Memory Lane Auction pick-ups

[JoeyF1981]

Anyone win anything from lastnights Memory Lane auction? Here's the 2 I ended up winning. Excited to add these to my collection

[Leon]

Great photos...nice pick ups...

[JoeyF1981]

Originally Posted by Leon

Great photos...nice pick ups...

Thanks Leon! I had my eye on a couple Ruth photos, but I wouldve had to sell my fiance' to afford it..lol..wondering if anyone on here bought the other photos Memory sold last night.

[bobfreedman]

Memory lane's auction did not close last night? Or if it did I sure missed it. They are in the middle of an auction now in fact

[prewarsports]

I think it was ebay listing for some quality images.

The price was strong on that 1927 World Series Ruth/Gehrig & Waners, I have one coming up in RMYAuctions too!

Rhys

[JoeyF1981]

Originally Posted by bobfreedman

Memory lane's auction did not close last night? Or if it did I sure missed it. They are in the middle of an auction now in fact

They had alot of stuff that ended lastnight including some Type 1 underwood & underwood photos

[JoeyF1981]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

I think it was ebay listing for some quality images.

The price was strong on that 1927 World Series Ruth/Gehrig & Waners, I have one coming up in RMYAuctions too!

Rhys

Ya that was one I was really looking at, but had no idea it would go that high. What makes that photo so pricey? Ive seen alot nicer ones from Yee's auctions go for alot less

[D.P.Johnson]

Love those old photos!
The second one was probably taken right after a game or something, but the players look like just finished a battle!.......

[repsher]

Nice pickups. Way out of my price range.

It appears the U&U took very good care of their archives. The photos look great.

[JoeyF1981]

Originally Posted by D.P.Johnson

Love those old photos!
The second one was probably taken right after a game or something, but the players look like just finished a battle!.......

Actually this was taken right before they played the cardinals in the world series

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by JoeyF1981

Anyone win anything from lastnights Memory Lane auction? Here's the 2 I ended up winning. Excited to add these to my collection

Great photos.. the one with the 28 yanks is what it is and I love the one with all the photographers! GREAT PRICES for sure.

I guess the cat is out of the bag and I am not going to pick off anything cheap now. Joey.. your link just alerted the entire net54 photo community now.. good luck going forward...
Anyway, Memory Lane will be having weekly EBAY auctions of underwood and underwood photos as some of you know.

I was outbid on everything this time around.. lots of action. It is a good place for those of you who are just getting into photos and/or want quality images and need a weekly fix.

The 27 waner/ruth/gehrig photo was a GEM. I have seen much worse go for much more.

It will be fun to follow these auctions for sure. Congrats to the winners!

[drcy]

Both excellent photos, in my opinion. Lots of character, the first one especially.

[JoeyF1981]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Great photos.. the one with the 28 yanks is what it is and I love the one with all the photographers! GREAT PRICES for sure.

I guess the cat is out of the bag and I am not going to pick off anything cheap now. Joey.. your link just alerted the entire net54 photo community now.. good luck going forward...
Anyway, Memory Lane will be having weekly EBAY auctions of underwood and underwood photos as some of you know.

I was outbid on everything this time around.. lots of action. It is a good place for those of you who are just getting into photos and/or want quality images and need a weekly fix.

The 27 waner/ruth/gehrig photo was a GEM. I have seen much worse go for much more.

It will be fun to follow these auctions for sure. Congrats to the winners!

Ben- I was wondering when you were going to post a comment...lol...Its funny because I was planning on buying a ruth photo, but for some reason I was really hooked on the mcgraw with photographers photo. The image is awesome and couldnt pass it up. The 28 yanks was a last minute decision because I really wanted the Ruth/cobb photo. By the way what made the Ruth/gehrig photo sell for so high? Its a fantastic photo, but Ive seen others that looked just as good from Yee's auction sell for alot less. I guess its alot about the significance and subject matter of the photo which drives price. The dimaggio photo was pretty nice too.

[JoeyF1981]

Originally Posted by drcy

Both excellent photos, in my opinion. Lots of character, the first one especially.

definintley agree! I almost passed it up, but the image is classic so I had to go for it

[BigJJ]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

I guess the cat is out of the bag and I am not going to pick off anything cheap now. Joey.. your link just alerted the entire net54 photo community now.. good luck going forward...

+10000


I bought the Ruth Cobb. Photo is Opening Day, 1927, Yankees vs. A's at Yankee Stadium with Cobb visiting.

Any Ruth/Cobb is a tough find, only a handful have surfaced, but also loved that it was Cobb visiting Yankee Stadium - and to play Ruth on Opening Day 1927.

