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.........

[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.

[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

[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?

[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?

[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

[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

[GKreindler]

Craig, judging by the stands, Ruth's uniform and weight, I'm almost positive it's from 1922. Exactly when, however, I know not.

[mr2686]

Darn jimmy, i guess that means you have plenty of money left over to get everything in Henry's auction

[benchod]

Thanks Graig

[baseballart]

Originally Posted by 19cbb

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!

Jimmy

I agree. The offered photos are fantastic, regardless of the grading. But I still don't understand Type I versus Type II. Has there ever been a photo graded "Type II"? I haven't seen any but I must admit that I haven't been looking closely.

And if there have been any, have any been graded Type II without any clues such as a date stamp six years later?

Another question: is that PSA authentic sticker on the back on the slab (which is what it looks like to me), or on the photo(which is what it looks like to me), ? If it's on the photo, why don't they similarly slab a sticker on cards? GAI did this with signatures in books, and I will never again buy a signed book with one of those horrendous looking stickers in it.

Promising never to slab any of my books, or even to laminate my dust jackets,

Max

[sayhey24]

Originally Posted by baseballart

Jimmy

I agree. The offered photos are fantastic, regardless of the grading. But I still don't understand Type I versus Type II. Has there ever been a photo graded "Type II"? I haven't seen any but I must admit that I haven't been looking closely.

And if there have been any, have any been graded Type II without any clues such as a date stamp six years later?


Promising never to slab any of my books, or even to laminate my dust jackets,

Max

Max,

I don't think they're graded, but I know in Henry's current auction there are a number of photos that he labels as Type II. I believe some of those just have the player's name on the back.

Greg

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by sayhey24

Max,

I don't think they're graded, but I know in Henry's current auction there are a number of photos that he labels as Type II. I believe some of those just have the player's name on the back.

Greg

I have seen photos graded all types. The stamp is not the only determining factor obviously...
Since EVERYONE(I am assuming) that submits them to PSA is going for a TYPE 1, there is no doubt that those people might take them out of the slab if returned as Types 2,3,4 etc.. Much as a card grader would do if not happy and try to sell raw. Thus, not seeing many in the market.

[sphere and ash]

Originally Posted by 19cbb

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

No, they can't. Case in point: lot 136, the "Poignant Rube Marquard and Son Photograph." It is very clearly a copy photograph, a photograph of a photograph. I don't understand how anyone could argue otherwise (i.e., that it is a "Type I" photograph).

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by sphere and ash

No, they can't. Case in point: lot 136, the "Poignant Rube Marquard and Son Photograph." It is very clearly a copy photograph, a photograph of a photograph. I don't understand how anyone could argue otherwise (i.e., that it is a "Type I" photograph).

Can you post the front and back of this lot?

[prewarsports]

I think one of the biggest problems with the new system is that people immediately think a Type 2 or a Type 4 are worthless when that is NOT the case. 2 Examples where a Type 2 and a Type 4, both of which are worth WAY less than Type 1 photos but both completely vintage originals that are casualties of the new system:

Exmple #1. 1924 dated Babe Ruth photo with paper caption on the back from Spring Trianing 1924. Original photo was shot during the season of 1920 so we are talking about a 3 year difference, came back as TYPE 2. While this rediculous to begin with, it certainly illustrates the point that just because something is deemed a type 2 it is still VERY valuable. Type 1 is worth probably $5000, I sold my Type 2 (by 1 year) for about $500

The other example is of a Honus Wagner GG Bain photo I have. It is an original c. 1915 Bain photo of Wagner but since Bain cropped the original from 1909 and then reissued it in 1915, we are looking at a type 4 photo. You would think to yourself based on the rediculous grading scale that PSA uses that this would then be worthless as a type 4 photo, but it is an ORIGINAL 1915 Bain Photo of Honus Wagner no matter how you slice it.

These examples are why I think there should be a more liberal window (not restricted to 2 years) and photos should be labeled as either "Vintage Original" or "Non Vintage" meaning made at a later date and the type 1-4 system simply does not work.

Just my opinion.

[barrysloate]

Rhys- as we know grading systems only survive because they spew out numbers. They never dispense with numbers in favor of a descriptive system. I'm not a photo guy but after reading this thread I am leery of the process. Is PSA getting this right nearly 100% of the time? What is their margin of error?

