New Photographic Collectible Coming Online

[Imago]

This mockery sounds very familiar. It may be just what I want to hear.
This is what I have received at each stage of my collecting career.

In the 1980s when I began buying baseball memorabilia from antique dealers - they mocked. They laughed and told me what a fool I was. "No one wants this stuff." I said — keep laughing and bring the stuff to me.

Then in the 1990s I began buying baseball photos by the box load, as newspapers sold off their morgues. Again I heard how stupid I was. Even sports auction leaders claimed that no one would want old photographs - they are not cards. Mock on, I said, as I turned photographic prints, which I paid $2 or $3 dollars for into Thousands. It can be quite profitable to be a fool !

So - watch and wait. It’s another opportunity to be mocked - or another opportunity to take advantage of.

[Snapolit1]

Just curious. . . if you've been at the vanguard of baseball memorabilia collecting for more than 4 decades, what happened last week that caused you to finally join the world's largest and most influential Internet board dedicated to collecting vintage baseball cards and memorabilia?

Originally Posted by Imago

This mockery sounds very familiar. It may be just what I want to hear.
This is what I have received at each stage of my collecting career.

In the 1980s when I began buying baseball memorabilia from antique dealers - they mocked. They laughed and told me what a fool I was. "No one wants this stuff." I said — keep laughing and bring the stuff to me.

Then in the 1990s I began buying baseball photos by the box load, as newspapers sold off their morgues. Again I heard how stupid I was. Even sports auction leaders claimed that no one would want old photographs - they are not cards. Mock on, I said, as I turned photographic prints, which I paid $2 or $3 dollars for into Thousands. It can be quite profitable to be a fool !

So - watch and wait. It’s another opportunity to be mocked - or another opportunity to take advantage of.

[SAllen2556]

Ok, I mis-read the original post. The op is claiming he has the original photo that was sent over the wire that other newspapers received in crappy paper format.

Ok, why is that so worthless? They are type 1 photos. I have many of these original photos because my dad worked at the Detroit Free Press as a photographer. The photographer took the shot, it was developed and possibly used in the paper or possibly sent over the wire if was maybe a playoff game or something worthy of national attention.

The reporter wrote the blurb, and off it went over the wire to other papers. I have a couple Michael Jordan photos from this time period because the Bulls and Pistons played in the playoffs every year. I don't think the Jordan photos are worthless. They're from 1989-90 and color 8 x 10s. I even have a few with the reporter's original writing for the caption that was later attached.

The clarity of the photos was not always the greatest on these because newspaper photographers were using 35 mm film and blowing them up to 8 x 10. Old wire photos were from 4 x 5 negatives.

The photos he showed are one of a kind because they're the original photo that was created by a specific newspaper and then sent over the wire. I don't understand why they would be less valuable than other type 1 photos.

Edited to add: Color photography was just in the beginning stages for newspapers in the late 80's, and the process to put a color photo on page 1 of a newspaper was a pretty complicated process.

[Swadewade51]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

Ok, I mis-read the original post. The op is claiming he has the original photo that was sent over the wire that other newspapers received in crappy paper format.

Ok, why is that so worthless? They are type 1 photos. I have many of these original photos because my dad worked at the Detroit Free Press as a photographer. The photographer took the shot, it was developed and possibly used in the paper or possibly sent over the wire if was maybe a playoff game or something worthy of national attention.

The reporter wrote the blurb, and off it went over the wire to other papers. I have a couple Michael Jordan photos from this time period because the Bulls and Pistons played in the playoffs every year. I don't think the Jordan photos are worthless. They're from 1989-90 and color 8 x 10s. I even have a few with the reporter's original writing for the caption that was later attached.

The clarity of the photos was not always the greatest on these because newspaper photographers were using 35 mm film and blowing them up to 8 x 10. Old wire photos were from 4 x 5 negatives.

