1951 Topps Mickey Mantle Type 1 photo for '52 Topps- the story

[Splinte1941]

Originally Posted by Frozen in Time

My guess is that CORBIS owns the original negative but that still doesn't explain John's statement.

What's the original negative worth?? I'll take that please.

And the question still remains if the photo in Legendary is THE photo used by the Topps artist, which is impossible to know I guess.

[yanks12025]

My thinking is, considering he's the consignor couldn't you just say that there's an unlikely chance of more being found but at the same time you own several but arn't saying so to drive the market price up?

[Splinte1941]

Originally Posted by yanks12025

My thinking is, considering he's the consignor couldn't you just say that there's an unlikely chance of more being found but at the same time you own several but arn't saying so to drive the market price up?

As a businessman, you'd have to be pretty stupid to say you had more than one if that were the case.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Splinte1941

As a businessman, you'd have to be pretty stupid to say you had more than one if that were the case.

When I spoke with John (hi John) today he made it very clear this is the only one he has seen, knows about, or has heard about.

[Splinte1941]

Originally Posted by Leon

When I spoke with John (hi John) today he made it very clear this is the only one he has seen, knows about, or has heard about.

Just to be clear, I was in no way accusing John of anything. He's a hero to photo collectors.

[yanks12025]

Originally Posted by Splinte1941

Just to be clear, I was in no way accusing John of anything. He's a hero to photo collectors.

Me either, was just saying that someone could do that to make more $$.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Splinte1941

What's the original negative worth?? I'll take that please.

Oddly enough, I would wager that the original negative would sell for less than a nice Type I print, in this or most any other case. At least, that has been my experience when dealing with negatives, as counter-intuitive as that may seem (others may feel free to quote instances that prove my limited experience wrong though). My guess as to the reason why would be that, as they sit, negatives just aren't fun to look at. Most collectors would feel the need to either locate a vintage print as a companion piece or have a modern print made from the negative and then file the negative away while they view the print.

[Splinte1941]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Oddly enough, I would wager that the original negative would sell for less than a nice Type I print, in this or most any other case. At least, that has been my experience when dealing with negatives, as counter-intuitive as that may seem (others may feel free to quote instances that prove my limited experience wrong though). My guess as to the reason why would be that, as they sit, negatives just aren't fun to look at. Most collectors would feel the need to either locate a vintage print as a companion piece or have a modern print made from the negative and then file the negative away while they view the print.

I wasn't inferring that it would sell for more than the Type 1, I was really asking what it would sell for in relation to the price we're seeing now. What about the negative where a Type 1 can't be found?

[GKreindler]

...and for whatever it's worth, AP Images also sells the rights to this Mantle image, which from what I can tell, are in conjunction from Corbis/Bettman. Also, Photofile does sell modern prints of it as well, and I'm pretty sure most of their licensing deals come through Getty.

So, if nothing else, know that Corbis, Getty and AP all have some stake with this image. Which of the companies that have the actual negative (or a high-res scan from the negative), I do not know.

I could certainly try to find out if anyone's interested, though I imagine I wouldn't get any response until sometime tomorrow...

Graig

[glynparson]

how else can one individual look at 95% of 52 million photos. His words not mine.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by glynparson

how else can one individual look at 95% of 52 million photos. His words not mine.

Maybe when he said "he" he meant himself and his 70+ workers that help him?

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by glynparson

how else can one individual look at 95% of 52 million photos. His words not mine.

He also specifically mentioned pulling the Mantle file at every location he went to (which I'm sure he also did with other HOF players). Also remember that the 52 million or whatever total he's up to now (I'm sure it's increased since he wrote that) includes not just sports images, but also planes, trains, architecture, political, celebrity, social event, and every other kind of image you can think of. I think it would be a safe assumption that he's seen most if not all of the baseball images (as that's his personal area of interest, from what I've gathered) and probably most of the sports images, but I doubt he took the time to peruse the "butter queen" and "mule day parade" folders that would be included in those millions of images. It would make sense to me that he would pull and personally inspect the files most likely to contain primo shots, and trust his staff to dig through the others and bring anything of interest to his attention without him having to touch every single photograph.

[glynparson]

I think It is not possible to look at that many images and know whats there. It sounds like pure hyperbole to me. I dont think you realize how much 52 million images is. Also isnt this the same guy said he owned 2 wagners when Dave already bought the 5mc from him and Jeff called him out? or is that another photo guy? Sounds like the typical hobby hype to me. Cool image and I agree it has extreme value I just dont think it needs the puffery.

[drc]

Negatives are rarer, but, to me at least, they're not terribly attractive to look at. Does no good to hang it on the wall. Also, they're production items, where the AP photo is the final product-- the figurative final painting on canvas. The original 1952 Topps printing plate with Mantle would probably sell for much less than a high grade 52T Mantle card.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by drc

Negatives are rarer, but, to me at least, they're not terribly attractive to look at. Does no good to hang it on the wall. Also, they're production items, where the AP photo is the final product-- the figurative final painting on canvas. The original 1952 Topps printing plate with Mantle would probably sell for much less than a high grade 52T Mantle card.

Agreed.