Recent Henry Yee eBay auction questions

[obcbeatle]

Originally Posted by collectbaseball

Where can you even get it for $40? Every time I look for it, it's nearly a hundred bucks. I even asked Mr. Yee if he had any extra copies I could buy and he doesn't

Thanks for all the replies and info. The Fogel/Yee book was on Amazon (used) earlier today ... and now I see it's gone (I assume sold today). Anyway ... I'll keep an eye out for it again on Amazon or Abe books for hopefully < $50 ... I've a lot to learn about collecting baseball and sports photo's. In fact ... I'd like to collect photo's of popular movie and music stars from the 50's/60's too, but then I don't have very deep pockets ... so probably just a dream :-) I did just read about John Rogers and checked out his eBay store. Thanks again for the info!

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

I'm pretty sure you can do anything you want with a pre 1923 image.

That is my understanding as well, though I'm not sure how the whole thing with separate rights for the team logos and certain players' images would work in conjunction with that. Maybe free to use the image, but a separate fee to MLB and/or the player's estate would be required? I have no idea if that's actually the case, but would be interested to hear from anyone who does.

As for Yee/Fogel's book, I actually pick up extra copies of it whenever I see them reasonably priced. I don't normally push my product on the boards, but seems appropriate in this thread, sooo...

Right now, I have a spare copy in good used condition for $45 shipped. PM me if interested.

[prewarsports]

Also, feel free to ask ANY and ALL questions here. Some of us on here who have devoted literally thousands of hours to antique photography would love to help no matter how easy or difficult the question is. There are things that it took me years and years to learn and then something hits you after looking at like your one millionth photo that you could pass along to someone else in 2 seconds and save them the agony! Especially since the "Type 1-4" system has its flaws and while the book is wonderful, its not perfect and much has been learned since the publication as well. Let em fly!

Rhys

[billyb]

Here is a question to help us new Photo collectors:
Do you clean up your photos before selling, (removing crop marks)?
f you do, then should that information be included when selling?

Sorry to jump in into your thread OBC, but question seems appropriate for topic.

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by billyb

Here is a question to help us new Photo collectors:
Do you clean up your photos before selling, (removing crop marks)?
f you do, then should that information be included when selling?

Sorry to jump in into your thread OBC, but question seems appropriate for topic.

Let me jump in here for a moment. I agree (echo - feel like I'm back in the bathroom in the 60's singing Doo-Woop) much that has already been said. In regards to the Fogel et al. book - GET IT!!!! DAVID'S PUBLICATIONS ARE ALSO VERY HELPFUL!! As you begin to assimilate some of this new information also include looking at each of Henry's auctions. Their is a wealth of information in the write-ups and very useful information on the images of the back of photos (stamping etc.) that will help you in ascertaining the time window within which it was taken.

With regard to removing editorial markings, the consensus is more or less divided on that issue. Many collectors (including Henry and myself) prefer the image as it was developed with all of the photographer's conceptual influences intact. On the other hand, just as many collectors prefer the inclusion of all of the editorial handy work as this demonstrates the process that preceded publication. Either way it generally does not effect the market value.

Finally, I have been collecting vintage baseball photos (exclusively Mantle) for nearly 30 years now, During the early days one could pick up most for $1-$5. The process of learning at that time was just that - touch and examine as many photos as possible, look at the differences in image clarity, the type of stamping and slugs (paper captions on the back). It was great fun and I learned a lot. I have been delighted with the increased attention to this segment of the Hobby which began to take off in earnest after the Baseball Magazine auction in the mid '90's and only see a continuation of interest and participation for collectors going forward.

Cheers,

Craig

[D. Bergin]

Rule #1.

Photos are not cards, and many of the rules for cards do not necessarily apply to photos.

example - the quality of the image itself is much more important then whether or not there's a crease somewhere on the border, or whether there is writing on the back. Most photos were generally meant to be handled in one way or another.