[BigJJ]

Photo

[Leon]

Originally Posted by BigJJ

+10000

....
Any Ruth/Cobb is a tough find, only a handful have surfaced, but also loved that it was Cobb visiting Yankee Stadium - and to play Ruth on Opening Day 1927.

Not picked up last night but any Ruth/Cobb cards from their playing days are almost non-existent. This one is from 1927-1928

[JoeyF1981]

Originally Posted by BigJJ

Photo

Damnit! lol....Congrats bro

[BigJJ]

Originally Posted by JoeyF1981

Damnit! lol....Congrats bro

Thanks

[Runscott]

Wow - great photos. Guess I should start paying attention to ebay again.

[horzverti]

Originally Posted by JoeyF1981

Anyone win anything from lastnights Memory Lane auction? Here's the 2 I ended up winning. Excited to add these to my collection

Second photog from right (standing) really shouldn't have been smoking while holding a bazooka! What?...that is a camera? Ok, nevermind.

Great photos Joey!

[JoeyF1981]

Originally Posted by horzverti

Second photog from right (standing) really shouldn't have been smoking while holding a bazooka! What?...that is a camera? Ok, nevermind.

Great photos Joey!

LOL....imagine going on a trip with your family and having to carry that around everywhere you went. Id just put a chain around it and put it around my neck.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by JoeyF1981

LOL....imagine going on a trip with your family and having to carry that around everywhere you went. Id just put a chain around it and put it around my neck.

This is an awesome photo for sure. I love the originals with cameras in them for obvious reasons Congrats again Joey!

[Forever Young]

As many of you know, I am a collector of original photos(Primarily Ruth now) and generally stick with the "TYPE 1s".
HOWEVER, this TYPE 3 is worthy in many ways.

1) content is exceptional(slug on back ect)
2) ruth rookie
3) a dupe neg type 3(not wire)
4) pretty darn clear for a dupe neg
5) relatively large(ruth is 3.5 by 6 alone)
6) still rare as a mo fo

I think I did VERY VERY WELL on the price but then again who knows. All I know is I am happy as a ten *eckered billy goat to own it.

I can't wait for more U AND U images to at least look at. Good stuff Memory Lane..

[JoeyF1981]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

As many of you know, I am a collector of original photos(Primarily Ruth now) and generally stick with the "TYPE 1s".
HOWEVER, this TYPE 3 is worthy in many ways.

1) content is exceptional(slug on back ect)
2) ruth rookie
3) a dupe neg type 3(not wire)
4) pretty darn clear for a dupe neg
5) relatively large(ruth is 3.5 by 6 alone)
6) still rare as a mo fo

I think I did VERY VERY WELL on the price but then again who knows. All I know is I am happy as a ten *eckered billy goat to own it.

I can't wait for more U AND U images to at least look at. Good stuff Memory Lane..

I was wondering who picked that one up...congrats you lucky MO FO!!

[BigJJ]

Great piece Ben.

Curious as to your thoughts on the 27 Yankee photo. Was the largest and cleanest example I have seen. I was a close underbidder. The two aspects of concern with regard to going higher were the number of examples out there, even though they may be inferior, and Ruth looked like he had too many hot dogs that day, but beautiful and important photo.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

As many of you know, I am a collector of original photos(Primarily Ruth now) and generally stick with the "TYPE 1s".
HOWEVER, this TYPE 3 is worthy in many ways.

1) content is exceptional(slug on back ect)
2) ruth rookie
3) a dupe neg type 3(not wire)
4) pretty darn clear for a dupe neg
5) relatively large(ruth is 3.5 by 6 alone)
6) still rare as a mo fo

I think I did VERY VERY WELL on the price but then again who knows. All I know is I am happy as a ten *eckered billy goat to own it.

I can't wait for more U AND U images to at least look at. Good stuff Memory Lane..

Awesome pickup, Ben! Nice job on immediately applying the watermark, BTW!

I wish I had known about the Smokey Joe and Ernie Shore. I would have possibly bid on those. What a trio of photos!

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

Awesome pickup, Ben! Nice job on immediately applying the watermark, BTW!

I wish I had known about the Smokey Joe and Ernie Shore. I would have possibly bid on those. What a trio of photos!

HAHA.. thanks buddy. i'll be damned if people will sell s*it copies of my photos on ebay for $8 bucks a piece

Thanks Joey I do not display my photos nfortunately. That is why I created a website. I have them all locked away in safety deposit box at bank so nobody can steal them and fires and floods can't destroy them.

