying that someone could do that to make more $$.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Splinte1941

What's the original negative worth?? I'll take that please.

Oddly enough, I would wager that the original negative would sell for less than a nice Type I print, in this or most any other case. At least, that has been my experience when dealing with negatives, as counter-intuitive as that may seem (others may feel free to quote instances that prove my limited experience wrong though). My guess as to the reason why would be that, as they sit, negatives just aren't fun to look at. Most collectors would feel the need to either locate a vintage print as a companion piece or have a modern print made from the negative and then file the negative away while they view the print.

[Splinte1941]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Oddly enough, I would wager that the original negative would sell for less than a nice Type I print, in this or most any other case. At least, that has been my experience when dealing with negatives, as counter-intuitive as that may seem (others may feel free to quote instances that prove my limited experience wrong though). My guess as to the reason why would be that, as they sit, negatives just aren't fun to look at. Most collectors would feel the need to either locate a vintage print as a companion piece or have a modern print made from the negative and then file the negative away while they view the print.

I wasn't inferring that it would sell for more than the Type 1, I was really asking what it would sell for in relation to the price we're seeing now. What about the negative where a Type 1 can't be found?

[GKreindler]

...and for whatever it's worth, AP Images also sells the rights to this Mantle image, which from what I can tell, are in conjunction from Corbis/Bettman. Also, Photofile does sell modern prints of it as well, and I'm pretty sure most of their licensing deals come through Getty.

So, if nothing else, know that Corbis, Getty and AP all have some stake with this image. Which of the companies that have the actual negative (or a high-res scan from the negative), I do not know.

I could certainly try to find out if anyone's interested, though I imagine I wouldn't get any response until sometime tomorrow...

Graig

[glynparson]

how else can one individual look at 95% of 52 million photos. His words not mine.

[drc]

Negatives are rarer, but, to me at least, they're not terribly attractive to look at. Does no good to hang it on the wall. Also, they're production items, where the AP photo is the final product-- the figurative final painting on canvas. The original 1952 Topps printing plate with Mantle would probably sell for much less than a high grade 52T Mantle card.

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by Leon

Here is a response from John.....

"Yes, Corbis owns EVERY original negative from the International News and UPI archives. While you will find scans from their full NEGATIVES, you will not find a digital image anywhere on the web, including Corbis or Getty of the original, final production International News Photo being sold in lot #1341. This leads to the common sense assumption that there is no other original International News photo of this image."





.
.

Thanks Leon and John. Sorry, I obviously misunderstood the original statement. Should have realized it was the final production version you where referring to.

And John , congratulations - $60,000 for a Post-War photo - not too bad!!!

Craig

[Leon]

Originally Posted by glynparson

how else can one individual look at 95% of 52 million photos. His words not mine.

Maybe when he said "he" he meant himself and his 70+ workers that help him?

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by drc

Negatives are rarer, but, to me at least, they're not terribly attractive to look at. Does no good to hang it on the wall. Also, they're production items, where the AP photo is the final product-- the figurative final painting on canvas. The original 1952 Topps printing plate with Mantle would probably sell for much less than a high grade 52T Mantle card.

Agreed.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by glynparson

how else can one individual look at 95% of 52 million photos. His words not mine.

He also specifically mentioned pulling the Mantle file at every location he went to (which I'm sure he also did with other HOF players). Also remember that the 52 million or whatever total he's up to now (I'm sure it's increased since he wrote that) includes not just sports images, but also planes, trains, architecture, political, celebrity, social event, and every other kind of image you can think of. I think it would be a safe assumption that he's seen most if not all of the baseball images (as that's his personal area of interest, from what I've gathered) and probably most of the sports images, but I doubt he took the time to peruse the "butter queen" and "mule day parade" folders that would be included in those millions of images. It would make sense to me that he would pull and personally inspect the files most likely to contain primo shots, and trust his staff to dig through the others and bring anything of interest to his attention without him having to touch every single photograph.

[glynparson]

I think It is not possible to look at that many images and know whats there. It sounds like pure hyperbole to me. I dont think you realize how much 52 million images is. Also isnt this the same guy said he owned 2 wagners when Dave already bought the 5mc from him and Jeff called him out? or is that another photo guy? Sounds like the typical hobby hype to me. Cool image and I agree it has extreme value I just dont think it needs the puffery.

[Splinte1941]

Originally Posted by glynparson

I think It is not possible to look at that many images and know whats there. It sounds like pure hyperbole to me. I dont think you realize how much 52 million images is. Also isnt this the same guy said he owned 2 wagners when Dave already bought the 5mc from him and Jeff called him out? or is that another photo guy? Sounds like the typical hobby hype to me. Cool image and I agree it has extreme value I just dont think it needs the puffery.

Let's remember one thing here. This is 99% business and 1% hobby. From auction houses shilling their asses off to other people creating a market for items such as this Mantle photo, it's all about the money, and how to best extract the money from the hands and pockets of willing collectors.

I think there are very few of us who will actually take our collections to the grave or pass them on to someone else. IMO, the majority of us will at some point look to cash in on the "investment" and use those assets for other more important life events or circumstances that will happen to us all eventually. And this after years of enjoying the chase of collecting.

Do I think more than one Type 1 of this photo exists? Of course, but none of us can prove it, so the market and hype gets created and it leads inevitably to discussions like this. Something is worth what someone is willing to pay for it, but only to that specific person.

[Leon]

All of this being said if the timing was a bit more right for me I would have bid more than the winning bid. Not sure how high the winner was going to go but I think the photo is that nice and that significant. If one or others came out, I wouldn't have cared. Whomever won this got a good deal imo.....hype or no hype (and hell yes, hype is part of the hobby, we as collectors just need to understand what is important to us and try not to get caught up in it)

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by Splinte1941

Let's remember one thing here. This is 99% business and 1% hobby. From auction houses shilling their asses off to other people creating a market for items such as this Mantle photo, it's all about the money, and how to best extract the money from the hands and pockets of willing collectors.

I think there are very few of us who will actually take our collections to the grave or pass them on to someone else. IMO, the majority of us will at some point look to cash in on the "investment" and use those assets for other more important life events or circumstances that will happen to us all eventually. And this after years of enjoying the chase of collecting.

Do I think more than one Type 1 of this photo exists? Of course, but none of us can prove it, so the market and hype gets created and it leads inevitably to discussions like this. Something is worth what someone is willing to pay for it, but only to that specific person.

Originally Posted by Leon

All of this being said if the timing was a bit more right for me I would have bid more than the winning bid. Not sure how high the winner was going to go but I think the photo is that nice and that significant. If one or others came out, I wouldn't have cared. Whomever won this got a good deal imo.....hype or no hype (and hell yes, hype is part of the hobby, we as collectors just need to understand what is important to us and try not to get caught up in it)

I actually agree with both Jake and Leon on this. Must admit that I am keeping my fingers crossed that other Type 1's will eventually surface.

[Bibitte2]

When i saw this post, i figured, why not ask the question since some Mantle expert joined the parade.....

I got some very old printing plates last week, they are from the 50's and older...
.
.
One of the plate is this photo taken after the 1952 World series in the clubhouse from Mantle/Mize/Reynolds....
.
.
I also have a Babe Ruth with Jimmy Fox, Hank Greenberg, Ralph Kiner, Hack Wilson home run club printing plate,,,i could not find this photo yet...last picture...
.
The original photo sold at auction a few years back and comes from the Boston Globe's Archives....here's the photo that sold and the plate....
.

.

.
.

.