The Future of Type I Photos

[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/

[boneheadandrube]

I love the older photo's!

collage1.jpg
collage2b.jpg
collage3.jpg

[jacksons]

Incredible! Love seeing these out of slabs, too.

Originally Posted by boneheadandrube

I love the older photo's!

Attachment 620995
Attachment 620996
Attachment 620997

[GregMitch34]

As I noted when I started this thread, I had no Type Is until the past week. I posted the Willie Mays one I got, but my thoughts on this subject were really inspired by winning the Babe below. It struck me that 1) I'd never seen that image before so may be one of a kind 2) it's a great image with catcher also in action 3) the price was under $1000. I started thinking about, say, the popular Kashin card for Ruth, with a staged, static pose, which costs at least twice as much as my photo, even in a low grade and for which PSA alone has graded over 200 (so you can imagine the numbers including SGC and raw).

Anyway, lot of good replies here on why photos only now catching on and limits to how much they may be valued in future vs. cards. Still, the appeal of (many) photos seems undeniable and growing. I should point out that surging prices for M101-2s Sportin News Supplements also fit the trend--although not Type I photos, they are very large sized, based on fantastic photos, and very few in number, especially if in good shape.


https://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1715263546

[Bill77]

I was super excited to get my Jake Stahl last month. It is the most I have personally spent on anything baseball related and also the first time I didn't try to limit what I spent to acquire it.

[boneheadandrube]

Originally Posted by jacksons

Incredible! Love seeing these out of slabs, too.

Thanks! Thats about 8 years worth of selective collecting...but there's more!

[SAllen2556]

I come from 2 generations of newspaper photographers. Photographers weren’t really supposed to keep their negatives, but I have most of my dad’s and many of my grandfather’s - which include 4 x 5 glass negatives. So there's still a lot of stuff out there in the hands of families that don't really know what to do with it. I know I don't. I have boxes of negatives - even glass 4 x 5 ones, but unfortunately, not much in sports.

I also believe some photographers are hugely underrated and their stuff will increase in value over others. For example, William Kuenzel of the Detroit Free Press was one of the very first newspaper photographers in the country - I think he started in about 1905. His work is incredibly underrated. He only got a single page in Jim Chapman’s awesome book - which really surprised me.

Kuenzel and Ruth
IMG_2385.JPG

A Jordan photo that was just laying around the Free Press darkroom back in the day. Considered scrap.
jordan.jpg

The photogs of the day
36407126252_431cb65faf_c.jpg

[T206Jim]

Thanks Scott, I agree he is underrated, but he did get 3 pages in the book.

[SAllen2556]

Originally Posted by T206Jim

Thanks Scott, I agree he is underrated, but he did get 3 pages in the book.

Sorry Jim, you're obviously correct!


One aspect of photo collecting I do not understand is how type 1 photos are valued so much more than the original negatives. Shouldn't the 4 x 5 glass negative of the famous Ty Cobb sliding photo, for example, be worth more than a photo made from that negative? The negative is really the holy grail of that particular moment in time. It's the original source of all the other photos. And if you owned the negative, you could make a 16 x 20 or larger photo of it and it would be at least as crystal clear as any type I photo of that moment. So why pay more for the photo over the negative? They're both from whatever date that particular moment occurred.


I've heard the argument that you can't frame or display the negative, but why should the paper matter in the value? With the negative, I can produce an original photo as good, or better, than any type I. If you're collecting the image, then the original source of that image should be the most valuable collectible - and that's the negative.

[JimC]

Originally Posted by boneheadandrube

I love the older photo's!

Attachment 620995
Attachment 620996
Attachment 620997

Greg that Harry Niles photo is awesome.

[boneheadandrube]

Thanks Jim, here it is with the T3


Harry Niles Conlon (T3).jpg

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by boneheadandrube

Thanks Jim, here it is with the T3


Attachment 621538

Awesome. I especially love how they replaced the derelict building with a grandstand!

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by 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/

I've been very interested in the way that other photos have started creeping into sports auctions. Some recent photos of Robert Oppenheimer, WWII photos, the Kennedy's etc. Mostly at RMY, but at other auction houses as well. In the later RMY auction there was a photo of an old synagogue, which drew my attention. I was occupied when the auction ended and couldn't compete more aggressively, but have found this really interesting and wonder whether the growing popularity of sports photos is bringing collectors to other areas of photography.

I know for myself, that I find memorabilia, photos and other similar items far more interesting than almost any cards at this point, and love the fact I can get much rarer items at a cheaper price (fully recognizing that they are distinct markets and that I should not expect these markets to ever 'catch up' to the sports market.)