BIGJJ,

The winner of the Yanks photo did very well IMO due to size and all players looking right into camera.
I remember when one sold for 5500on ebay a year or two ago just like this(with the borders). I like caps though.

[BigJJ]

Ben,
Interesting. Thanks.
Agree regarding caps.
J

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

Awesome pickup, Ben! Nice job on immediately applying the watermark, BTW!

I wish I had known about the Smokey Joe and Ernie Shore. I would have possibly bid on those. What a trio of photos!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe all three players were part of one combined photo that Ben won.

Great pick-up btw.

Ben - how did you know that it was a type 3 photo?? Is it because it is U&U or b/c of the slug or b/c of a date stamp? I had assumed it was a type I when I saw the listing, but I suppose the price reflects that hobbyists knew it was type 3.

Or perhaps I am simply ignorant to the distinction b/w type 1 and 3, which has likely been explained 100x on this forum. The slug clearly has a time stamp of 1915.

[Lordstan]

It's a type 3 because it's a composite.
Type 3s are defined as not printed from the original negative, but printed within the same approximate 2yr window as a type 1.
Composites have multiple separate photos shot together to create a new negative which is used to print from.
IMHO, this is a weakness in the type system. To me, each of these are an original creation by either the photographer or editor to be used at that time. I think these should be considered type 1s.

BTW... Great pick-up Ben!

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[BigJJ]

Mark, Agreed

Type 3 designation for composite photos is not the best designation - as it implies that there are two levels better, when in fact, this is not the case.

Composite photos such as this are the top form of the piece.

In the art world, these would be considered the original work of the artist (which is defined as work done by the artist and/or at the artist's direction by others). Type 3 composite photos are similar to Type 1 photos in that they are both the original work of the photographer/artist.

I might call the them "Type 1 - Composite"
as they need to be differentiated from regular Type I, but not be defined as less than a Type 1.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

IMHO, this is a weakness in the type system. To me, each of these are an original creation by either the photographer or editor to be used at that time. I think these should be considered type 1s.

BTW... Great pick-up Ben!

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Thanks Mark!

I don't see how this is a weakness of the Type system AT ALL though.
It is not a type 3 just because it is a composite. It is a type 3 because each photo within the composite were made from dupe negatives to put it all together(thus, not as clear as a type 1). If ANYTHING it is a STRENGTH of the TYPE SYSTEM. I WOULD MUCH RATHER HAVE A TYPE 1 OF THE RUTH SHOT THAN THIS. THUS, IT IS IMPERATIVE TO HAVE A SYSTEM TO SEPARATE THE TWO.
However, just because it is a type 3 doesn't make it bad. The type system is just defining what it is. I don't see how this is a weakness in any way shape or form. It is why the system is necessary.
Again, the TYPE system if anything is more specific than any other classification IMO.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by BigJJ

Mark, Agreed

Type 3 designation for composite photos is not the best designation - as it implies that there are two levels better, when in fact, this is not the case.

Composite photos such as this are the top form of the piece.

In the art world, these would be considered the original work of the artist (which is defined as work done by the artist and/or at the artist's direction by others). Type 3 composite photos are similar to Type 1 photos in that they are both the original work of the photographer/artist.

I might call the them "Type 1 - Composite"
as they need to be differentiated from regular Type I, but not be defined as less than a Type 1.

So you don't like it because of the number it is given?? LOL cOME ON JJ..
Original artworks? Ok fine.. I will agree with that....but not the same in quality. Again, the type system defines what it is. It is up to the buyer to decide the value themselves. I think changing it like you say would add a lot more confusion. All one has to do is read the definitions and think a bit. This should not be worth more than an ORIGINAL TYPE 1 of just Ruth IMO. IT IS a lesser form of photo. HOWEVER, I DO APPRECIATE THE PROCESS AND THAT IT WAS CREATED IN 1915(THUS I BOUGHT IT) . I would not have paid type 1 money for it though(like the one in heritage that went for 10k).

BIGJJ AND MARK... I like the way you both thin, love your passion and love talking photos with you(you know that). I just do not agree with these two "faults" you see in the TYPE SYSTEM.
Now stay away from photos I want to buy

[BigJJ]

Just trying to give your piece a big bump up Ben

I agree B, and would much rather have a Type 1 than a Type 3 Composite, no matter the classification of the composite. and I would think that if the Type 3 that are composites were reclassified to "Type 1 - Composite", that this would still be regarded as a less desirable category than Type 1, as it arguably should be due to clarity.

[BigJJ]

The key is to corner the Type 3 that are composites market - and then lobby for reclassification.

