Henry Yee Photos and Photos in General - Skeptical

[Shoeless Moe]

I understand Type I photos are all the rage, but sometime you may think your getting a 1 of a kind, and it turns out you are not. I've seen the exact same photo by either a Bain, or Thompson or Conlon, but with the stampings in different places on the back or in different condition. So while yes it may be an original don't assume it's a one of a kinf, because it may not be.

Example:

From the HYEE Auction that just ended Sunday:

http://cgi.ebay.com/1910-s-Original-...ts_Memorabilia

Now from a Legandary Auction that ended last year:

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...x?lotid=102196

Same exact photo on the front, but different markings and condition. So while the purchaser may have thought they got a one of a kind, there is a exact same one out there, and maybe more.

Sorry to be a little skeptical, but I think people are sometimes overpaying, thinking they are getting a one of a kind, and in a sense they are, but then again, they may not be.

[HRBAKER]

I would assume as long as there is/was a negative there are likely multiple copies of most photos.

[hcv123]

If a seller is marketing a photo as one of a kind, I would call that somewhere between irresposible and flat out lying. That said, there are certainly a limited (in most cases) number of a particular image that could/does exist. So if there are 5 copies or 10 copies or 100 hundred copies - still a great collectible and undervalued (in relation to many other collectible categories) in my opinion.

[JasonL]

Originally Posted by hcv123

If a seller is marketing a photo as one of a kind, I would call that somewhere between irresposible and flat out lying. That said, there are certainly a limited (in most cases) number of a particular image that could/does exist. So if there are 5 copies or 10 copies or 100 hundred copies - still a great collectible and undervalued (in relation to many other collectible categories) in my opinion.

and I would have to say I agree with the gist of it, but doesn't the uncertainty bother photo collectors, or are there other reasons out there that give you some comfort as to a photo/image's relative rarity/scarcity?

very interesting topic.

[Ladder7]

Originally Posted by JasonL

and I would have to say I agree with the gist of it, but doesn't the uncertainty bother photo collectors, or are there other reasons out there that give you some comfort as to a photo/image's relative rarity/scarcity?

very interesting topic.

Though I have several original shots that are IMO, one of a kind. I have to agree with the others, there were likely no 1/1 Type 1s developed.

There's uncertainty in cards as well. Manufacturers rarely divulge(d) production numbers. Except for a very few ie, T206 big four, E135 blank backs etc etc., There are far more baseball card Issues than any Type 1 photos. It's why Ive changed focus to photos, premiums and supplements.

I think the Christy Walsh collection as well as others agents, must have contained several T1 duplicates. These guys were marketing madmen in their day.

It would be terrific if Ol' Henry would chime in.

[HRBAKER]

Steve,
I agree there may be some one offs and I don't really think that these photos are being marketed as one offs as well. When I say there are likely to be multiple copies maybe that is better put as there probably was and no one can be certain how many or few have survived. I think that if I was an active buyer I would provide for the fact that another may/could surface. It is a very intriguing growth area in the hobby IMO.