Recent Henry Yee eBay auction questions

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by obcbeatle

Which leads me to a question ... does the Cycleback book(s) or Fogel/Yee book cover slides, negatives and transparencies?

The Fogel/Yee book has a brief section on the various photographic processes and mentions transparencies, slides (which are transparencies mounted in a cardboard frame), and negatives, though usually only circumstantially as it discusses the prints produced from them. If I remember correctly, some of David's writings go into a little more detail, as far as how they are produced, but I can't recall offhand if that material is online or in one of his books (or both).

If you're talking about identifying who/where/when an image came from by looking at the negative or transparency, I don't recall ever seeing much on that. Some photographers will make notations directly on the image, some along the edge of the negative, and some even stamp a logo onto the negative so that it shows on the printed image. In most cases that I've seen though, it's either blatantly obvious (as in a signature or stamped logo), or impossible (as in simple block lettering identifying the subject) to tell who the photographer was based only on markings on the negative.

The one exception that comes to mind is George Burke, who used a very specific file coding with his negatives that referred to a combination of league, team, and player codes to give some organization to his files. In that case, you can match up the coding to the catalog listings of his player photos to either determine who the player is (if you know it's a Burke photo) or if it is actually a Burke photo (if the player depicted matches the catalog coding for that player). Other photographers may have done something similar that I am not aware of, but their coding would have been a different "system," and I don't recall ever reading it being addressed anywhere.

I've read a few websites and blogs aimed more at photographers or people researching family histories that had a usable tip here and there, but nothing comprehensive dealing with dating or identifying negatives or transparencies that I can recall (though I would welcome such a resource if anyone else knows of one).

[billyb]

Originally Posted by obcbeatle

Thanks for sharing this link. Lots of good information like the names of the most common U.S. news and photo services, ACME, etc. In conjunction with the YouTube video about the wire services that Lance shared I've learned a lot. If fact, I bought my first wire photo and a negative last night on eBay. Can't wait till they arrive! Which leads me to a question ... does the Cycleback book(s) or Fogel/Yee book cover slides, negatives and transparencies? The transparencies and negatives in the last Yee auction really caught my eye. There were some color SF Giants slide transparencies that I bid way too low on that were beautiful (Mays/Cepeda ...). I lived in SF from 1965-1971 and saw Mays, McCovey et al at "The Stick" many times. So when I saw those slides and remembered I had a slide projector I did a quick bid on a few of those Yee slides. Anyway ... I was just wondering if the Cycleback and Fogel/Yee books covered that type of film format? I've been Googling today to find out about how to deal with negatives and slides these days (digital scanning, etc.) because I also got out some of my old family photo's and found some negatives. So my interest is piqued :-) Thanks again for sharing. This board/thread is full of a lot of expertise!

OCB,
What a great educational thread you started. Any newby into Sports photography collecting can read your thread and obtain a boat load of information. Good job, and thank you.

Billyb

[obcbeatle]

Originally Posted by billyb

OCB,
What a great educational thread you started. Any newby into Sports photography collecting can read your thread and obtain a boat load of information. Good job, and thank you.

Billyb

Thanks Billyb ... I'm sure learning a lot from this thread too. So nice to have people willing to share their thoughts on a part of the hobby that I'm not as familiar with as collecting baseball cards. I think collecting old sports (and maybe movie/music star) photo's will be a new hobby of mine. The thing I find most fascinating is the quantity and variation of photographs between 1900 and the early 1960's (my main era of interest) that are available. Kind of intimidating really. But there are so many beautiful photographs, poses, etc. ... many of which I've never seen before ... and many I didn't even know existed because I was so implanted in the world of baseball cards. Anyway ... this sort of leads me to another question I forgot to ask in my last post ... are there any other photograph auctions like Henry Yee's (eBay or otherwise) that I should keep an eye out for in the future? I know Henry Yee has another one coming up this summer. Thanks again to everyone for their feedback!

[billyb]

Originally Posted by obcbeatle

Thanks Billyb ... I'm sure learning a lot from this thread too. So nice to have people willing to share their thoughts on a part of the hobby that I'm not as familiar with as collecting baseball cards. I think collecting old sports (and maybe movie/music star) photo's will be a new hobby of mine. The thing I find most fascinating is the quantity and variation of photographs between 1900 and the early 1960's (my main era of interest) that are available. Kind of intimidating really. But there are so many beautiful photographs, poses, etc. ... many of which I've never seen before ... and many I didn't even know existed because I was so implanted in the world of baseball cards. Anyway ... this sort of leads me to another question I forgot to ask in my last post ... are there any other photograph auctions like Henry Yee's (eBay or otherwise) that I should keep an eye out for in the future? I know Henry Yee has another one coming up this summer. Thanks again to everyone for their feedback!