[Runscott]

Ben, fabulous pic - the fact that it is second-generation is a 'who cares?' thing.

Amazing

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by BigJJ

The key is to corner the Type 3 that are composites market - and then lobby for reclassification.

HAHA LOVE IT

[BigJJ]

In all seriousness though, I do think original composites, created by the photographer and/or at his direction, should have their own category, even if it is "Type 3 - Composite". To me, they are superior to regular Type 3.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by BigJJ

In all seriousness though, I do think original composites, created by the photographer and/or at his direction, should have their own category, even if it is "Type 3 - Composite". To me, they are superior to regular Type 3.

Well.. that's fine. There certainly is a difference. It is not that big of a deal to me as I can desipher I guess and feel it is easy to do so. One is a composite and one is a product of a wire machine(both products of process' diffferent than off the original neg). If you know this, you can assign your own value. No big deal.
I think is fine the way it is as a whole. I do see your point though.

Originally Posted by Runscott

Ben, fabulous pic - the fact that it is second-generation is a 'who cares?' thing.

Amazing

Thanks Scott!

[JoeyF1981]

Newest memory lane pick-up

[repsher]

Joey -Have you recieved the first photos you won from Memory Lane? I'm curious to hear if the are in as good of condition as they look in the scans?

The condition of the photos in the scans almost looks like they are too good to be true. Thanks.

[JoeyF1981]

Originally Posted by repsher

Joey -Have you recieved the first photos you won from Memory Lane? I'm curious to hear if the are in as good of condition as they look in the scans?

The condition of the photos in the scans almost looks like they are too good to be true. Thanks.

Hey ryan...YES they were actually better than I expected. I know memory lane displays their ohotos at 300 DPI so you can see all the imperfections if any. They both look great and are just as nice if not better than what I posted

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by JoeyF1981

Hey ryan...YES they were actually better than I expected. I know memory lane displays their ohotos at 300 DPI so you can see all the imperfections if any. They both look great and are just as nice if not better than what I posted

These are coming direct from the archives so that makes sense. The file copies have been in a darn file for god's sake!..lol!

I have not received the Ruth yet but it shipped already today. I am also looking forward to the condition!

Beautiful photos Joey

[JoeyF1981]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

These are coming direct from the archives so that makes sense. The file copies have been in a darn file for god's sake!..lol!

I have not receive dteh Ruth yet but it shipped already today to I am also looking forward to teh condition!

Beautiful photos Joey

Thanks ben! Coming from you thats a huge compliment. Im sure youll be happy with the quality of the photo. By the way do you usually send your photos to psa to have encapsulated or just display them as is?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by JoeyF1981

By the way do you usually send your photos to psa to have encapsulated or just display them as is?

Hahahahahaha

Joey, Ben is a vintage photograph expert. And I agree with all here - you picked up some real beauties.

[JoeyF1981]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Hahahahahaha

Joey, Ben is a vintage photograph expert. And I agree with all here - you picked up some real beauties.

Lol....I knew that was a dumb question right after I asked....can we pretend that didnt happen..lol

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by JoeyF1981

Lol....I knew that was a dumb question right after I asked....can we pretend that didnt happen..lol

It's not that dumb. It's just that Ben and I had a long conversation recently about PSA-slabbed photos, so it was kind of on my mind already.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by JoeyF1981

Thanks ben! Coming from you thats a huge compliment. Im sure youll be happy with the quality of the photo. By the way do you usually send your photos to psa to have encapsulated or just display them as is?

Joey,

I really have not sent mine in. HOWEVER, if I was ever going to sell them all at 3rd party auction, I would def get them psa dna authenticated as I believe it would attract more bidding from those who are unsure. If you are unsure what you have, it would be a good service to use obviously(imo). Make sense?

Right now I just do high res scans and look on computer over and over again like a pycho. I store them in a couple large safety deposit boxes in photo archival books. Someday I would love to display them all as an art/museum presentation in a large room. IDK…What can I say.. I am a dreamer. 

[JoeyF1981]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Joey,

I really have not sent mine in. HOWEVER, if I was ever going to sell them all at 3rd party auction, I would def get them psa dna authenticated as I believe it would attract more bidding from those who are unsure. If you are unsure what you have, it would be a good service to use obviously(imo). Make sense?

Right now I just do high res scans and look on computer over and over again like a pycho. I store them in a couple large safety deposit boxes in photo archival books. Someday I would love to display them all as an art/museum presentation in a large room. IDK…What can I say.. I am a dreamer. 

Is there any particular archival photo book you recommend? I just have mine in those large plastic top loaders that they came in from the sellers