1951 Mickey Mantle TYPE 1 Photo Used to Create His 1952 TOPPS Card is now at 20K...

[perezfan]

As someone who only dabbles in vintage photos, I have a question (and please forgive my ignorance...)

How unlikely is it that others will now surface? With all of the Newspaper companies going belly-up, isn't there a decent chance that more of these will turn up? Aren't there likely more copies stashed away in the archives somewhere?

It's an epic photo, and I understand the importance... But it also seems risky to pay over $50K when we don't really know how many others exist. As an example, Ty Cobb Tobacco Tins were considered to be exceedingly rare (with less than 5 known to exist). They're still rare, but at least 3 - 4 new examples have surfaced, since that one was showered with publicity a couple of years ago.

Would it be out of the question for that to happen in this case?

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by perezfan

As someone who only dabbles in vintage photos, I have a question (and please forgive my ignorance...)

How unlikely is it that others will now surface? With all of the Newspaper companies going belly-up, isn't there a decent chance that more of these will turn up? Aren't there likely more copies stashed away in the archives somewhere?

It's an epic photo, and I understand the importance... But it also seems risky to pay over $50K when we don't really know how many others exist. As an example, Ty Cobb Tobacco Tins were considered to be exceedingly rare (with less than 5 known to exist). They're still rare, but at least 3 - 4 new examples have surfaced, since that one was showered with publicity a couple of years ago.

Would it be out of the question for that to happen in this case?

+1

This kind of money and attention will flush more out into the open.

[Splinte1941]

Originally Posted by perezfan

As someone who only dabbles in vintage photos, I have a question (and please forgive my ignorance...)

How unlikely is it that others will now surface? With all of the Newspaper companies going belly-up, isn't there a decent chance that more of these will turn up? Aren't there likely more copies stashed away in the archives somewhere?

It's an epic photo, and I understand the importance... But it also seems risky to pay over $50K when we don't really know how many others exist. As an example, Ty Cobb Tobacco Tins were considered to be exceedingly rare (with less than 5 known to exist). They're still rare, but at least 3 - 4 new examples have surfaced, since that one was showered with publicity a couple of years ago.

Would it be out of the question for that to happen in this case?

Great point Mark. I love the photo and have zero issue with what the final hammer will be, but whether it's worth the risk that another will pop up down the road is up to the bidders.

On an unrelated note Mark, you have a tremendous collection and you have it displayed very well. Can you tell me where you get those plastic holders for your flat stuff? They're like plate holders, stands, etc? I need a bunch and don't like what I've found so far. thanks.

[Rob D.]

A major daily newspaper I worked at in the mid 1990s had a great library of first-generation and wire photos from the turn of the century. My duties as a copy and layout editor for the Sports department had me pulling file photos on almost a daily basis. You would be shocked at the manilla folders 2, 3 and 4 inches thick dedicated to photos of Cobb, Ruth, Shoeless Joe, etc. Routinely there were multiple photos of the same pose, many in pristine condition. I spent a lot of time browsing those folders.

This was at a newspaper in the South that never had an association with Major League Baseball. I can only imagine what rests in the bowels of newspapers in big-league cities.

[Splinte1941]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

A major daily newspaper I worked at in the mid 1990s had a great library of first-generation and wire photos from the turn of the century. My duties as a copy and layout editor for the Sports department had me pulling file photos on almost a daily basis. You would be shocked at the manilla folders 2, 3 and 4 inches thick dedicated to photos of Cobb, Ruth, Shoeless Joe, etc. Routinely there were multiple photos of the same pose, many in pristine condition. I spent a lot of time browsing those folders.

This was at a newspaper in the South that never had an association with Major League Baseball. I can only imagine what rests in the bowels of newspapers in big-league cities.

Wow. And ouch.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

A major daily newspaper I worked at in the mid 1990s had a great library of first-generation and wire photos from the turn of the century. My duties as a copy and layout editor for the Sports department had me pulling file photos on almost a daily basis. You would be shocked at the manilla folders 2, 3 and 4 inches thick dedicated to photos of Cobb, Ruth, Shoeless Joe, etc. Routinely there were multiple photos of the same pose, many in pristine condition. I spent a lot of time browsing those folders.