As of now, nobody really cares if a photo grades a PSA 5 or a PSA 10.........and I hope it stays that way.

Sorry, I get a little annoyed when card guys try to treat photos in the collectibles world, as if they should be razor sharp cards.

[Lordstan]

Rhys, Craig, and Dave have all given you excellent advice. This forum is an incredible resource as the members are both knowledgeable and willing to share.

While evaluating a picture from a technical standpoint may be a more concrete process, never forget to collect what you enjoy and handle the items with care. There are no right or wrong answers to many of the questions posed.

In the beginning of the Yee/Fogel book, the 4 C's are described. I think they help define the basics of what most photos collectors look for in a picture.
Content
Clarity
Contrast
Condition

For myself, Content is King. Clarity and contrast are next. Condition only matters if it's an image I know there is more than one copy of and I can get one better. For many images only a handful have been seen, so condition becomes less important.

I am torn about editors marks. Sometimes I think they add to the picture, sometimes take away, and sometimes don't matter. It all comes down to personal preference. I also think, for me at least, I don't remove them because I don't want to take a chance of damaging the picture.

Here is one of mine, bought in a Yee auction last year, that I have debated whether to remove the editors marks. I think I got it for a very reasonable price, at least in part, because of the markings.

[ethicsprof]

Since I collect examples of individual photographer's photos even more than
I acquire particular baseball players, I am very happy to see information on the photo which elucidates elements regarding the photographers and presses. I am ecstatic when I compare the reverse of my various Conlon
photos and see his signature, various notations such as player's name, and
the stamp such as Evening Telegram. Most any editorial 'marks' are fine with me if
they give me a deeper sense of the photographer and presses 'doing their
thing.' I love seeing the Bain photos with the various notations derived from
etchings done on the negatives. Comparing the press stamps on the backs
is great fun and most educational as I learn more and more about the various
acquisitions and mergers of presses over the years. I also have found my way of collecting as a key way to gain 'pictures' of lesser known players,
who often have no baseball cards. Here I think of my 1920 van oeyen photo of Cleveland Indians player Clark who played only a couple of years but was
on their rare World Series winning team.
A great hobby, this is, and I highly recommend the Yee,Fogel, Oser volume
that has a central place on my desk.
all the best,
barry

[billyb]

And I am assuming that when a photo says on the back, Reference Dept., gives a date and states Press, that the photo comes out of the newspaper archive in which the photograaphers worked. (Print on side is on holder, not the photo). Attachment 101324

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by billyb

And I am assuming that when a photo says on the back, Reference Dept., gives a date and states Press, that the photo comes out of the newspaper archive in which the photograaphers worked. (Print on side is on holder, not the photo). Attachment 101324

The "Reference Dept." stamp does indicate that it came out of the newspaper's (or other publication's) archive, and very often, though not always, the stamping will also refer to the particular paper's archive in which the photo was filed. The photographer who took the shot may or may not have worked directly for the newspaper though.

Also worth noting is that the date on the "Reference Dept." stamp is when the photo was filed, NOT when it was shot. Very often the two dates will be within a few days of each other, but especially with a photo that early, it would be rare for the file date to coincide exactly with the date of the event photographed.

[billyb]

Lance,
That is great information, I thought the date on the back was the publication date. This photo came out of the Cleveland Press, and the historical Society, which stores all of VanOeyen negatives, checked on this photo and they were able to come up with a match, with reverse image, but could not find the newspaper article. But I told them to just search the date or a couple days after. I wish I had this information then.
Thanks Lance, we have more photos to research and with this information, this will help us locate the newspaper articles also.
Here is the photo and the distorted copy from the Historical Society that they sent for us to compare. Attachment 101328

Attachment 101330

[thecatspajamas]

Just keep in mind that the date the photo was shot, the publication date of the photo (if published), and the file date (literally, the date the photo was physically placed in the files) are often all different dates.