Show Your Henry Yee Winnings

[Runscott]

No, it's not a typo.

I'm really curious what forum members went after, given the wide variety of stuff that ended last night - especially the vintage Yankees photos;e.g-the 'Murderers Row'.

Last night I made my first Hyee purchase in over ten years, but it was esoteric and would be of no interest to anyone here. But please show your stuff, as I am stuck waiting by the door for a golf bag to arrive, and almost bored enough to read a book.

Ben, please do not gloat.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Runscott

No, it's not a typo.

Scott, I'm laughing out loud right now, because my first thought when I saw you were the author of the post was, "This has to be some kind of joke, right?" I for one am curious as to what photo you picked up, esoteric or otherwise.

I finally picked up something from Henry last night, probably the only piece that was of interest to me AND in my price range right now. Plenty of pieces of interest that went well beyond my price range though, often by multiples. My list of pre-set snipes that never went off is laughable to look at in comparison to the final prices.

This one is a shot of Burleigh Grimes with the Louisville Colonels in 1936. Original negative from the Burke/Brace archive. I probably would have bid the same regardless of who the subject was as I've been on the hunt for an original American Association negative from the Burke era for research purposes, but it being a HOFer that wound up being affordable was a nice bonus.

[bobfreedman]

I loved the Ruth composite not only is it historic but it is a Type I in my mind because of it being a composite (IMHO, the type classification system fails here in accurately describing what the photo is).

The Ford was a good buy because it was used for his 54 Topps card

I paid more than I wanted to on the Jackie but I like the image

I liked that I got the Gibson as I will not be able to afford a type I anytime soon and you just do not see many photos of him Type II or not

I was surprised at a few of the winning bids in particular the Ruth Bowing out Photo.

[JoeyF1981]

I was outbid by $20 on the murderer's row photo..lol

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by bobfreedman

I loved the Ruth composite not only is it historic but it is a Type I in my mind because of it being a composite (IMHO, the type classification system fails here in accurately describing what the photo is).

How, exactly, does the Type system fail here Bob? I just don't get this at all.
It is just a classification system. You have a very rare Type 3 within that system. What is wrong with that or the system? This way of thinking makes no sense to me. Clearly the market showed it was rare bringing 4 figures. NEVER should this be considered a type 1 as A) it is created in 1919 when Ruth was getting huge recognition(using a rookie 1915 photo) B) created off dupe neg. Nothing failed, it is just that you have an better understanding(or not) of the system and know what is important to you. If you are happy with rare TYPE 3 paying less than rare TYPE 1s.. that is great!
I could kick this dead horse all day long. This is a perfect example, though, of why there is a need for the type system(separation btwn photos). The original image of this Ruth was taken/developed in 1915(as a rookie) with his teammates(TYPE 1). One brought over 12k in REA twice. Yours, though rare, was developed later(after he broke records) and made off a dupe neg(not the quality/clarity). How could you ever consider these two photos equal? If you do, that is great.. you will get a lot of great photos for “great prices”.
I will say, however, that yours is very cool as it shows the two players side by side and is a historical "work of art"(dare I say) in composing them together. That is where the high value(1200 plus) came into play and rightfully so...worth every penny IMO.

I also find value in early type 3 composites. As you may or may not recall, I purchased a 1915 Rookie Ruth portrait/composite made from dupe negs put together. It is really rare but I would much rather have the type 1 of Ruth that sold in heritage for 10k made off the original negative. I would, however, rather have my photo than a type 2 created in say..1927. Many may not agree as a type 2 prob has better clarity off the original neg(like a type 1). But then again, if the dupe was done poorly.. I might reconsider. It all depends which makes it fun! There is one constant for me though....I LIKE EARLY/OLD/ as close to the date when the lensman snapped that photo as possible. The image clarity is also very important to me. Hence, TYPE 1 is king to me within the TYPE classification system.