This was at a newspaper in the South that never had an association with Major League Baseball. I can only imagine what rests in the bowels of newspapers in big-league cities.

I agree that it's possible that others exist, and a high-profile sale will be the quickest way to flush them out into the open if so. It never ceases to amaze me what scarce/rare items start pouring out of the closets once one sale takes place.

In this case though, the photo being a Type 1 will act as a sort of insulation since, by the time this print was produced, the wire photo process would have been in widespread use. While that doesn't guarantee that this is the only Type 1, it does increase the odds that if/when others do surface, they would be Type 3 wire photos. Even as I write that though, I do note that this photo surfaced was found in the archives of a regional paper (though it does not note which), so perhaps the smaller subscribers still weren't up to date on their technology even though the process had been around for over 15 years at that point? Regardless, my point still stands that for any given 1950's-era photo, the population of Type 3 wire photos is likely to be several times the population of Type 1 original prints of that same image. I can't help but wonder if the writer for Legendary was alluding to this when they said, "This likeness has never before been found in the form of a Type I original image." This makes me think it may have been found as a Type 3, but that is purely conjecture on my part.

Only time will tell as to whether this particular photo holds its value, but I still find the argument of "it's only a photo, I have one of another guy, so it can't be worth more than $50" to be as ludicrous as looking at a Wagner T206 and saying "it's only a baseball card, I have tons of those and used to stick them in my bike spokes so there's no way it's worth that much."

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

A major daily newspaper I worked at in the mid 1990s had a great library of first-generation and wire photos from the turn of the century. My duties as a copy and layout editor for the Sports department had me pulling file photos on almost a daily basis. You would be shocked at the manilla folders 2, 3 and 4 inches thick dedicated to photos of Cobb, Ruth, Shoeless Joe, etc. Routinely there were multiple photos of the same pose, many in pristine condition. I spent a lot of time browsing those folders.

This was at a newspaper in the South that never had an association with Major League Baseball. I can only imagine what rests in the bowels of newspapers in big-league cities.

To a lesser degree, this is probably true for many collectibles (excluding one-of-a-kind items, game used, contracts, awards, etc.) - there is always the possibility of a future "find". In my opinion, what makes photos an important exception is the current Roger's acquisition program which is unlikely to end soon and specifically targets prime sources with huge numbers of vintage photos.

The '51 Mantle image for the '52 Topps card was extensively used in newspaper articles across the country from 1951-53 and to a lesser degree from '53-'55. I have several of these and the captions (or image) are approximately 50-50 between wire photos and first generation. In addition, I have had the good fortune to acquire large photo collections from former sports photographers and sports journalists (and in one case from someone who happened upon a garbage bin outside a major publishing house and simply removed hundreds of photos that had been tossed out). I can confirm what Rob D. posted that even in this modest sampling "there were multiple photos of the same pose, many in pristine condition".

My best guess is that the number of Type 1 photos of the '52 Topps image that exist is probably around 10-15. This number could increase from magazine archives (which typically used multiple prints in the editorial and reference processes). How many of these sources will be a target of acquisition is obviously unknown deceasing the likelihood that any of these will ever surface. On the other hand, as someone has already mentioned, the publicity generated from this sale would likely increase the probability of other examples coming to the market.

As some on this forum know, my primary focus is on early (1949-1951) Type 1 Mantle photos. This is one of the only vintage news service photos of Mickey that I do not have (been looking for almost 25 years now) and, if I had unlimited resources it would be mine.

Finally, I would like to raise again a question that I asked in an earlier post on this thread - Does anyone know what the highest price to date (private or public) ever paid for a baseball photo is?

