1915 Ruth Red Sox Pitching Staff Photo

[Shoeless Moe]

I dissent, seems like an awfully strong price for size 3 x 7 (muy poquito) and not considered a Type 1.

[prewarsports]

The Underwood stamp on the back is known to have existed in 1918 and possibly earlier and is well known in 1919 so it is a 1915 photo with a back stamp from c. 1918. You are correct though, by the PSA standards this would not get a Type 1 designation as it is clearly off a duplicate negative. I think the biggest room for upward mobility in the photo industry is in images like this. People act like "Type 1" is synonymous with "original" and "Type 3" is similar to an autograph failing authentication, but that is just not the case. This is just as "original" as any other Ruth Red Sox image as far as the vintage goes. If E121 cards are going to go for 20k because he is pictured with the Red Sox on the card, its hard to argue this was not a good deal! I would take this over many of the other Ruth items I see selling at auction for bigger prices all day long.

[drcy]

I think collectors give too much of value premium on a photo merely because it's a 'rookie year' photo. Just my opinion.

Honestly, I think it's a pretty marginal photo, and people value it highly just because it's an early Ruth.

[Bicem]

I'd argue rookie photos are underpriced compared to rookie cards. Especially in Ruth's case where his rc is a 1916 issue.

[drcy]

I was expressing my personal sentiments. Clearly, many bidders disagree.

[Bicem]

Well stop being wrong David.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by Bicem

Well stop being wrong David.

Considering my favorite Stooge is Shemp, I've been an outlier before.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

This is just as "original" as any other Ruth Red Sox image as far as the vintage goes.

And so are pictures of Ruth from 1918 publications.

The "duplicate negative" makes all the difference. Doesn't matter how close to 1915 it was printed if it is of inferior quality due to not being printed from the original negative.

One of the things I've hated to see happen since vintage photos took off in popularity, is all the 'collectors' who are now collecting photos the way cards are collected. Photos are great because of the clarity and composition of their images on the print. It's super-great when you can find a print made from the original negative very close to when the negative was created; however, we can also appreciate great prints made many years later from original negative. On the other hand, it's tough to appreciate a blurry print made from a second-generation negative, then trimmed down to tiny size.

Two enthusiastic thumbs down.

[prewarsports]

Agreed. In MANY cases (like about 99% of all Ansel Adams prints) there is no such thing as a Type 1, as almost all of his images were struck more than two years after they were originally taken. To educated buyers of his art it does not matter at all. Photos are not cards and I tell people they are similar to game used bats. Working, functional, tools of a trade that now have tremendous value after the fact. There is no right or wrong, just an emerging collectible that is finding its way in the world.

I agree that all the educated opinions are great!

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

Agreed. In MANY cases (like about 99% of all Ansel Adams prints) there is no such thing as a Type 1, as almost all of his images were struck more than two years after they were originally taken. To educated buyers of his art it does not matter at all. Photos are not cards and I tell people they are similar to game used bats. Working, functional, tools of a trade that now have tremendous value after the fact. There is no right or wrong, just an emerging collectible that is finding its way in the world.

I agree that all the educated opinions are great!

Rhys,

I think that Adams is a good example. Certain people are defining a 'type 1' is a photo printed within a certain period of time after the negative was created. It seems the parameters are arbitrary. If it is printed using the original negative on quality paper it would not seem to matter. Especially if the photographer's stamp is on the back or if there is a blind stamp. If Adams, or any other photographer for that matter, spent a year in the wilderness photographing, several weeks developing then printing a few months later is it not considered 'type 1'or does it fall outside of the arbitrary parameters?

I mean single prints using the original negative, not limited editions. I would also not consider prints made by the Center for Creative Photography which owns the Adam's negatives.

I guess Brett Weston is an interesting consideration. He destroyed his negatives before he died. No one else can create new prints. I believe he said that the photo and the print were his art and he did not want others trying to recreate what he did.

"But Mr. Weston declared that he had destroyed his negatives simply because he alone could print them the way he intended, and he didn't plan to leave them around for someone else to print after his death. And his actions were hardly the whim of an old man. In fact, it was more than a decade ago, in a 1980 monograph on his work, that he first announced his intention to destroy his negatives when he reached the age of 80."

Brett's brother Cole has control of their father's (Edwin Weston) negatives and continues to print those using handwritten instructions from their father.