That being said, you clearly have GREAT taste in photos which everyone can see. I love the Jackie! KILLER KILLER JACKIE. And I LOVE the negro league players together. Congrats Bob!

Scotty.. I am very proud of you my friend. You all grows up! haha! just funning! That is a great photo for a pool room!

Lance, I love when you buy things for research purposes. We all benefit!!



MY 1915 ROOKIE TYPE 3 Which I am very happy with for the price:




TYPE 3 1919 off dupe neg in Henry's auction


TYPE 1 1915 off original neg

[Lordstan]

Does it count to be the underbidder in 5 auctions?
Yesterday was a big Zip Zero Zilch Nada for me.
Here's hoping tonight goes better.

How's this for a silver lining....
The only good thing about not winning anything in Henry's auction is that I'll have more money for Rhys' next auction.

Very nice stuff everyone.
Bob,
I really love that Jackie pic. Just a great image. Congrats.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by lordstan

how's this for a silver lining....
The only good thing about not winning anything in henry's auction is that i'll have more money for rhys' next auction.

everybody wins!! Haha

[bobfreedman]

[QUOTE=Forever Young;1203071]How, exactly, does the Type system fail here Bob? I just don't get this at all.
It is just a classification system. You have a very rare Type 3 within that system. What is wrong with that or the system? This way of thinking makes no sense to me. Clearly the market showed it was rare bringing 4 figures. NEVER should this be considered a type 1 as A) it is created in 1919 when Ruth was getting huge recognition(using a rookie 1915 photo) B) created off dupe neg. Nothing failed, it is just that you have an better understanding(or not) of the system and know what is important to you. If you are happy with rare TYPE 3 paying less than rare TYPE 1s.. that is great!
I could kick this dead horse all day long. This is a perfect example, though, of why there is a need for the type system(separation btwn photos). The original image of this Ruth was taken/developed in 1915(as a rookie) with his teammates(TYPE 1). One brought over 12k in REA twice. Yours, though rare, was developed later(after he broke records) and made off a dupe neg(not the quality/clarity). How could you ever consider these two photos equal? If you do, that is great.. you will get a lot of great photos for “great prices”.
I will say, however, that yours is very cool as it shows the two players side by side and is a historical "work of art"(dare I say) in composing them together. That is where the high value(1200 plus) came into play and rightfully so...worth every penny IMO.

I also find value in early type 3 composites. As you may or may not recall, I purchased a 1915 Rookie Ruth portrait/composite made from dupe negs put together. It is really rare but I would much rather have the type 1 of Ruth that sold in heritage for 10k made off the original negative. I would, however, rather have my photo than a type 2 created in say..1927. Many may not agree as a type 2 prob has better clarity off the original neg(like a type 1). But then again, if the dupe was done poorly.. I might reconsider. It all depends which makes it fun! There is one constant for me though....I LIKE EARLY/OLD/ as close to the date when the lensman snapped that photo as possible. The image clarity is also very important to me. Hence, TYPE 1 is king to me within the TYPE classification system.

That being said, you clearly have GREAT taste in photos which everyone can see. I love the Jackie! KILLER KILLER JACKIE. And I LOVE the negro league players together. Congrats Bob!



Ben, I understand where you are coming from but, I think it fails in what some peoples perceptions of what is valuable and what is not. The perception is that for a photo to be valuable it needs to be a type I, that may or may not be your perception (I think it is safe to say it is not for you) but I think that is the mainstream thinking. This photo is obviously not worth 10's of thousands of dollars like your originals but, I do believe it has far greater value than the what the piece was sold for just my opinion and I don't think we need to debate this.

