Anyone win any photos in Legendary's Auction?

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by nyyanksghr

With all the talk of Type I and Type II...a few questions/comments. I would like to see a much broader definition of Type II. This Type I through IV is a recent concept developed by Marshall and Henry for the purpose of providing a grading scale for PSA. In the technical definition, a Joe Jackson photo, printed from the original negative, that was taken during the 1919 World Series but not published/printed until 1922 would be considered TYPE II, due to it being printed after 2 years of capture. By the same token, that same image of Jackson from the 1919 World Series, developed from the original negative, in 2009, would be technically a TYPE II. Both would be TYPE II with a drastically different monetary value. What are your opinions of such a broad definition?

A larger issue a see with TYP I and II desigantion is on original photos with no stamping. How would it be possible to know for certain, if a photo developed from the original negative of Jackson, in the 1919 WS, was developed in 1919, or 1929? An 80 year old photo from 1929 would appear no different than a 90 year old photo, from 1919. With no reverse stamping, which is frequent with early photography, you have a guessing game to determine an exact date, within 2 years of photo capture. Thoughts? John Rogers

Very good points and a question I've always wondered. Press/Wire photos are fairly easy to tell.

Photos from freelance and studio photographers I think are strictly an educated guessing game based on paper type, wear, feeling and even smell. 2 years has to be more of a roundabout figure that maybe should be upgraded to 5 years or so to be more accurate. Who's really to tell if George Burke printed out a photo in 1936 or 1939?

[drc]

double post

[drc]

There's nothing wrong with calling it a 1930s George Burke photo. You don't have to call it original or 1936 if you don't want to. You label photos one at a time and the key is to describe what a photograph is. Sometimes you can describe a photo with one word (ala "original") and other times it can take a paragraph to explain what's going on. Sometimes you don't know exactly when a photo was made and you don't say you do. As noted, news photos by their nature are intended to be timely and you can be more confident many were made right away. Studio photos can be more difficult, but they can often be dated to the period, which satisfies many Hollywood collectors. You can have a 1932 image of Greta Garbo where you can't prove the date but are confident the photo is from the 1930s due to the physical nature. And, actually, most movie studio photos and promos were timely as well, as they were usually tied to movie releases.

The PSA/DNA 2 year rule really is a concept. In my book I use the rule "Made soon after the image was shot." Does a Burke photo shot in 1932 and printed in 1937 count as "soon after"?

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by drc

There's nothing wrong with calling it a 1930s George Burke photo. You don't have to call it original or 1936 if you don't want to. You label photos one at a time and the key is to describe what a photograph is. Sometimes you can describe a photo with one word (ala "original") and other times it can take a paragraph to explain what's going on. Sometimes you don't know exactly when a photo was made and you don't say you do. As noted, news photos by their nature are intended to be timely and you can be more confident many were made right away. Studio photos can be more difficult, but they can often be dated to the period, which satisfies many Hollywood collectors. You can have a 1932 image of Greta Garbo where you can't prove the date but are confident the photo is from the 1930s due to the physical nature. And, actually, most movie studio photos and promos were timely as well, as they were usually tied to movie releases.

The PSA/DNA 2 year rule really is a concept. In my book I use the rule "Made soon after the image was shot." Does a Burke photo shot in 1932 and printed in 1937 count as "soon after"?

First and foremost, common sense must come into play. As for myself, I simply stay away, far away. from blank back photos, period.

Regarding any piece of memorabilia, if you're spending your hard-earned money on photos, bats, autographs, or whatever it is you collect, and the authenticity cannot be determined by the hobby's top experts, and you still pull the trigger, then you just might not be the sharpest tool in the shed.

Photo collectors are fortunate that we now have TWO major companies that authenticate photographs, as just a few years ago we had none! I mean really, we have some of the best experts in the country in Henry Yee, Dr David Cycleback, and Marshall Fogel. Why won't these auction houses use them?!

