Mastro Auction Photos prices realized...

[thekingofclout]

I'd say it's now safe to say, that PSA's decision to slab photographs won't be ruining the hobby anytime soon...

Price Realized - $25,200
PSAwiilliams.jpg

Price Realized - $18,000
113186ia_lg.jpg

Price Realized - $12,000
PSAruth-1.jpg

Price Realized - $7,800
PSAruth-3.jpg

Price Realized - $6,000
PSAgehrig.jpg

[jacksons]

Those prices include buyer's premium, Jimmy?

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by jacksons

Those prices include buyer's premium, Jimmy?

LOL... they sure do.

[sayhey24]

Wow.
Any winnings Jimmy?

Greg
http://www.baseballbasement.com

[GKreindler]

You won all of them, didn't you Jimmy?

Every photo in Mastro's auction was an absolute gem. And surprisingly, some of them went a lot cheaper than I thought they would. The shot of Gehrig's farewell, though almost going for 5K, I think was a steal. It's just interesting to note how a striking Conlon portrait of Williams and those Thompson Ruth's can beat it out. And that's not to say that those other shots were slouches - obviously they were the complete opposite.

It makes me wonder, what is it about those single player shots that is so much more desirable than those with multiple figures? Does it have anything to do with their connection to cards? And I mean that not because of the frequency in which the cards are interpretations of those photographs, but because it might be easier to identify with a simple portrait of a player looking into a camera. Is it because they're just really simple? And I don't mean that in way that's condescending or anything. In those Thompsons of Ruth swinging, you have a beautiful vertical, full-body shot of the man, and everything else falls into the background so nicely. The clarity, contrast, condition, light and how they all relate to Ruth makes the photo almost completely out of this world from an aesthetic. In other words, there's not much other 'superfluous' information to make the image super busy.

Conversely, the Gehrig image is absolutely timeless and depicts one of the most famous moments in the history of the sport. Hell, that day transcends sport. In the image, my eyes go to Gehrig first, but then there's so much more - Sid Mercer, the Yankee players, The 7th regiment band, the Senators, the gifts, the stadium, etc. All of those things, though 'extras' in the image are by no means superfluous - they ALL add to the narrative of the story. Because of that, I almost feel like it should have gone for about 10k more than it did.

I guess I also think of it from an artist's point of view, too. Back in school, whenever we were painting a single figure or a portrait, it always seemed to be treated as a study. It was our task to put said figures into a painting that told a story - which was to be treated as the final product.

Then again, the major of illustration is all about the narrative. Hell, it's even from the root of the word!

So, is it as simple as a couple of bidders got really passionate about those Williams and Thompson Ruths, and for whatever reason, not so much with the Gehrig? Or is there a reason I'm not quite getting?

I'm sorry for hijacking a thread, but I guess it really got me wondering: photo collectors, what do you focus on, and why?

My head hurts.

Graig

[Leon]

Hey Graig
I don't think you hijacked the thread at all. I think you added a lot of valuable insight and it's appreciated. Sometimes I think the simplicity of the single player photos makes them more "real". Those 2 shots of Ruth swinging were absolutely amazing. It's no wonder they went for so much. I am not really a photo collector but those were awesome to look at. Mastro certainly collected some of the finest sports collectibles. I was thinking about my piddly collection and how it is fairly low grade, compared to the items last night. He really did collect the best of the best and it showed.

[prewarsports]

I think some of the older photo collectors who now can not afford photos they used to buy would say the slabbing process is ruining the hobby. I guess it depends on who you talk to. Everybody knew it would drive prices of the really high end stuff way up, but I dont think it really changed the prices of $200-$1000 photos much.

Rhys

[bcbgcbrcb]

I really liked the '50 Mantle - Joplin Minor League photo but got too expensive for my pocketbook, $3,750 + juice.........

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

I think some of the older photo collectors who now can not afford photos they used to buy would say the slabbing process is ruining the hobby. I guess it depends on who you talk to. Everybody knew it would drive prices of the really high end stuff way up, but I dont think it really changed the prices of $200-$1000 photos much.

Rhys

Good point as always Rhys. The difference between Legendary's November auction (photos) and December auction is the PSA LOA. We had a good thread about how we all felt about the lack of descriptions in their catalog, was basically evasive at best.

So, it is my belief that soon, many photos between the $400-1000 range will be submitted, and of course content and not the slab will be the main factor that determines the prices of said photos. The slab is there to give buyers confidence that what they are buying is indeed legit.

It is quite clear that photos can be fantastic collectibles, but many new collectors are not yet able to tell the difference of a TYPE I or to the lesser valued TYPE II or III, but they will most likely have ten fold confidence in bidding on a slabbed photo rather than a raw one, regardless of price.

My best, Jimmy

[19cbb]

Originally Posted by thekingofclout

It is quite clear that photos can be fantastic collectibles, but many new collectors are not yet able to tell the difference of a TYPE I or to the lesser valued TYPE II or III, but they will most likely have ten fold confidence in bidding on a slabbed photo rather than a raw one, regardless of price.

Are we sure these grading service companies can tell the difference between a "TYPE I, II, III" photograph?

Oh wait, sure they can... because they created the system!

