The Future of Type I Photos

[prewarsports]

There is still a lot of good stuff out there in private collections, like the stuff Hunt's is selling for the Mathewson family. I was mostly referring to archives. I remember pulling a D-Day folder from a midwest archive in 2015 and there were three "Jaws of Death" photographs in there. Now they are $30,000-$100,000 each but at the time I remember thinking, "cool those are worth about $1000 each and we found three." The thrill of wondering what is in the next folder or box and getting to do that from 2013-2020 was awesome and I miss it, but the prices have gotten too high. I am now getting most of our for RMY, which is still 95% "fresh to the market", from people who bought archives decades ago and not the institutions themselves, and they all keep up on current market trends.

I will add one more insight that people can take for what it is. Either the top end of the sports photo market is overpriced (mostly card images and early Babe Ruth) or the non-sports market is underpriced (which is what I believe). Time will tell. In the entire photo industry NOTHING outside "art photography" is worth more than sports photography. I was told once by an old time collector "never buy who is in the photo, only buy who took the photo." The right Mickey Mantle photo from 1951 is worth more than any subject driven image beside the famous Billy the Kid tintype. This is a bit odd. I talk to people all the time who only see sports photos in relation to baseball cards and do not realize how the values are inflated in regard to literally every other aspect of photography in the world. You could dream up a scenario where the greatest image of anyone outside of sports is put on a shelf (say Edison in his lab inventing the modern light bulb or the Titanic hitting the iceberg from a hidden camera on deck) and there would be hundreds of images from the genre of sports worth much much more.

It will be interesting to see how the next ten years play out.

[Snapolit1]

Here’s a story.

[Snapolit1]

And here is baseball and American history.

[lumberjack]

This is in regard to something Rhys said. Back in the 1970s, I picked up a handful of Lewis Hine and FSA contact prints. Hine and the FSA guys were the apex of documentary photographers in the years before WW II. This stuff was considered art photography by then.

Today, you can find at least three baseball photographs in the average RMY auction (I think my guess is modestly low), that sell for more than you can get today for a Hine or an FSA photographer.

Boy, howdy....

In the event you were wondering, a Hine sold for about $200 in the 1970s while a news service photo of Babe Ruth went for a couple of bucks (if you could find one).

lumberjack

[GregMitch34]

Problem with this is the FSA photos are all available as new prints from Library of Congress for almost nothing because in public domain--were done for the gov't. Obviously not "Type I." But easy to get cheap.

[lumberjack]

Yes, you can get FSA or Hine photos today from a number of sources, just as you can get pristine Deadball photos today from, say, the Chicago History Museum.

This is great if you want a photo just for the sake of having a terrific photo. I understand that. The Chicago History photos are astounding; I have a few of them.

But, it is nearly impossible to find Hine or FSA vintage prints today (Evans Archives has had a few in recent past). Ruth, Gehrig, Cobb, Joe Jackson, Matty...those images are available as Type I photos and the prices are thru the roof.

I have a question for you? How many people are spending big money for Type I HOFers. What sort of bubble is at work. I'd really like to know.

[T206Jim]

I am less intrigued by end prices than the market dynamics at work. Supply is the critical and limiting factor as many unique images are off the market for years, if not decades. I agree with Rhys that one of main forthcoming sources of images will be major collectors who at some point decide to liquidate their holdings. The churn factor is strong and even more recognizable than with cards as most prints have easily recognizable traits that make them easy to trace through the AHs.

I also agree that the sports photos market is unlike any other photography market, and much of that is the result of the gravitational pull of the sports card market. That pull is permanent and evident in the premium given to card images. A sign that the sports photo market is maturing will be when the premium for card images is not so pronounced.

Interesting conservation thread. If you are interested in the rise of baseball photography and discussions of many of the issues in this thread you may be interested in my book.

https://chapmandeadballcollection.com/

[LEHR]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Here’s a story.

That's a fantastic Ruth photo. So much going on in that image!