Photos in Legendary's Auction

[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.

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by 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.

David,
I am not sure the grading companies invented it but I agree with you on this one.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by 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.

David - what is the correct terminology for a period strike from an original negative? When I say Type 1, that's what I have in mind, but I'd be glad to use the correct terminology.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Matt:

Other than the image not being period, I can't tell you if it was produced during the 1910's era, 1920's, 1930's, 1940's, etc. My guess is that it was not produced during the modern era (1970's - 2000's). Since the 1896 Paterson image of Wagner is the second oldest pro baseball image of Wagner known to exist, an original would probably bring 5-figures as a cabinet card sold for $20,000+ a number of years ago. An original Wagner in this auction would start at a minimum of $1,000+ IMHO.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Matt:

Other than the image not being period, I can't tell you if it was produced during the 1910's era, 1920's, 1930's, 1940's, etc. My guess is that it was not produced during the modern era (1970's - 2000's). Since the 1896 Paterson image of Wagner is the second oldest pro baseball image of Wagner known to exist, an original would probably bring 5-figures as a cabinet card sold for $20,000+ a number of years ago. An original Wagner in this auction would start at a minimum of $1,000+ IMHO.

Phil - as far as I can see, all the photos in the archive section of the auction have starting bids of $50, $100 or $200.

[Ladder7]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

There's no such thing as a Type I photo. Just an absurd and unverifiable categorization,..

Though they need to be called something. Seems the Type 1-4 labels are difficult for some collectors, especially the developed within two years theory.

This aspect of the hobby is in it's infancy. To protect naive buyers, and there are many., You've got to agree, there needs to be some mechanism to distinguish the original/period shots from; those done (decades) later, transmitted by wire and photos of old photos -to protect naive photo buyers. The fact is, some of these are technically reprints.

I believe Legendary is acting irresponsibly and folks are going to get scrood. Steve

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by Ladder7

Though they need to be called something. Seems the Type 1-4 labels are difficult for some collectors, especially the developed within two years theory.

This aspect of the hobby is in it's infancy. To protect naive buyers, and there are many., You've got to agree, there needs to be some mechanism to distinguish the original/period shots from; those done (decades) later, transmitted by wire and photos of old photos -to protect naive photo buyers. The fact is, some of these are technically reprints.

I believe Legendary is acting irresponsibly and folks are going to get scrood. Steve

Terrific post Goombah! You're absolutely spot on.

[glchen]

FYI, I sent an email to Legendary about the Babe Ruth Red Sox photo (Lot 1684) in the current Legendary Auction, and the quick response that I received from Doug Allen of Legendary was as follows:

"Keystone View Company was in existence from the early 1900’s to the mid 1930’s.
I do not believe this to be a type I photo but I believe it dates to the mid 30’s."

Keystone had a stamp on the back of the photo, but there was also a marking for 1983 that seemed confusing.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Ladder7

This aspect of the hobby is in it's infancy. To protect naive buyers, and there are many., You've got to agree, there needs to be some mechanism to distinguish the original/period shots from; those done (decades) later, transmitted by wire and photos of old photos -to protect naive photo buyers. The fact is, some of these are technically reprints.

I believe Legendary is acting irresponsibly and folks are going to get scrood.

I will admit to being a naive photo shopper (not going to be a buyer). From my limited understanding, photos carry value when they were printed from the original negative around the time the photo was taken. The same photo produced in 2004 would not have that value. As such, mixing both of these types of photos together is almost like them selling the baseball cards raw and mixing in reprints with the authentic ones and not saying which are which. Some are original and worth quite a bit, others were printed recently, and although the image on the front is the same, the value is quite different. As far as cards go, that is unthinkable, but it seems that's what they've done here for photos.

[HRBAKER]

Matt, that is why I think the safest approach is to assume that no one has any idea when any of them were printed for sure. Thus rendering "timeframes" tied to designations for categorization and pricing a substantial "reach" IMO. And I am a photo shopper and buyer.

[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...