Show Your Henry Yee Winnings

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by bobfreedman

I loved the Ruth composite not only is it historic but it is a Type I in my mind because of it being a composite (IMHO, the type classification system fails here in accurately describing what the photo is).

How, exactly, does the Type system fail here Bob? I just don't get this at all.
It is just a classification system. You have a very rare Type 3 within that system. What is wrong with that or the system? This way of thinking makes no sense to me. Clearly the market showed it was rare bringing 4 figures. NEVER should this be considered a type 1 as A) it is created in 1919 when Ruth was getting huge recognition(using a rookie 1915 photo) B) created off dupe neg. Nothing failed, it is just that you have an better understanding(or not) of the system and know what is important to you. If you are happy with rare TYPE 3 paying less than rare TYPE 1s.. that is great!
I could kick this dead horse all day long. This is a perfect example, though, of why there is a need for the type system(separation btwn photos). The original image of this Ruth was taken/developed in 1915(as a rookie) with his teammates(TYPE 1). One brought over 12k in REA twice. Yours, though rare, was developed later(after he broke records) and made off a dupe neg(not the quality/clarity). How could you ever consider these two photos equal? If you do, that is great.. you will get a lot of great photos for “great prices”.
I will say, however, that yours is very cool as it shows the two players side by side and is a historical "work of art"(dare I say) in composing them together. That is where the high value(1200 plus) came into play and rightfully so...worth every penny IMO.

I also find value in early type 3 composites. As you may or may not recall, I purchased a 1915 Rookie Ruth portrait/composite made from dupe negs put together. It is really rare but I would much rather have the type 1 of Ruth that sold in heritage for 10k made off the original negative. I would, however, rather have my photo than a type 2 created in say..1927. Many may not agree as a type 2 prob has better clarity off the original neg(like a type 1). But then again, if the dupe was done poorly.. I might reconsider. It all depends which makes it fun! There is one constant for me though....I LIKE EARLY/OLD/ as close to the date when the lensman snapped that photo as possible. The image clarity is also very important to me. Hence, TYPE 1 is king to me within the TYPE classification system.

That being said, you clearly have GREAT taste in photos which everyone can see. I love the Jackie! KILLER KILLER JACKIE. And I LOVE the negro league players together. Congrats Bob!

Scotty.. I am very proud of you my friend. You all grows up! haha! just funning! That is a great photo for a pool room!

Lance, I love when you buy things for research purposes. We all benefit!!



MY 1915 ROOKIE TYPE 3 Which I am very happy with for the price:




TYPE 3 1919 off dupe neg in Henry's auction


TYPE 1 1915 off original neg

[Lordstan]

Does it count to be the underbidder in 5 auctions?
Yesterday was a big Zip Zero Zilch Nada for me.
Here's hoping tonight goes better.

How's this for a silver lining....
The only good thing about not winning anything in Henry's auction is that I'll have more money for Rhys' next auction.

Very nice stuff everyone.
Bob,
I really love that Jackie pic. Just a great image. Congrats.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by lordstan

how's this for a silver lining....
The only good thing about not winning anything in henry's auction is that i'll have more money for rhys' next auction.

everybody wins!! Haha

[prewarsports]

I bid on a bunch but only won a handful. Some of the ones I REALLY want are yet to finish though so we'll see what happens.

Rhys

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

I bid on a bunch but only won a handful. Some of the ones I REALLY want are yet to finish though so we'll see what happens.

Rhys

There are some incredible ones coming up;
a lot of historical shots outside of baseball I am really interested in seeing realized prices. It is fun to see the photo hobby grow and new guys get into it. These Yee auctions are fun to watch as it can go from zero to 60 in 1.0.

[mybestbretts]

henry yee 1.jpg

henry yee 2.jpg

Always a Brett

[thecatspajamas]

The rest of mine. Nothing expensive. Primarily went for the fun and/or personal interest angle.

[bobfreedman]

[QUOTE=Forever Young;1203071]How, exactly, does the Type system fail here Bob? I just don't get this at all.
It is just a classification system. You have a very rare Type 3 within that system. What is wrong with that or the system? This way of thinking makes no sense to me. Clearly the market showed it was rare bringing 4 figures. NEVER should this be considered a type 1 as A) it is created in 1919 when Ruth was getting huge recognition(using a rookie 1915 photo) B) created off dupe neg. Nothing failed, it is just that you have an better understanding(or not) of the system and know what is important to you. If you are happy with rare TYPE 3 paying less than rare TYPE 1s.. that is great!
I could kick this dead horse all day long. This is a perfect example, though, of why there is a need for the type system(separation btwn photos). The original image of this Ruth was taken/developed in 1915(as a rookie) with his teammates(TYPE 1). One brought over 12k in REA twice. Yours, though rare, was developed later(after he broke records) and made off a dupe neg(not the quality/clarity). How could you ever consider these two photos equal? If you do, that is great.. you will get a lot of great photos for “great prices”.
I will say, however, that yours is very cool as it shows the two players side by side and is a historical "work of art"(dare I say) in composing them together. That is where the high value(1200 plus) came into play and rightfully so...worth every penny IMO.

I also find value in early type 3 composites. As you may or may not recall, I purchased a 1915 Rookie Ruth portrait/composite made from dupe negs put together. It is really rare but I would much rather have the type 1 of Ruth that sold in heritage for 10k made off the original negative. I would, however, rather have my photo than a type 2 created in say..1927. Many may not agree as a type 2 prob has better clarity off the original neg(like a type 1). But then again, if the dupe was done poorly.. I might reconsider. It all depends which makes it fun! There is one constant for me though....I LIKE EARLY/OLD/ as close to the date when the lensman snapped that photo as possible. The image clarity is also very important to me. Hence, TYPE 1 is king to me within the TYPE classification system.