Thanks,

Craig

[GKreindler]

Hey Craig,

I'm definitely no authority on this, but I think the highest figure a single unsigned vintage photograph has reached may have been the almost-$90,000 for the ginormous Addie Joss benefit game panoramic from 1911. Here's a link to Heritage's 2005 auction:

http://sports.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleN...No=19707#Photo

I had forgotten about this one, even when the Joe Jackson Conlon photo hit its final number of $32,588 (and I think that was without the juice?).

They're definitely been a lot of other contenders for high figures, including that Horner Wagner photo from the Sotheby's auction. I feel like a LOT of the other five figure prices reached for photos have been for Conlons, be they Mastro's Ted Williams portrait or some of the shots of Gehrig's and Ruth's eye closeups. And, they're also those wonderful early 1920s Paul Thompson shots of Ruth, also from Mastro's collection, which I think ranged from 10k to 18k.

Granted, Jimmy, Ben, Lance and the others could probably chime in with better researched info...

Graig

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by GKreindler

Hey Craig,

I'm definitely no authority on this, but I think the highest figure a single unsigned vintage photograph has reached may have been the almost-$90,000 for the ginormous Addie Joss benefit game panoramic from 1911. Here's a link to Heritage's 2005 auction:

http://sports.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleN...No=19707#Photo

I had forgotten about this one, even when the Joe Jackson Conlon photo hit its final number of $32,588 (and I think that was without the juice?).

They're definitely been a lot of other contenders for high figures, including that Horner Wagner photo from the Sotheby's auction. I feel like a LOT of the other five figure prices reached for photos have been for Conlons, be they Mastro's Ted Williams portrait or some of the shots of Gehrig's and Ruth's eye closeups. And, they're also those wonderful early 1920s Paul Thompson shots of Ruth, also from Mastro's collection, which I think ranged from 10k to 18k.

Granted, Jimmy, Ben, Lance and the others could probably chime in with better researched info...

Graig

Thanks very much Graig. I had forgotten about the Addie Joss photo. I believe that the Wagner went for $25,000 and an oversized Ruth and Gehrig from Christie's auction of the Baseball Mag. archive was around $30,000. Gonna be interesting to see where the Mantle finally winds up!!!

Cheers,

Craig

PS Attached is what you asked about. Again, its an image from an auction that I won but does provide a much closer view of Mickey (muscle striations in the Popeye left forearm, '51 patch, ball big as life and Feller's facial expression ( really means business).


Hope you like!

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Frozen in Time

Thanks very much Graig. I had forgotten about the Addie Joss photo. I believe that the Wagner went for $25,000 and an oversized Ruth and Gehrig from Christie's auction of the Baseball Mag. archive was around $30,000. Gonna be interesting to see where the Mantle finally winds up!!!

Cheers,

Craig

PS Attached is what you asked about. Again, its an image from an auction that I won but does provide a much closer view of Mickey (muscle striations in the Popeye left forearm, '51 patch, ball big as life and Feller's facial expression ( really means business).


Hope you like!

Craig, I think there was a Mickey Mantle child photo(very small phoo booth with a cowboy hat on) that went in the 5 figs if memory serves me right(in lelands several years back. I cannot find it on the site though. Do you remember that one by chance?

Ben

[Hankphenom]

...and I'm sure John Rogers and others who have been looking into this have a pretty good idea of what might be out there, but it seems likely to me that the great majority of large archives of old photos have been long since consigned to the dumpster, meaning that the relatively few to have survived will produce a comparatively small enough number of truly top quality Type I prints to keep prices high in the future, especially given the increasing demand for them among collectors.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

...and I'm sure John Rogers and others who have been looking into this have a pretty good idea of what might be out there, but it seems likely to me that the great majority of large archives of old photos have been long since consigned to the dumpster, meaning that the relatively few to have survived will produce a comparatively small enough number of truly top quality Type I prints to keep prices high in the future, especially given the increasing demand for them among collectors.

I agree. I already thought about the value if other type 1's like this one being auctioned came out. Unless a large stack of them came out I don't think it's price gets hurt. I can sort of relate it to cards. I paid a ton (relatively speaking) for the T207 Red Cross Weaver I have. When I nabbed it there were only approximately 5 T207 Red Crosses known. A couple of years ago there were approximately 5-6 more that came out. My guess, and this is only a guess, is that those new ones to the hobby didn't affect the value of the card I have...and there is a chance they even increased it's value with more awareness.

