Photos in Legendary's Auction

[Matt]

Does anyone know if the photos in Legendary's current auction are Type 1s? The minimum bids bely that they are, but nowhere in the description does it say that they are and many of them have no markings on the back at all that could be used to identify them.

Here are some as an example:

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...x?lotid=114943
http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...x?lotid=115233
http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...x?lotid=115076

[bcbgcbrcb]

Matt:

I saw the Paterson, NJ (Wagner) photo in person at the National in Baltimore and it is definitely not a Type I. Not sure about the other two that you mentioned but my guess is that many are and many are not in this auction. It would be nice if Legendary could identify them in their description (unless they don't want to take the responsibility and then end up with return requests after the auction if they are wrong).

[Matt]

So, at the moment, someone is paying $125 + BP for a photo that might have been printed 10 years ago...

[sporteq]

A lot of the photos are re-strikes.. NOT worth buying!!

Best of luck!!

aL

[D. Bergin]

That first one is definitely a later restrike.

Whatever scanning process they are using is not helping their cause either.

[Ladder7]

Typical of this cartel. Sorry, thinkin out loud again.

[D. Bergin]

This auction is loaded with re-strikes. Which is fine if you at least give hint of this in the auctions.

Looks like they decided they didn't have time to do this and threw everything up against a wall with a general template for a description and let the chips fall where they may.

I guess because it's from "The Sporting News Archives" we're supposed to think all of the photos they list are extra special. I especially like the Dummy Hoy with the 1994 print date on the back.

Mind you, there's plenty of legitimate, vintage material mixed in there to. I just find it odd for them to mix vintage photographs with later restrikes without so much of a notation in the descriptions as to which is which.

The rushed, washed out scans don't help either.

I don't think it's an attempt to deceive either. I think they are inundated with so many photos, they thought this was the quickest, most efficient way to list as many as possible. Unfortunately for them, the number of obvious later generation photos in the grouping will probably keep the prices of the legitimate vintage shots down to a reasonable level for those with a discerning eye as to the difference. It may also lead to a lot of people seeking refunds after the auctions are over because they weren't sure what they were bidding on.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

It may also lead to a lot of people seeking refunds after the auctions are over because they weren't sure what they were bidding on.

Which will not be honored as per their T & C.

I believe both PSA & BVG do have a service which would have handled the photo ID for them if they really were just undermanned.

[perezfan]

The descriptions seem very arbitrary and incomplete. At least this time, they indicated the size of most of the photos. But there are tons in there that will garner big bucks, and are definitely not Type 1.

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by Matt

I believe both PSA & BVG do have a service which would have handled the photo ID for them if they really were just undermanned.

My guess is it takes time and effort to prepare a photo for submission to a grading company.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Rob:

Let's not forget that the grading companies are not going to provide this service free of charge........

[HRBAKER]

If they get the bids without the added cost then maybe ambiguity is more profitable.

[D. Bergin]

I've seen Beckett label Wire photos as Type I, so I'm not sure that's the answer either.

Fact is, for the majority of these photos, it's a ridiculous idea to go through the expense of encapsulating them. They should have a photo guy on their staff to be able to label the approximate vintage of each photo, however.

Tell us whether it's vintage to the era or a later printing. Whether it's a Wire photo or a Press photo. Give us the basics at least. Some photos it's just plain hard to tell. If you can't tell, then say so.

If they want to keep it real simple. Try and take less washed out scans of the backs and put the photo in one of two categories. Hell, they can even keep it a bit vague if they want.

#1. Probably vintage to the era.

#2. Probably a later generation file copy. Not vintage to the time the original photo was taken.

If they want to add more details like the time period they think the photo was actually printed........well the more power to them I guess.

[David Atkatz]

There's no such thing as a Type I photo. Just an absurd and unverifiable categorization, invented by the grading companies to bilk people out of even more money.

Ask any photo archivist.

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Rob:

Let's not forget that the grading companies are not going to provide this service free of charge........