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

I think one of the biggest problems with the new system is that people immediately think a Type 2 or a Type 4 are worthless when that is NOT the case. 2 Examples where a Type 2 and a Type 4, both of which are worth WAY less than Type 1 photos but both completely vintage originals that are casualties of the new system:

Exmple #1. 1924 dated Babe Ruth photo with paper caption on the back from Spring Trianing 1924. Original photo was shot during the season of 1920 so we are talking about a 3 year difference, came back as TYPE 2. While this rediculous to begin with, it certainly illustrates the point that just because something is deemed a type 2 it is still VERY valuable. Type 1 is worth probably $5000, I sold my Type 2 (by 1 year) for about $500

The other example is of a Honus Wagner GG Bain photo I have. It is an original c. 1915 Bain photo of Wagner but since Bain cropped the original from 1909 and then reissued it in 1915, we are looking at a type 4 photo. You would think to yourself based on the rediculous grading scale that PSA uses that this would then be worthless as a type 4 photo, but it is an ORIGINAL 1915 Bain Photo of Honus Wagner no matter how you slice it.

These examples are why I think there should be a more liberal window (not restricted to 2 years) and photos should be labeled as either "Vintage Original" or "Non Vintage" meaning made at a later date and the type 1-4 system simply does not work.

Just my opinion.

We have had this convo before...I have no problems with the system. I guess I think they could just be as specific as they can in the description and let the buyer decide. Personally, I would much rather have a Mantle Joplin photo printed in 1950 than one in 1953 and would pay much more. My opinion is that we try to get as specific as we can/classify as close to the original date and let buyers decide. I think that is what the system is doing. If the market deems that type 4's are worth 5 percent, so be it..those who don't care get a deals of a lifetime all day long, all day strong.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Rhys- as we know grading systems only survive because they spew out numbers. They never dispense with numbers in favor of a descriptive system. I'm not a photo guy but after reading this thread I am leery of the process. Is PSA getting this right nearly 100% of the time? What is their margin of error?

I believe the margin of error is much much less in this classification system than it is in a subjective(1-10-with 1/2 graded) baseball card grading or auto authentication. Instead of.."i looks real" or "i think this looks like a 9" it is backed up by news stamps, date stamps, age of paper, captions, silver gel..etc..
Is there room for error because ALL facts are impossible to know? Of course..it is a guide/tool for the buyer/seller who loves photos to use in determining a value without being a photo expert. Is PSA making money? Well..I am sure yes. Are they providing a value to the photo industry on education? As a collector/buyer/rare seller of photos, I believe yes. That would be one definition of a successful business.

[sphere and ash]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Rhys- as we know grading systems only survive because they spew out numbers. They never dispense with numbers in favor of a descriptive system. I'm not a photo guy but after reading this thread I am leery of the process. Is PSA getting this right nearly 100% of the time? What is their margin of error?

I have issues with the definitions, but my post was about error. If you believe the Marquard image was printed from the original negative at any time, then, in my opinion, you should not be grading or evaluating photographs for others. The error rate of the person responsible could be very high (and, presumably, one sided--copy prints will be represented as vintage prints and not the other way around).

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by sphere and ash

I have issues with the definitions, but my post was about error. If you believe the Marquard image was printed from the original negative at any time, then, in my opinion, you should not be grading or evaluating photographs for others. The error rate of the person responsible could be very high (and, presumably, one sided--copy prints will be represented as vintage prints and not the other way around).

Can you please state why you think he Marquard is not off the original negative?

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by sphere and ash

No, they can't. Case in point: lot 136, the "Poignant Rube Marquard and Son Photograph." It is very clearly a copy photograph, a photograph of a photograph. I don't understand how anyone could argue otherwise (i.e., that it is a "Type I" photograph).

I've noticed a large number of Bain photos aren't neccesarily Type I, but are direct copies of his photos. Especially when used for Press use during this time period.

Most however are vintage to the era, which is the most important aspect I think.

This Marquard one, honestly, I can't tell from the scans. Do you think it's the large borders that give it away? From the image itself, it seems all markings giving clues to 2nd generation use have been cropped away.

It does appear vintage to the period at least.

[sphere and ash]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Can you please state why you think he Marquard is not off the original negative?

If you Xerox a memo and then Xerox the copy, the clarity is reduced with each successive copy. The same is true for photographs. You also have another effect, which is increasing contrast--the middle tones start to disappear and become increasingly white or black. You can see that in the Marquard image. I once owned a vintage print of this image, and the clarity and tonal range was astounding. George Grantham Bain, by the way, very frequently copied the images of photographers who were not employed by his agency.