[HRBAKER]

Blown out of the water on several others:

[Forever Young]

[QUOTE=bobfreedman;1203145]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

How, exactly, does the Type system fail here Bob? I just don't get this at all.
It is just a classification system. You have a very rare Type 3 within that system. What is wrong with that or the system? This way of thinking makes no sense to me. Clearly the market showed it was rare bringing 4 figures. NEVER should this be considered a type 1 as A) it is created in 1919 when Ruth was getting huge recognition(using a rookie 1915 photo) B) created off dupe neg. Nothing failed, it is just that you have an better understanding(or not) of the system and know what is important to you. If you are happy with rare TYPE 3 paying less than rare TYPE 1s.. that is great!
I could kick this dead horse all day long. This is a perfect example, though, of why there is a need for the type system(separation btwn photos). The original image of this Ruth was taken/developed in 1915(as a rookie) with his teammates(TYPE 1). One brought over 12k in REA twice. Yours, though rare, was developed later(after he broke records) and made off a dupe neg(not the quality/clarity). How could you ever consider these two photos equal? If you do, that is great.. you will get a lot of great photos for “great prices”.
I will say, however, that yours is very cool as it shows the two players side by side and is a historical "work of art"(dare I say) in composing them together. That is where the high value(1200 plus) came into play and rightfully so...worth every penny IMO.

I also find value in early type 3 composites. As you may or may not recall, I purchased a 1915 Rookie Ruth portrait/composite made from dupe negs put together. It is really rare but I would much rather have the type 1 of Ruth that sold in heritage for 10k made off the original negative. I would, however, rather have my photo than a type 2 created in say..1927. Many may not agree as a type 2 prob has better clarity off the original neg(like a type 1). But then again, if the dupe was done poorly.. I might reconsider. It all depends which makes it fun! There is one constant for me though....I LIKE EARLY/OLD/ as close to the date when the lensman snapped that photo as possible. The image clarity is also very important to me. Hence, TYPE 1 is king to me within the TYPE classification system.

That being said, you clearly have GREAT taste in photos which everyone can see. I love the Jackie! KILLER KILLER JACKIE. And I LOVE the negro league players together. Congrats Bob!



Ben, I understand where you are coming from but, I think it fails in what some peoples perceptions of what is valuable and what is not. The perception is that for a photo to be valuable it needs to be a type I, that may or may not be your perception (I think it is safe to say it is not for you) but I think that is the mainstream thinking. This photo is obviously not worth 10's of thousands of dollars like your originals but, I do believe it has far greater value than the what the piece was sold for just my opinion and I don't think we need to debate this.

Fair enough Bob. I do think your photo is a wonderful one at a nice price.
Because you feel ike it went low, has nothing to do with a flaw in the type system(makes zero sense to me-I just do not understand this thought process) IMO.
It is up to the buying public to determine what a photo is worth. Henry's description indicated exactly what this photo was. The psa slap clearly says the year(1919) it was created.
The collecting public(make no mistake..more HIGH END baseball photo guys are following this auction than any other photo auction out there) thought was worth less than you did. If one other person valued it as you do(and had the money-key), it would have went way higher obviously.
Heck, it happens to me on just about every photo I win so I do know the feeling haha!
You got a great photo and a price you are happy with which is fantastic! It is truly historical and a great pickup! It is a Type 3 example worth a lot of money and the market clearly agreed. I am with you in that there are some great buys on old, period Type 3 photos just like there is on Type 1 and Type 2s.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Scott, I'm laughing out loud right now, because my first thought when I saw you were the author of the post was, "This has to be some kind of joke, right?" I for one am curious as to what photo you picked up, esoteric or otherwise.

Okay, you caught me - I posted partially because I knew it would make Ben snort his coffee.

I got the Willie Hoppe photo. I have so many classic photos of him that this one needed to be added.

[bobfreedman]

Henry did not mention that next to Ruth is Cobb in his civilian clothes because he was late to the HOF ceremonies - can you imagine?

[HRBAKER]

[GKreindler]

Jeff, you won some KILLER shots. That Cepeda portrait is a real beaut. Congrats!

Graig

[JoeyF1981]

[JoeyF1981]