I wish I could help you, but I am new into this also. But I do want to say that I seen a post someone put into another thread. He stated photos were like the new '52 Topps.
That statement hit home. When the '52 Topps came out, they sold very well, but if we would have known then what we know now, we would have bought up every 52 topps we could find.
The vintage photos, say pre 1960, they are out there now, but before long, they will become harder to find. I missed out on the 52 Topps, and Microsoft stock in my lifetime. These vintage photos may not be quite up to that level of collectability or value............or will they?

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by billyb

I wish I could help you, but I am new into this also. But I do want to say that I seen a post someone put into another thread. He stated photos were like the new '52 Topps.
That statement hit home. When the '52 Topps came out, they sold very well, but if we would have known then what we know now, we would have bought up every 52 topps we could find.
The vintage photos, say pre 1960, they are out there now, but before long, they will become harder to find. I missed out on the 52 Topps, and Microsoft stock in my lifetime. These vintage photos may not be quite up to that level of collectability or value............or will they?

They may be like 1952 Topps... but perhaps '52 Topps in the year 1995. In other words, the current day is to Vintage Photography as the year 1995 was to 1952 Topps.

Still lots of room to grow, but already well developed and on many collectors' radar. In this Memorabilia Forum alone, over a third of the threads appear to involve some aspect of vintage photography. And vintage photos are normally included in all of the major Catalogue Auctions. Rare photos with good subject matter have been realizing huge prices for quite a while. I've actually seen a bit of a plateau in prices realized lately.

Plenty of helium remains in the balloon, but it was actually "inflated" a few years back. Henry, Marshall, David et al have done a brilliant job enabling it to reach it's current heights. It's a great and fascinating segment of the hobby

[billyb]

PerezFan,
Big difference, and that is knowledge. In 1952, no one had any idea that cards were be of such value. They were put into rubber bands, bicycle spokes and thrown flipped against walls. We now know of what potential value they could be.
The now vintage 1995 cards are being saved in large numbers. The vintage photo, many have been destroyed or lost already (like the 52 Topps).
What is for sale the most now, Vintage photos or '52 Topps cards?
Answer is vintage photos, but as these photos end up in collections, they will start to disappear.
I know comparing photos to cards is not really a good comparison, but I cannot think of a better comparison at this time.

[perezfan]

Baseball Cards from 1995 are (and may always be) relatively worthless.

If you re-read it, I was actually saying that vintage photos are collected and appreciated today, as 1952 Topps cards were collected around the 1995 era. Values had already accelerated significantly by that time, but the bell curve had started to kick in.

It was about the chronology, and had nothing to do with what was being produced in 1995. Doesn't matter... not worth expounding on.

[billyb]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Baseball Cards from 1995 are (and may always be) relatively worthless.

If you re-read it, I was actually saying that vintage photos are collected and appreciated today, as 1952 Topps cards were collected around the 1995 era. Values had already accelerated significantly by that time, but the bell curve had started to kick in.

It was about the chronology, and had nothing to do with what was being produced in 1995. Doesn't matter... not worth expounding on.

I apologize as I rewrote my answer and forgot to put in that I agree that photos have hit a plain at this time. And as I read your post again, I did misread your response. My mistake.

So lets backup, we agree that photos have hit a ceiling for now, but value will rise. Do you agree that the sales of the vintage photos will slow down in years to come? Thus, buy now while the buying is good.

[perezfan]

"So lets backup, we agree that photos have hit a ceiling for now, but value will rise. Do you agree that the sales of the vintage photos will slow down in years to come?"


That's a great question, and I believe you'd get a pretty wide array of answers to that question here. A lot ultimately depends on the future economy, and peoples' levels of disposable income.

But I think the main driver (over the long haul) is determining just how rare these photos are. As an example... prior to ebay, Stanford Pottery Figures and Bobble Heads were realizing very high prices. But since the advent of ebay (and other on-line venues) it became evident that these figures were not as rare as once believed. The available supply was better able to satisfy the demand, so prices subsequently came down.

As the Newspapers continue to go belly-up, it remains to be seen how many of these archives will surface and become available to the public. So while there is an ever-increasing collector base (and interest at an all-time high), there may also be a greater supply to satisfy collectors. I personally believe that the older the photo, the more it will appreciate. Just my opinion...

Lots of variables, so I'm not sure anyone can provide a definitive answer to the "future value" question

[billyb]

PeerezFan,
I understand. There are more photos coming out, I know that. It is just that certain photos, which there are only a few copies from negatives, which make them so appealing.
I posted a Photo of Babe Ruth's swing earlier, there may be only a few of that photo, but how many different variations are there of that swing. A lot.
But I posted another photo of Ruth giving himself an eye wash. How many different variations are there of that photo. My guess is none.
Even though the Ruth Swing would be of greater value, the more rarer photo is the eye wash. This is what makes this photo collecting so appealing. And the different photos, I hope, will help to make, photos values, keep rising.
I know, I know, content is one of the keys to buying photos, but I can't help being drawn to the special interest photos. One of my Ruth favorites does not even have him in the photo. But it depicts how the youth of America endeared him. That is what is appealing to me.

Attachment 101690