August Pick Ups

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

My question to Scott about the 2 pics in question was based on the fact that image quality can often be one factor in determining which type category the image falls in. In my experience type 1, because they come off the original negative, are usually much sharper appearing. Type 3s, because they come from copy negatives or wire transmission, are often less clear and sharp. That is the differentiation I was alluding to. Obviously a type 2 will maintain the original clarity as it's made from the original negative. I made the mistake of assuming the second photo was a type 1 because of image quality. If I had seen the UPI stamp, I would've known it wasn't. I do realize that clarity and sharpness are not the only factor in determining type. Certainly, as has been suggested, the first picture could have been taken by a less skilled photographer with inferior equipment.

As I've stated before, I like the type system, as, IMHO, it allows for some improved clarity and consistency of identification. I also think it has its flaws in both its definitions and implementation by third party graders.

Ben's example is a perfect one to see the flaws. A picture of Ruth from 1916 printed in 1919 may very well be classified as a Type 1 as the definition reads within approx 2yrs window of event. To me this is a flaw in the system's definitions. This situation is also a set up for a flaw in implementation by TPAs. Because the definition is open ended, it allows the TPA to use their discretion. Would this photo example be judged a type 1 if submitted by a big dollar customer/auction house but a type 2 if submitted by a random private individual? I don't know the answer, but certainly there are examples both in the card and autograph ends of the hobby, that would suggest such favoritism could happen.

Most of this discussion is academic. Great photos are great photos regardless of type. The main thing that changes is the amount of monetary value they hold. I guess if I were spending thousands of dollars on a photo, I would want to preserve and protect that value as well. None of all this takes away from the fact that they are both great photos of JVM and Babe.

Best,
Mark

Actually Mark,

My example of Ruth was to show that the 2 year window is very necessary at times. A mantle 1951 printed in 1951 would be much more valuable to me than the same image printed in 1956(when he won the triple crown and was the biggest star of the time) and reproduced many times over.

Both examples show why they settled for 2 year window(approx) and justifiably.

The execution of the type system by PSA is pretty good I would say. Of course there will be misses at times like there are in autographs, cards ect(no matter if is a tpa or a so called single expert we are talking about). But I think they are very accurate. Nobody better than Henry Yee after all.


Ben

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Nobody better than Henry Yee after all.


Ben

Please, please, please...don't get me started. I have been doing so well

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Please, please, please...don't get me started. I have been doing so well

You get yourself started. The only people that would disagree with that statement are so called photo experts who are "competitors" of Henry, dealers who do not like the fact that psa is now cking their work(they have customers who want the service) and you! Just keeping is real... haha!!

PS: I love you Scott. And yes, you have been very good.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

You get yourself started. The only people that would disagree with that statement are so called photo experts who are competitors of Henry, dealers who do not like the fact that psa is now cking their work and they have customers who want the service and you! Just keeping is real... haha!!

PS: I love you Scott. And yes, you have been very good.

Well, you know me - I would send every photo I own (even family snapshots) in to PSA for slabbing and typing, if I could be guaranteed that Henry Yee would personally handle each one.

(Now I have to go take a good shower, as I'm dripping with vile sarcasm)

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Well, you know me - I would send every photo I own (even family snapshots) in to PSA for slabbing and typing, if I could be guaranteed that Henry Yee would personally handle each one.

(Now I have to go take a good shower, as I'm dripping with vile sarcasm)

I know you and yes.. please go take a shower pigpen.

[bobfreedman]

Thanks Ben!

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by bobfreedman

Thanks Ben!

Ouch.. it hurts so bad...the price I have to pay to build my Ruth collection. This is a museum quality piece. It will look perfect with your Cy Young. You are welcome and congrats Bob.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by bobfreedman

Thanks Ben!

Beautiful! Congrats Bob.

[smokelessjoe]

I've seen these banks with other teams, but I've never seen a Pelicans one? It's a glass baseball bank w/ Pelicans logo... 1940s. ???? I've looked around and cannot find one that has sold?

Anybody have one or know of them? High / low value?

Shawn

[smokelessjoe]

Pelicans

[smokelessjoe]

New Orleans

[Runscott]

Here's the refinished bat. After the stain dried, I gave it a thin layer of French polish, then used a synthetic wool to rub the shine off of it. The pics look shinier than the actual bat. For reference, two of the pics show comparisons to a 1911-14 bat and a later bat, both completely natural.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Here's the refinished bat. After the stain dried, I gave it a thin layer of French polish, then used a synthetic wool to rub the shine off of it. The pics look shinier than the actual bat. For reference, two of the pics show comparisons to a 1911-14 bat and a later bat, both completely natural.

These look GREAT Scotty! You and your projects are impressive. I have no patience for things like this so I really appreciate seeing them.