I just wish Legendary and Lelands (because they have the giant photo inventories) would utilize their services. I cannot understand why they don't, unless they would prefer to skate by with vague descriptions aimed at inexperienced buyers.

This only keeps the photo sector of the hobby from growing by the leaps and bounds that it should, with all the great major finds that have surfaced in the last few years.

Maybe they don't want to hear the bad news that some potential big ticket photos can't be determined if it's a TYPE I or II and rather than lose a huge sale, just sell it raw (with a "no returns" policy of course).

At least Legendary deserves props for including scans of the back of the photos. By now, even a casual photo buyer knows how important the information on the back of the photo is in determining the value of the photo.

Come on Josh & Hef... let's have some more transparency here. I want to buy more of your photos, but not if I can't see the whole package.

Would you buy a expensive car with only looking at the outside? You can't open the door and get inside and no way can you take it for a test drive. How can you do business like that.

In closing, I'm gonna drop a line from one of my favorite movies that I think is appropriate here, Glengarry GlenRoss... "A man doesn't step on the lot lest he wants to buy." We're dying to give you our money...are you man enough to take it? Are you Josh? Are you Doug?

Sincerely and respectfully, Jimmy

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by drc

There's nothing wrong with calling it a 1930s George Burke photo. You don't have to call it original or 1936 if you don't want to. You label photos one at a time and the key is to describe what a photograph is. Sometimes you can describe a photo with one word (ala "original") and other times it can take a paragraph to explain what's going on. Sometimes you don't know exactly when a photo was made and you don't say you do. As noted, news photos by their nature are intended to be timely and you can be more confident many were made right away. Studio photos can be more difficult, but they can often be dated to the period, which satisfies many Hollywood collectors. You can have a 1932 image of Greta Garbo where you can't prove the date but are confident the photo is from the 1930s due to the physical nature. And, actually, most movie studio photos and promos were timely as well, as they were usually tied to movie releases.

The PSA/DNA 2 year rule really is a concept. In my book I use the rule "Made soon after the image was shot." Does a Burke photo shot in 1932 and printed in 1937 count as "soon after"?

I agree David. I don't have Henry Yee's book but I have had yours for nearly a decade now.

I've sold tons of blank back photos I am confident are vintage to the period. All photos were not meant for the press services.........especially in boxing where promotional photo shots were commonplace and used to market boxers during the time period and sent out to various promoters and managers.

Jimmy, I hear you about Leland's. I've bid and won lots of their stuff but most of the time it's a crap shoot and I try to bid accordingly.

One time I bought a large boxing photo collection and the lot ended up being comprised of mostly 2nd generation shots and lots of throwaway stuff. Another lot had like 600 photos and 200 of them were of an obscure british flyweight champion from the 40's-50's named Terry Allen, lots of them duplicated.............not sure what I was supposed to do with those.

On the flip side I've also picked up lots, thought I might have overpaid and been pleasantly surprised when I got them in, finding lots of gems they never mentioned in the initial description.

I've rarely bid on single photos from them but agree it would help if backs were shown, whether they are press OR studio photos so you would at least get a sense of the paper grain.

[drc]

I've read the Mastro/Yee et al book and think it's a good book. It focuses almost entirely on news and press photos, but has lots of info and research on that subject.

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by drc

I've read the Mastro/Yee et al book and think it's a good book. It focuses almost entirely on news and press photos, but has lots of info and research on that subject.

Your comments speak volumes about your character David. Like Henry and Marshall, you're a fair honest man with integrity, and that sir, is the kind of man I want as an advocate for our sector of the hobby. You have my respect and admiration and with you, Mr. Fogel, and Mr. Yee leading the way, I feel better then ever about Baseball Photography's future in the collecting world.

Which brings me back to the question I posed earlier in this thread... With some of the top experts in the country available to shed light and give credibility to authenticating Baseball photographs...why aren't the auctions houses utilizing their services?!

Sincerely, Jimmy

P.S. David, your book also resides in my Baseball Library.