The photos he showed are one of a kind because they're the original photo that was created by a specific newspaper and then sent over the wire. I don't understand why they would be less valuable than other type 1 photos.

The caption blasted on the front is pretty unappealing but that's just my opinion. Same holds true for any wire photos with the caption attached to the front.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

Ok, I mis-read the original post. The op is claiming he has the original photo that was sent over the wire that other newspapers received in crappy paper format.

Ok, why is that so worthless? They are type 1 photos. I have many of these original photos because my dad worked at the Detroit Free Press as a photographer. The photographer took the shot, it was developed and possibly used in the paper or possibly sent over the wire if was maybe a playoff game or something worthy of national attention.

The reporter wrote the blurb, and off it went over the wire to other papers. I have a couple Michael Jordan photos from this time period because the Bulls and Pistons played in the playoffs every year. I don't think the Jordan photos are worthless. They're from 1989-90 and color 8 x 10s. I even have a few with the reporter's original writing for the caption that was later attached.

The clarity of the photos was not always the greatest on these because newspaper photographers were using 35 mm film and blowing them up to 8 x 10. Old wire photos were from 4 x 5 negatives.

The photos he showed are one of a kind because they're the original photo that was created by a specific newspaper and then sent over the wire. I don't understand why they would be less valuable than other type 1 photos.

Edited to add: Color photography was just in the beginning stages for newspapers in the late 80's, and the process to put a color photo on page 1 of a newspaper was a pretty complicated process.

Good post

[Republicaninmass]

I'm thinking of having my next sub labeled

"One of a kind collection"

[Bicem]

Agreed with Ben, don't understand at all why the animosity/mockery.

Great original photos.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Bicem

Agreed with Ben, don't understand at all why the animosity/mockery.

Great original photos.

For what it is worth, I am mocking the opinion seller and the multitude of ways the label claims that this item, which could potentially be a fantasy piece, is unique and real.

I am mocking the fact that after the slab says "Type 1" it then says authentic, which seems a bit redundant.

I am mocking the slab saying "one of a kind" because I'm curious how they could know that there aren't others, which I suppose would cause it to be "One of a kind (of multiple copies)"

Certainly some of my mocking is aimed at the OP just because he posted this grand press release of this "new collectible" (that is 50 years old).

Also, I have no animosity towards anyone (except the opinion sellers), I hope the items are all real, I hope they are all worth a fortune, I hope a new sub-genre to the hobby was born of this thread, I hope that Jimmy Carter happily lives to see his 100th birthday.

I hope most for that last one.

Doug "waiting on the OP to answer my question(s)" Goodman

[Dewey]

If I had a famous Jackie Robinson photo with attached caption that could be proven to be the parent image of its wirephoto children, and thus the source image of why it became a famous, widely-distributed photo in the first place, it would be neat.

If interest in this category of photo took off, along with the prices, how would we know that someone didn't just glue a piece of vintage paper to the photo? And do you trust PSA to judge that? Those are the questions. We'll all answer them the way we see fit.

[midmo]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Just curious. . . if you've been at the vanguard of baseball memorabilia collecting for more than 4 decades, what happened last week that caused you to finally join the world's largest and most influential Internet board dedicated to collecting vintage baseball cards and memorabilia?

To be fair I know people with very deep vintage collections that are not on here.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Imago

This mockery sounds very familiar. It may be just what I want to hear.

I enjoy mocking those who deserve it.

Turning a little money into a lot of money doesn't mean I won't mock, it just gives me more opportunities to mock. You can make a billion dollars selling these things with their fancy little labels and slabs, I will still think they are a cause for mockery, just as I mock every successive owner of the Wagner I posted earlier. Worth millions? Evidently. Mock-able? Abso-f**king-lutely.

Just because you got an opinion seller to give you an opinion does not make that opinion valid to me.

Just because the two of you are attempting to push :

It's type 1
It's original
It's authentic
It's one of a kind

Down our throats does not mean I believe it is all (or any) of those things.