That being said, you clearly have GREAT taste in photos which everyone can see. I love the Jackie! KILLER KILLER JACKIE. And I LOVE the negro league players together. Congrats Bob!



Ben, I understand where you are coming from but, I think it fails in what some peoples perceptions of what is valuable and what is not. The perception is that for a photo to be valuable it needs to be a type I, that may or may not be your perception (I think it is safe to say it is not for you) but I think that is the mainstream thinking. This photo is obviously not worth 10's of thousands of dollars like your originals but, I do believe it has far greater value than the what the piece was sold for just my opinion and I don't think we need to debate this.

[HRBAKER]

Blown out of the water on several others:

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

Blown out of the water on several others:

Cool Jeff.. I have a soft spot in my heart for Maris. These color slides are beautiful. I bought some in Henry's last auction... love them.

[JoeyF1981]

Delete

[JoeyF1981]

delete

[Tigerden]

Love the photos keep 'em coming all. I am mostly a watcher of Henry's auctions and love looking at the many fantastic (and often iconic) images that I only wish I could afford. Collecting photos is not my main point of interest but I just had to have this portrait of a young Al Kaline. This is a color slide and I want to get a photo framed. I assume I can take this slide to a professional photographer who can print some images without damaging the slide? Any advice about how I should go about this would be much appreciated. I doubt dropping it off at the local CVS is the way to go. At any rate, I want a nice image but dont want to risk any damageto the slide. Please excuse my ignorance on the subject. Thanks. Adam

[HRBAKER]

Adam,

I have made many prints from color slides at Costco actually and never had a slide damaged.

Here are examples of a couple of prints that I have made there. These are 5x7s with a border and matte finish. I have never tried a real large print. I am not sure what kind of resolution you might lose.

[Forever Young]

[QUOTE=bobfreedman;1203145]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

How, exactly, does the Type system fail here Bob? I just don't get this at all.
It is just a classification system. You have a very rare Type 3 within that system. What is wrong with that or the system? This way of thinking makes no sense to me. Clearly the market showed it was rare bringing 4 figures. NEVER should this be considered a type 1 as A) it is created in 1919 when Ruth was getting huge recognition(using a rookie 1915 photo) B) created off dupe neg. Nothing failed, it is just that you have an better understanding(or not) of the system and know what is important to you. If you are happy with rare TYPE 3 paying less than rare TYPE 1s.. that is great!
I could kick this dead horse all day long. This is a perfect example, though, of why there is a need for the type system(separation btwn photos). The original image of this Ruth was taken/developed in 1915(as a rookie) with his teammates(TYPE 1). One brought over 12k in REA twice. Yours, though rare, was developed later(after he broke records) and made off a dupe neg(not the quality/clarity). How could you ever consider these two photos equal? If you do, that is great.. you will get a lot of great photos for “great prices”.
I will say, however, that yours is very cool as it shows the two players side by side and is a historical "work of art"(dare I say) in composing them together. That is where the high value(1200 plus) came into play and rightfully so...worth every penny IMO.

I also find value in early type 3 composites. As you may or may not recall, I purchased a 1915 Rookie Ruth portrait/composite made from dupe negs put together. It is really rare but I would much rather have the type 1 of Ruth that sold in heritage for 10k made off the original negative. I would, however, rather have my photo than a type 2 created in say..1927. Many may not agree as a type 2 prob has better clarity off the original neg(like a type 1). But then again, if the dupe was done poorly.. I might reconsider. It all depends which makes it fun! There is one constant for me though....I LIKE EARLY/OLD/ as close to the date when the lensman snapped that photo as possible. The image clarity is also very important to me. Hence, TYPE 1 is king to me within the TYPE classification system.

That being said, you clearly have GREAT taste in photos which everyone can see. I love the Jackie! KILLER KILLER JACKIE. And I LOVE the negro league players together. Congrats Bob!



Ben, I understand where you are coming from but, I think it fails in what some peoples perceptions of what is valuable and what is not. The perception is that for a photo to be valuable it needs to be a type I, that may or may not be your perception (I think it is safe to say it is not for you) but I think that is the mainstream thinking. This photo is obviously not worth 10's of thousands of dollars like your originals but, I do believe it has far greater value than the what the piece was sold for just my opinion and I don't think we need to debate this.

Fair enough Bob. I do think your photo is a wonderful one at a nice price.
Because you feel ike it went low, has nothing to do with a flaw in the type system(makes zero sense to me-I just do not understand this thought process) IMO.
It is up to the buying public to determine what a photo is worth. Henry's description indicated exactly what this photo was. The psa slap clearly says the year(1919) it was created.
The collecting public(make no mistake..more HIGH END baseball photo guys are following this auction than any other photo auction out there) thought was worth less than you did. If one other person valued it as you do(and had the money-key), it would have went way higher obviously.
Heck, it happens to me on just about every photo I win so I do know the feeling haha!
You got a great photo and a price you are happy with which is fantastic! It is truly historical and a great pickup! It is a Type 3 example worth a lot of money and the market clearly agreed. I am with you in that there are some great buys on old, period Type 3 photos just like there is on Type 1 and Type 2s.