Uh, OK.

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

There's no such thing as a Type I photo. Just an absurd and unverifiable categorization, invented by the grading companies to bilk people out of even more money.

Ask any photo archivist.

David,
I am not sure the grading companies invented it but I agree with you on this one.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

If they get the bids without the added cost then maybe ambiguity is more profitable.

WE'VE GOT A BINGO!

EXAMPLE:
Not "Type 1"= 90 percent of photos.
"TYPE 1"= 10 percent of photos.
*Numbers above are arbitrary but you get the point*


If all the crap goes for 3-5 times what it would with say later type classification and the "Type 1s" go for half, the auction house is doing pretty well without paying for authentication. At least Legendary shows the backs of the photos.

[bcbgcbrcb]

I think that if you look closely at the starting bids matched up to each individual item, I think you can get a pretty good idea of which items the auction house/consignor believes to be Type I's and which are not.

ie- mid-career images of John McGraw, Kenesaw Landis, Willie Keeler @ $200 each

1896 Paterson w/Honus Wagner @ $100 each

[Matt]

Phil - so the $100 starting bid of the first example I posted above is what one would expect to pay for a recent copy of a photo? Seems to me that's a Type 1 starting bid...

[Matt]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

There's no such thing as a Type I photo. Just an absurd and unverifiable categorization, invented by the grading companies to bilk people out of even more money.

Ask any photo archivist.

David - what is the correct terminology for a period strike from an original negative? When I say Type 1, that's what I have in mind, but I'd be glad to use the correct terminology.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Matt:

Other than the image not being period, I can't tell you if it was produced during the 1910's era, 1920's, 1930's, 1940's, etc. My guess is that it was not produced during the modern era (1970's - 2000's). Since the 1896 Paterson image of Wagner is the second oldest pro baseball image of Wagner known to exist, an original would probably bring 5-figures as a cabinet card sold for $20,000+ a number of years ago. An original Wagner in this auction would start at a minimum of $1,000+ IMHO.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Matt:

Other than the image not being period, I can't tell you if it was produced during the 1910's era, 1920's, 1930's, 1940's, etc. My guess is that it was not produced during the modern era (1970's - 2000's). Since the 1896 Paterson image of Wagner is the second oldest pro baseball image of Wagner known to exist, an original would probably bring 5-figures as a cabinet card sold for $20,000+ a number of years ago. An original Wagner in this auction would start at a minimum of $1,000+ IMHO.

Phil - as far as I can see, all the photos in the archive section of the auction have starting bids of $50, $100 or $200.

[Ladder7]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

There's no such thing as a Type I photo. Just an absurd and unverifiable categorization,..

Though they need to be called something. Seems the Type 1-4 labels are difficult for some collectors, especially the developed within two years theory.

This aspect of the hobby is in it's infancy. To protect naive buyers, and there are many., You've got to agree, there needs to be some mechanism to distinguish the original/period shots from; those done (decades) later, transmitted by wire and photos of old photos -to protect naive photo buyers. The fact is, some of these are technically reprints.

I believe Legendary is acting irresponsibly and folks are going to get scrood. Steve

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by Ladder7

Though they need to be called something. Seems the Type 1-4 labels are difficult for some collectors, especially the developed within two years theory.

This aspect of the hobby is in it's infancy. To protect naive buyers, and there are many., You've got to agree, there needs to be some mechanism to distinguish the original/period shots from; those done (decades) later, transmitted by wire and photos of old photos -to protect naive photo buyers. The fact is, some of these are technically reprints.

I believe Legendary is acting irresponsibly and folks are going to get scrood. Steve

Terrific post Goombah! You're absolutely spot on.

[glchen]

FYI, I sent an email to Legendary about the Babe Ruth Red Sox photo (Lot 1684) in the current Legendary Auction, and the quick response that I received from Doug Allen of Legendary was as follows:

"Keystone View Company was in existence from the early 1900’s to the mid 1930’s.
I do not believe this to be a type I photo but I believe it dates to the mid 30’s."

