New Photographic Collectible Coming Online

[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.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Dewey

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.

Therein lies one of my issues.

And the short answer to your second question, for me, is "no"