Photos in Legendary's Auction

[D. Bergin]

This auction is loaded with re-strikes. Which is fine if you at least give hint of this in the auctions.

Looks like they decided they didn't have time to do this and threw everything up against a wall with a general template for a description and let the chips fall where they may.

I guess because it's from "The Sporting News Archives" we're supposed to think all of the photos they list are extra special. I especially like the Dummy Hoy with the 1994 print date on the back.

Mind you, there's plenty of legitimate, vintage material mixed in there to. I just find it odd for them to mix vintage photographs with later restrikes without so much of a notation in the descriptions as to which is which.

The rushed, washed out scans don't help either.

I don't think it's an attempt to deceive either. I think they are inundated with so many photos, they thought this was the quickest, most efficient way to list as many as possible. Unfortunately for them, the number of obvious later generation photos in the grouping will probably keep the prices of the legitimate vintage shots down to a reasonable level for those with a discerning eye as to the difference. It may also lead to a lot of people seeking refunds after the auctions are over because they weren't sure what they were bidding on.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

It may also lead to a lot of people seeking refunds after the auctions are over because they weren't sure what they were bidding on.

Which will not be honored as per their T & C.

I believe both PSA & BVG do have a service which would have handled the photo ID for them if they really were just undermanned.

[perezfan]

The descriptions seem very arbitrary and incomplete. At least this time, they indicated the size of most of the photos. But there are tons in there that will garner big bucks, and are definitely not Type 1.

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by Matt

I believe both PSA & BVG do have a service which would have handled the photo ID for them if they really were just undermanned.

My guess is it takes time and effort to prepare a photo for submission to a grading company.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Rob:

Let's not forget that the grading companies are not going to provide this service free of charge........

[HRBAKER]

If they get the bids without the added cost then maybe ambiguity is more profitable.

[D. Bergin]

I've seen Beckett label Wire photos as Type I, so I'm not sure that's the answer either.

Fact is, for the majority of these photos, it's a ridiculous idea to go through the expense of encapsulating them. They should have a photo guy on their staff to be able to label the approximate vintage of each photo, however.

Tell us whether it's vintage to the era or a later printing. Whether it's a Wire photo or a Press photo. Give us the basics at least. Some photos it's just plain hard to tell. If you can't tell, then say so.

If they want to keep it real simple. Try and take less washed out scans of the backs and put the photo in one of two categories. Hell, they can even keep it a bit vague if they want.

#1. Probably vintage to the era.

#2. Probably a later generation file copy. Not vintage to the time the original photo was taken.

If they want to add more details like the time period they think the photo was actually printed........well the more power to them I guess.

[David Atkatz]

There's no such thing as a Type I photo. Just an absurd and unverifiable categorization, invented by the grading companies to bilk people out of even more money.

Ask any photo archivist.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

If they get the bids without the added cost then maybe ambiguity is more profitable.

WE'VE GOT A BINGO!

EXAMPLE:
Not "Type 1"= 90 percent of photos.
"TYPE 1"= 10 percent of photos.
*Numbers above are arbitrary but you get the point*


If all the crap goes for 3-5 times what it would with say later type classification and the "Type 1s" go for half, the auction house is doing pretty well without paying for authentication. At least Legendary shows the backs of the photos.

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Rob:

Let's not forget that the grading companies are not going to provide this service free of charge........

Uh, OK.

[bcbgcbrcb]

I think that if you look closely at the starting bids matched up to each individual item, I think you can get a pretty good idea of which items the auction house/consignor believes to be Type I's and which are not.

ie- mid-career images of John McGraw, Kenesaw Landis, Willie Keeler @ $200 each

1896 Paterson w/Honus Wagner @ $100 each

[Matt]

Phil - so the $100 starting bid of the first example I posted above is what one would expect to pay for a recent copy of a photo? Seems to me that's a Type 1 starting bid...