Keystone had a stamp on the back of the photo, but there was also a marking for 1983 that seemed confusing.

[drc]

News photos were often reused, restamped, shipped to another place and kept on file for years, so it's not rare for a photo to have different stamps, including stamps from different dates. If a photo has an old stamp and a new stamp, the photo is at least as old as the old stamp. So the old Keystone View stamp is reliable dater for the photo, and the new date stamp shouldn't worry you.

I haven't looked at the photo, but Doug's response seems good.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Ladder7

This aspect of the hobby is in it's infancy. To protect naive buyers, and there are many., You've got to agree, there needs to be some mechanism to distinguish the original/period shots from; those done (decades) later, transmitted by wire and photos of old photos -to protect naive photo buyers. The fact is, some of these are technically reprints.

I believe Legendary is acting irresponsibly and folks are going to get scrood.

I will admit to being a naive photo shopper (not going to be a buyer). From my limited understanding, photos carry value when they were printed from the original negative around the time the photo was taken. The same photo produced in 2004 would not have that value. As such, mixing both of these types of photos together is almost like them selling the baseball cards raw and mixing in reprints with the authentic ones and not saying which are which. Some are original and worth quite a bit, others were printed recently, and although the image on the front is the same, the value is quite different. As far as cards go, that is unthinkable, but it seems that's what they've done here for photos.

[HRBAKER]

Matt, that is why I think the safest approach is to assume that no one has any idea when any of them were printed for sure. Thus rendering "timeframes" tied to designations for categorization and pricing a substantial "reach" IMO. And I am a photo shopper and buyer.

[scgaynor]

At the very least, you can usually narrow it down to a 10 year period based on paper type, even when there is no stamping. That pretty much comes with experience though. Otherwise you have to go with stamping, type of paper used for the caption sheet, etc.

Also, famous images were often produced over and over again, but the vast majority of the mundane images were produced for one time only and the dating on the photo will be the one and only time that it was printed. In other words, you want to be more careful when buying an image of Don Larsen pitching his perfect game than an image of Smead Jolly standing in the batters box.

Scott

[drc]

My opinion is Legendary should have done a better job describing individual photos. I would expect more info from an eBay seller.

However, as someone earlier noted, Doug gave a clear and reasoned answer about a photo when asked.

I'd offer them my services, but I have an ex-girlfriend who lives in Chicago and wouldn't want to chance bumping into her. Just joking. She's in Minneapolis, but that's still too close to chance.

[Leon]

I think they should have done a better job at describing them. The photos that were made around the time of the actual event will be worth more, as already said. Some of these are on "whiter" looking paper and those are the ones that I would think would be later. The ones on the older looking, sort of brownish paper, are the more original to year taken, ones. It's actually fairly easy to tell them apart when holding them. I am far, far from a photo expert but have handled a few. Also, the older ones will have mfg/age marks in the pictures themselves...little bumps, bruises etc.....I think that gives them their authentic look too and makes them look more original to me.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by drc

My opinion is Legendary should have done a better job describing individual photos. I would expect more info from an eBay seller.

However, as someone earlier noted, Doug gave a clear and reasoned answer about a photo when asked.

I'd offer them my services, but I have an ex-girlfriend who lives in Chicago and wouldn't want to chance bumping into her. Just joking. She's in Minneapolis, but that's still too close to chance.

David:
Usually, women don't hang out anywhere near the vicinity of where sports memorabilia resides. So there's probably no danger in visiting Legendary to provide some necessary assistance.

If your "ex" is the exception to this rule, can you introduce me?

[drc]

If she's too good for me, she's certainly too good for you

[perezfan]

I'm sure you're right.

Plus, it would be a disaster if she was knowledgeable enough to know how much I really spend on this stuff

[drc]

She's a lawyer. I don't know if that would be good or bad for your cause. Likely, good before the breakup, bad after.