This reminds me of the "Cups" card game in Friends (Sorry Seinfeld fans!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-ZmM5asSUc

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by GKreindler

You won all of them, didn't you Jimmy?

Every photo in Mastro's auction was an absolute gem. And surprisingly, some of them went a lot cheaper than I thought they would. The shot of Gehrig's farewell, though almost going for 5K, I think was a steal. It's just interesting to note how a striking Conlon portrait of Williams and those Thompson Ruth's can beat it out. And that's not to say that those other shots were slouches - obviously they were the complete opposite.

It makes me wonder, what is it about those single player shots that is so much more desirable than those with multiple figures? Does it have anything to do with their connection to cards? And I mean that not because of the frequency in which the cards are interpretations of those photographs, but because it might be easier to identify with a simple portrait of a player looking into a camera. Is it because they're just really simple? And I don't mean that in way that's condescending or anything. In those Thompsons of Ruth swinging, you have a beautiful vertical, full-body shot of the man, and everything else falls into the background so nicely. The clarity, contrast, condition, light and how they all relate to Ruth makes the photo almost completely out of this world from an aesthetic. In other words, there's not much other 'superfluous' information to make the image super busy.

Conversely, the Gehrig image is absolutely timeless and depicts one of the most famous moments in the history of the sport. Hell, that day transcends sport. In the image, my eyes go to Gehrig first, but then there's so much more - Sid Mercer, the Yankee players, The 7th regiment band, the Senators, the gifts, the stadium, etc. All of those things, though 'extras' in the image are by no means superfluous - they ALL add to the narrative of the story. Because of that, I almost feel like it should have gone for about 10k more than it did.

I guess I also think of it from an artist's point of view, too. Back in school, whenever we were painting a single figure or a portrait, it always seemed to be treated as a study. It was our task to put said figures into a painting that told a story - which was to be treated as the final product.

Then again, the major of illustration is all about the narrative. Hell, it's even from the root of the word!

So, is it as simple as a couple of bidders got really passionate about those Williams and Thompson Ruths, and for whatever reason, not so much with the Gehrig? Or is there a reason I'm not quite getting?

I'm sorry for hijacking a thread, but I guess it really got me wondering: photo collectors, what do you focus on, and why?

My head hurts.

Graig

Graiger,
I agree. The "Great Events/multiple players" seemed weak in this auction-Gehrig day photo, Ted Williams 1941 all-star hr, 1927 yankee team, mantle/aaron 1957 card photo to name a few.
The photos I mentioned above are a must at those prices if financially able.
I personally like the portraits. I was third highest bidder on the Ted Williams Conlon. I had to stop when my bid could have bought a new car. Not sure what kind, but I know I could have bought something...
I was bidding emotionally. Unfortunately, there were three of us. These single portrait shots capture the player/person/soul...particularly the Williams. I think the Williams portrait, Gehrig streak ending and Gehrig day were the 3 that moved me the most. The Ruth swinging shots..yeah...they are neat but just not my thing. Obviously, they are someone's thing though.. Ok...maybe I would not kick the Ruth pre-swing photo out of bed for eating potato chips...but don't tell my Gehrig Bain.

[jacksons]

I think some of you nailed it when speaking about "passion" or "bidding emotionally".

If you're a Ted Williams guy, maybe you just see a final opportunity to pick up that Conlon you've always known to exist, and always wanted.

Same goes for the Ruths - it depends on what drives you. This auction had something for everyone - it only takes two people with the same interests to drive the prices through the roof.

I played the game late into the night and am disappointed where I personally ended up, but it sure was fun to watch! That 1931 shot of Ruth started around $2k and ended up around $6k or $7k in after hours alone!!!

Alot of money was spent on some terrific items - I'm just glad they went to collectors who are passionate and emotional about this hobby - as fellow collectors, what more could you ask for?

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by jacksons

I think some of you nailed it when speaking about "passion" or "bidding emotionally".

If you're a Ted Williams guy, maybe you just see a final opportunity to pick up that Conlon you've always known to exist, and always wanted.

Same goes for the Ruths - it depends on what drives you. This auction had something for everyone - it only takes two people with the same interests to drive the prices through the roof.

I played the game late into the night and am disappointed where I personally ended up, but it sure was fun to watch! That 1931 shot of Ruth started around $2k and ended up around $6k or $7k in after hours alone!!!

Alot of money was spent on some terrific items - I'm just glad they went to collectors who are passionate and emotional about this hobby - as fellow collectors, what more could you ask for?

Well put Jacksons. Of course emotion is largely what drives ALL sports memorabilia, unlike card collectors who tend to keep to a want list.

And regardless of what piece of memorabilia is at auction, you still need two to tango in order to realize strong prices.

I also got just about skunked and ended up with just this one Joe D photo. But I got it for a good price.

BTW... Boy am I glad I pulled the trigger on that Mantle/Wingfield TYPE 1 photo earlier in the week!

joeD45.jpgjoeD45verso.jpg

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by GKreindler

the major of illustration is all about the narrative.

Graig

I agree. I picked up several photos and art pieces in the November Legendary auction because I liked the way they looked or what they showed.

[benchod]

Is there a way to determine the year that the Paul Thompson series(dugout-swing) of Ruth photos is from?