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

... but it seems likely to me that the great majority of large archives of old photos have been long since consigned to the dumpster ...

I disagree. The mind-set of many people who work at newspapers is that not only do they help to report the news (and history), they help preserve it for future generations. Unlike baseball team front-office types who see no value in old player contracts that collectors would love to own, newspaper people realize that dumping an archive of photos is in effect throwing away history. For the most part, I would say the importance is realized, and steps are taken to try to preserve rather than destroy.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

I disagree. The mind-set of many people who work at newspapers is that not only do they help to report the news (and history), they help preserve it for future generations. Unlike baseball team front-office types who see no value in old player contracts that collectors would love to own, newspaper people realize that dumping an archive of photos is in effect throwing away history. For the most part, I would say the importance is realized, and steps are taken to try to preserve rather than destroy.

The only first-hand knowledge I have is of my hometown, Washington, DC, papers. At one time, there were four major dailies, and none of their photo archives have survived. Even the survivor, The Washington Post, has only a thin file of vintage photos remaining. The rest were purged long ago.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

I disagree. The mind-set of many people who work at newspapers is that not only do they help to report the news (and history), they help preserve it for future generations. Unlike baseball team front-office types who see no value in old player contracts that collectors would love to own, newspaper people realize that dumping an archive of photos is in effect throwing away history. For the most part, I would say the importance is realized, and steps are taken to try to preserve rather than destroy.

That really varies from one paper to the next, and nowadays more than ever, the finances of the paper can have a big effect. In many cases, I would wager that the only reason the paper still maintains an archive of decades-old photos is that they are kept in-house in a building that is already paid for in a space (basement) that is not in-demand for their day-to-day operation since they certainly aren't growing in terms space needed for their staff. It's simply easier to leave them where they are, and on the off chance that they need a photo of an old-time ballplayer to run, they don't have to pay the AP or Getty Images or whoever for it. If the paper is going under, consigning the old photo files to the dumpster (or whatever staff wants to cart them off) is still a very real possibility.

That is one of the biggest reasons that I think John Rogers has been so successful in prying these photo archives away from the various publications. Not only does he negotiate the purchase of the physical photos, but also returns to the paper a digital archive of the images so that they will still have those available for further publication. Most of the papers he has worked with see it as a win-win-win: they free up the space of the physical archives, they get the images in a more readily-usable form, and most importantly, they get an infusion of cash.

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

...and I'm sure John Rogers and others who have been looking into this have a pretty good idea of what might be out there, but it seems likely to me that the great majority of large archives of old photos have been long since consigned to the dumpster, meaning that the relatively few to have survived will produce a comparatively small enough number of truly top quality Type I prints to keep prices high in the future, especially given the increasing demand for them among collectors.

Hank,

This is a very good point and I agree. One caveat (as indicated by the apparent source of this photo) is the enormous number of smaller, regional papers that have probably not gone the digitization route and may well still have archives of hard copies - as well as the possibility of collections of local sports writers that may have been passed down to family members but are just lying around somewhere.

Having considered yours and other excellent related points recently posted, I have changed my opinion slightly and now believe that we may only ever see
one or two Type 1's of this image in comparable condition in a future public auction.

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by Frozen in Time

One caveat (as indicated by the apparent source of this photo) is the enormous number of smaller, regional papers that have probably not gone the digitization route and may well still have archives of hard copies - as well as the possibility of collections of local sports writers that may have been passed down to family members but are just lying around somewhere.

More food for thought: The paper I currently work at, which is one of the largest in the state, has used a digital library for photo retrieval for at least the past 15 years. Some of the hard copies of photos, which haven't been digitally archived, are still on site. The remainder are housed in an off-site facility. As far as I know, management has no plans destroy this massive photo archive.

I know that two papers I previously worked at -- one a midsize and the other a large paper -- are doing the same thing.