I believe there is a chance that you made it, which would then make it three of those things.

Hitting pause on my mocking for a moment, I have four individual questions for you, each very similar so I will pose them as one question :

Regarding the Alomar item : how do you, or the opinion seller, know that it is each of those things? Type 1. Original. Authentic. One of a kind.

Answer those questions and I will potentially stop my mocking of you and anybody else who thinks these things are, as you say, a "New Photographic Collectible".

Doug "but probably not" Goodman



PS - look at all the weird stuff that I collect, I am as mock-able as anybody on this site

[EddieP]

Educational purposes only ( I AM NOT TAKING A SIDE ON THIS TOPIC): people who collect photos of the photojournalism type put a premium on the ones with the caption underneath because it means the photo was “ Newsworthy” and it was used in publication. So if you enter a shop that sells only photos and NOT involved in sports memorobilia and if he is pricing a non-captioned photo higher than a captioned one, then you know he is ripping you off and you should be able to negotiate a lesser price. The opposite is true in sports memorobilia.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by EddieP

Educational purposes only ( I AM NOT TAKING A SIDE ON THIS TOPIC)

So you won't tell us if you are for or against mocking?

Insert smiley face here.

[EddieP]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

So you won't tell us if you are for or against mocking?

Insert smiley face here.

First of all, it’s nice to know PSA is recognizing this type of photo genre. Which is a plus considering they ( PSA) do not recognize photo/rotogravures.

However( and I’m not mocking the OP), he’ll really have an uphill battle in selling this. People who collect photos will pay a 1/100 of what a sports memorabilia collector would. Because of the aesthetics and skepticism, a sports memorabilia collector will not pay top dollar. And those who are willing to buy it , will only buy at very steep discounts.

Again, not mocking, to the OP, I wish you luck.

[SAllen2556]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

I enjoy mocking those who deserve it.

Turning a little money into a lot of money doesn't mean I won't mock, it just gives me more opportunities to mock. You can make a billion dollars selling these things with their fancy little labels and slabs, I will still think they are a cause for mockery, just as I mock every successive owner of the Wagner I posted earlier. Worth millions? Evidently. Mock-able? Abso-f**king-lutely.

Just because you got an opinion seller to give you an opinion does not make that opinion valid to me.

Just because the two of you are attempting to push :

It's type 1
It's original
It's authentic
It's one of a kind

Down our throats does not mean I believe it is all (or any) of those things.

I believe there is a chance that you made it, which would then make it three of those things.

Hitting pause on my mocking for a moment, I have four individual questions for you, each very similar so I will pose them as one question :

Regarding the Alomar item : how do you, or the opinion seller, know that it is each of those things? Type 1. Original. Authentic. One of a kind.

Answer those questions and I will potentially stop my mocking of you and anybody else who thinks these things are, as you say, a "New Photographic Collectible".

Doug "but probably not" Goodman



PS - look at all the weird stuff that I collect, I am as mock-able as anybody on this site

I would agree that absolutely proving it's type 1, authentic, and one of a kind may be impossible. I suppose the best way would be to find the wire photo version of his original Alomar photo and match it up. I also think, like an autograph of, say, Buddy Bell, why forge it to begin with? It isn't worth $5, in my opinion, so what would be the point? And we all know practically any collectible can be faked.

If I understand correctly, what he's pushing is that he has the original wire photo before it was sent out. The one actually created by the specific newspaper that sent it out. I think, if it's a cool enough photo, there might be some added value there. Personally, I think the ones he showed are basically worthless. But if it's a Jordan photo? I think it might get more than the duplicated press photo would get, similar to having the original painting of one that was used to create a limited edition print run.

I have hundreds of press photos from the late 70's to the early 90's. I put them in 4 binders, displayed them at a garage sale and asked $1 apiece. I sold......two.

People collect barbed wire. To each his own.