1915 Ruth Red Sox Pitching Staff Photo

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Collecting can sometimes be all about enforcing your rules (and others) and making them the be all and end all. That’s cool. But sometimes the rules are a little nuts.

To use the example Rhys uses in his classification rules, if Conlon took a great Ruth and ran back to his darkroom to develop it it’s a Type 1. But if he prints that Type 1 and notices one of Ruth’s teammates in the background picking his nose, he then takes that dude out of the picture and takes a new picture off the print. Destroying the original. The copy is printed one hour after the original and he signs off on that. The photo is now somehow a $5000 photo and not a $75000 one. Seems pretty arbitrary to me.

Arbitrary except for a little thing like quality of the photograph/image. The type 1 examples of this particular subject are off the charts in clarity vs this. There are reasons why Type 1 photos are higher valued and more sought after than later prints or prints of lesser quality. Those who state otherwise typically have not so objective motives.
It is a great vintage piece but not close to the quality of a 1915 type 1 example.

[Snapolit1]

Ben - I wasn't suggesting for a moment that they are equal quality. Obviously they are not. But questioning the proportionality of it. If a Type I photo is developed at 10 am and the photographer disregards it and "fixes" something an hour later, hard to understand in the abstract why the latter photo would be considered to be worth a fraction of what he threw in the trash. The fact that Henry Yee reviews something in his office and utters ". . . yeah, Type 1. . . off the original negative and the timing works out" catapults something into a higher realm. Just like when PSA says that cards a 10 and not a 9 all of a sudden it goes from a value of $9,000 to $130,000. If the same Ruth photo was sold by another auction house and they didn't qualify it and just said Type 1, this would have gone for much more and no one would be questioning the quality of it.

PSA could change their who photo classification scheme tomorrow anyway.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Ben - I wasn't suggesting for a moment that they are equal quality. Obviously they are not. But questioning the proportionality of it. If a Type I photo is developed at 10 am and the photographer disregards it and "fixes" something an hour later, hard to understand in the abstract why the latter photo would be considered to be worth a fraction of what he threw in the trash. The fact that Henry Yee reviews something in his office and utters ". . . yeah, Type 1. . . off the original negative and the timing works out" catapults something into a higher realm. Just like when PSA says that cards a 10 and not a 9 all of a sudden it goes from a value of $9,000 to $130,000. If the same Ruth photo was sold by another auction house and they didn't qualify it and just said Type 1, this would have gone for much more and no one would be questioning the quality of it.

PSA could change their who photo classification scheme tomorrow anyway.

Comparing s type 1 is to a psa 10 as a vintage type 3 is to a psa 5(or whatever number) is simply not comparable imo(other than the psa). There is no registry for photos to begin with so they are not bought and sold like a stock market. One glaring difference.
My position on this has not changed even when I owned one photo in the beginning. I will always want off original neg as close to when the photo was originally taken. As a knowledgeable collector the variance in price does not seem too out of sorts to me. I want original paintings, not lithographs. I want original cards, not reprints. I want vintage playing days autographs not almost dead sharpies examples. Several "semi-comparable"

Dealers, auctioneers , people looking to flip etc are always looking for as much gray area as they can to make extra money. Psa type system can hinder that for them sometimes so they bash. It is a huge pet peeve of mine. Promote the item fir wgat it is rather than tear down what it's not. I'm not pointing at you at all Nap.. I know you are a relatively new photo collector... and I hear what you are saying and respect your opinion.
I too feel there is value in say the piece you posted. I just don't think if the original is worth 15-20k, that this price you showed is out of line.
Bottom line is, people will and should collect what they want. If collectors , actioneees , dealers etc want non type 1s.. that is great(I have some too). I felt the need to respond in my voice to text again sorry if this post is all over the place. Again, great vintage Ruth piece. I have a type 1 and one like this that I can post after work to show the difference. I do think photos in general are undervalued as it related to say cards.

[Bpm0014]

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

As a collector of photos, I couldn't agree more. This photo is thoroughly unimpressive.

[Bicem]

I'm shifting my collecting focus to "almost dead sharpies."

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Bicem

I'm shifting my collecting focus to "almost dead sharpies."

that would be a mistake.. but by all means do... quit shifting it to mine

[T206Jim]

Jeff, to have a true Type 1 Almost Dead Sharpies collection are you going to use the PSA style within two years prior to death range or a five year range like Rhys uses for photos?