1915 Ruth Red Sox Pitching Staff Photo

[Snapolit1]

Am I the only one who thinks this 1915 Ruth photo in the last RMY auction auction was a good grab for the price? Asking for a friend...

https://rmyauctions.com/bids/bidplace?itemid=28605

http://insider.si.edu/2012/04/babe-r...pitchers-1915/

Rhys had it as Type 1 timing but not off the original negative.

[Bicem]

1920 stamp but a well known 1915 image. Because of PSA standards won't get a type one letter. Plus obviously significantly cut down.

That said, was still a pretty good deal in my opinion.

[Shoeless Moe]

I dissent, seems like an awfully strong price for size 3 x 7 (muy poquito) and not considered a Type 1.

[prewarsports]

The Underwood stamp on the back is known to have existed in 1918 and possibly earlier and is well known in 1919 so it is a 1915 photo with a back stamp from c. 1918. You are correct though, by the PSA standards this would not get a Type 1 designation as it is clearly off a duplicate negative. I think the biggest room for upward mobility in the photo industry is in images like this. People act like "Type 1" is synonymous with "original" and "Type 3" is similar to an autograph failing authentication, but that is just not the case. This is just as "original" as any other Ruth Red Sox image as far as the vintage goes. If E121 cards are going to go for 20k because he is pictured with the Red Sox on the card, its hard to argue this was not a good deal! I would take this over many of the other Ruth items I see selling at auction for bigger prices all day long.

[drcy]

I think collectors give too much of value premium on a photo merely because it's a 'rookie year' photo. Just my opinion.

Honestly, I think it's a pretty marginal photo, and people value it highly just because it's an early Ruth.

[Bicem]

I'd argue rookie photos are underpriced compared to rookie cards. Especially in Ruth's case where his rc is a 1916 issue.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

This is just as "original" as any other Ruth Red Sox image as far as the vintage goes.

And so are pictures of Ruth from 1918 publications.

The "duplicate negative" makes all the difference. Doesn't matter how close to 1915 it was printed if it is of inferior quality due to not being printed from the original negative.

One of the things I've hated to see happen since vintage photos took off in popularity, is all the 'collectors' who are now collecting photos the way cards are collected. Photos are great because of the clarity and composition of their images on the print. It's super-great when you can find a print made from the original negative very close to when the negative was created; however, we can also appreciate great prints made many years later from original negative. On the other hand, it's tough to appreciate a blurry print made from a second-generation negative, then trimmed down to tiny size.

Two enthusiastic thumbs down.

[prewarsports]

Agreed. In MANY cases (like about 99% of all Ansel Adams prints) there is no such thing as a Type 1, as almost all of his images were struck more than two years after they were originally taken. To educated buyers of his art it does not matter at all. Photos are not cards and I tell people they are similar to game used bats. Working, functional, tools of a trade that now have tremendous value after the fact. There is no right or wrong, just an emerging collectible that is finding its way in the world.

I agree that all the educated opinions are great!