Bain Ruth photo in Memory Lane

[Bicem]

1915 as being sold or 1919 as Heritage sold one a few years ago???

Memory Lane

Heritage

[Dewey]

ML has 1915 date stamp.

[bobfreedman]

I believe that this is a 1915 photo, after talking to Henry tonight, Henry said "there was not enough information at the time the photo was in Heritage's auction to determine what year it was taken definitively". The stamp on the back reads 1915 and the stamp is legit as well. In fact, when heritage called it a 1919 photo, the certificate stated it was from the 1910's but Heritage stated it was 1919. Henry says the photo is from 1915 and he is 100% positive that it is and that is rock solid in my eyes.

[Bicem]

Hey Bob, just heard the same about Henry and that a photo match has even been made to 1915. Wish I would have bought the Heritage one! Amazing photo.

[bobfreedman]

Originally Posted by Bicem

Hey Bob, just heard the same about Henry and that a photo match has even been made to 1915. Wish I would have bought the Heritage one! Amazing photo.

Don't we all!

[Bicem]

Dibs on this one.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Bicem

Dibs on this one.

Looks like "dibs" don't count. 42k is a pretty strong price. Beautiful photo.. wish I could have added it to my 1915 rookie Ruth collection but it just wasn't meant to be. I hope the owner(whoever it is) enjoys his BEAUTIFUL new car.

[bmarlowe1]

Well - I wonder what Ruth 1914 would go for?

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Well - I wonder what Ruth 1914 would go for?

If one was ever discovered, quite a bit. The one in ML was pretty pretty. The year was part of the allure but certainly not all of it.

[bmarlowe1]

One has been discovered (see post #8) - though it is highly unlikely to ever be for sale.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

One has been discovered (see post #8) - though it is highly unlikely to ever be for sale.

I did see post 8. It looks like photo stock off the Internet. If it or one could be confirmed original, it would be pricey.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

I see post 8. It looks like photo stock off the Internet. If it or one could be confirmed original, it would be pricey.

Sorry - I didn't intent to be cute about this, I was just curious about value. It is not a stock internet photo. It's from a glass plate neg. in the Chicago History Museum collection. I verified the year via Comiskey Park billboard comparison. This can be seen in an article I wrote for Baseball Research Journal about the Museum's collection a couple of years ago. If anyone is interested, contact me offline and I can email it to you.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Sorry - I didn't intent to be cute about this, I was just curious about value. It is not a stock internet photo. It's from a glass plate neg. in the Chicago History Museum collection. I verified the year via Comiskey Park billboard comparison. This can be seen in an article I wrote for Baseball Research Journal about the Museum's collection a couple of years ago. If anyone is interested, contact me offline and I can email it to you.

Fair enough... there are a lot of stock photos created off the original neg on the internet. What I meant is that it doesn't look like a photo developed and printed in 1914 at first glance by the scan.
If it was, and could be confirmed as such it would be worth a lot of money.

[Forever Young]

Would love to see high res of front and back and any provenance you have though as well as your article. Thanks for sharing photo!
Zbw0014@yahoo.com

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Would love to see high res of front and back and any provenance you have though as well as your article. Thanks for sharing photo!
Zbw0014@yahoo.com

The provenance is that the negative is part of the Chicago Daily News collection of about 50,000 glass plate negatives that was acquired by Chicago History Museum (about 8000 are baseball photos). There is no "back" - it's a negative. Keep in mind that they often don't know what they have until we tell them. I don't have permission to distribute in hi-res (you can purchase hi-res scans from the Museum). Article will be sent to you.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

The provenance is that the negative is part of the Chicago Daily News collection of about 50,000 glass plate negatives that was acquired by Chicago History Museum (about 8000 are baseball photos). There is no "back" - it's a negative. Keep in mind that they often don't know what they have until we tell them. I don't have permission to distribute in hi-res (you can purchase hi-res scans from the Museum). Article will be sent to you.

Ahh.. so it's not an original photo like the one in ML. Gotcha. I guess it would be worth as much as they charge at the museum then.
If original.. a lot of money as we all know. Negatives are a whole other animal. But also a lot of money

Ps: edited at 10:56 pm-fantastic work-I really loved the article. Thank you for sending.

[bobfreedman]

I believe in part, that the reason for the astronomical price was that it was a Bain photo. If a rookie photo showed up, the price would indeed be very high however, if it were a Conlon, Bain or Thompson, the price would significantly higher. Part of the allure of the memory lane photo was that it was a Bain photo IMHO.

[Bicem]

The fact that is was a prominent photographer certainly helped. I bid while still in the low 30's but wouldn't have gone that high had it been an unknown photographer.

[bgar3]

I do not mean to diminish the lofty position of Bain photographs, easily my favorite, but I believe it is is extremely difficult to identify Bain himself as the photographer. It could have been another photographer from his news service.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by bgar3

I do not mean to diminish the lofty position of Bain photographs, easily my favorite, but I believe it is is extremely difficult to identify Bain himself as the photographer. It could have been another photographer from his news service.

Exactly(except for easily my favorite part for me). The Bain news service didn't hurt.. it is definitely a variable. That said, if it was a 1915 Conlon with the same quality of image it would have went for much much more IMO.
It had the year, a known photographer service but also had "the look". It was a beautiful portrait.
The fact that it was Bain helped but by no means made the photo. I think it still goes for 30-35k being a 1 of 2 known from another more generic(hate to say that) news service.

A good example/comp is the "pitchers" 1915 Red Sox photo(s) of 4 of them standing together(including ruth). There are two primary shots; underwood and Underwood and Bain. I think one of each sold in the last year... one being in Rea I think and the other in memory lane. I think the Underwood and Underwood did just as well or better ,if memory serves me, than the Bain.
Also, there was a very very small 1915 spring training snapshot photo of Ruth with other players that sold in heritage for over 30k.

Red Sox original Ruth images are very very rare. There is no video footage and limited images in general so type 1s are especially special to own and view. Every single shot is a treasure as they are so limited. EVERY ONE. Each are a window into his younger, less covered/documented years. They are part of the enigmatic side of Ruth. At least this is the case in my mind and the proof is what I pay and have paid.. and apparently what others pay now too. Sad that I cannot afford to buy the items I specialize in everytime now but also exciting to see others appreciate their importance in the hobby.
If I was a millionaire, I would own them all!!! ��
Damn millionaires..