|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Photographic Images: The Impact of Size on Desirability/Value
Posted By: Corey R. Shanus
A number of photographic images are known in various sizes. Joseph Halls and Kalamazoo Bats, to name two, were issued in various sizes. Joseph Halls, besides the typical cabinet size, were also issued as imperial cabinets and mammoth plates. Kalamazoo Bats, besides the standard card size, also exist as cabinets and imperial cabinets. For my tastes, all other considerations (i.e., condition, contrast, resolution) being equal, the larger the image, the more desirable and therefore (to me), the more valuable. Yet I am told by a number of respected collectors/dealers that because card and cabinet size, in contrast to imperial cabinet and mammoth plate, photographic images qualify as baseball cards, they have a greater market value than their larger counterparts. I'd be curious to know people's thoughts on this question. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Photographic Images: The Impact of Size on Desirability/Value
Posted By: ramram
My wife will swear that, given the choice, bigger is preferred. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Photographic Images: The Impact of Size on Desirability/Value
Posted By: scott brockelman
I am an avid collector of cabinet cards and imperial cabinets as well. These were much more expensive to produce and thus fewer survive. If you look at the field of Ambrotypes or daguerotypes, whole plates bring more than 1/2 plates which bring more than 1/4 plates, which bring more than 1/6y plates and so on, However the subject can make smaller images out price larger ones. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Photographic Images: The Impact of Size on Desirability/Value
Posted By: barrysloate
You already know my response. In every other photographic category, a mammoth plate image would be the most desirable form attainable. The one hobby group that has it backwards is the baseball card crowd. The slab outrules everything else; if you can get it in a slab, it is more valuable small than large. It flies in the face of logic, but unfortunately plastic rules. I would trade a CdV for a display image any day of the week (including Sundays). |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Photographic Images: The Impact of Size on Desirability/Value
Posted By: Clint
Corey, I'm more of a cabinet and postcard collector than a card collector so I may be biased. For me the bigger the photograph the better. The larger the photograph the rarer I've found. The smaller ones are more convenient to store and display but nothing beats a huge baseball cabinet. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Photographic Images: The Impact of Size on Desirability/Value
Posted By: Rhett Yeakley
Personally, I agree that with early photographic images the larger the better. However, the strict baseball card collectors are not prone thinking of this in the same way many of us do. They tend to want things that are as close to an "ideal baseball card" as possible. Whatever the ideal is determined to be (it is generally what one would envision in their mind as to what a baseball card should be.) For many of us growing up on Topps cards, something betweeen the size of a t206 and a 1952 Topps happens to be what one envisions when thinking of a baseball card. It is the same reason that many do not choose to collect items such as M101-1 Sporting News or National Copper Plate's, or even more particular are those that say Exhibits are not "true cards" because of their size (they really aren't that much bigger!). |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Photographic Images: The Impact of Size on Desirability/Value
Posted By: davidcycleback
For all areas of photography, the rule of thumb is that, with all other qualities equivalent, the larger the more expensive. It's true some baseball card collectors will bid up a CDV to $100,000 because it resembles a trading card while skipping the 20x20" version, but baseball card collectors don't always exhibit normal behavior. It's not unlike modern card collectors who pay $2,000 for a $200 cut signature if the cut signature is on a serial numbered Topps or Upper Deck insert card. I know autograph collectors get a kick of the prices paid for some of those cut signature cards. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Photographic Images: The Impact of Size on Desirability/Value
Posted By: Max Weder
The bigger the photo, the better. I especially like team panoramas. The two shown here are 1922 Seals and Vernon and the 1926 Toronto Maple Leafs with Carl Hubbell and Lionel Conacher. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Photographic Images: The Impact of Size on Desirability/Value
Posted By: davidcycleback
It should be noted that size is just one of many qualities that determines value. A 3x4" 1877 Boston Bostons photo will be much more expensive than a 11x14" 1985 Lou Pinella photo, even though the Bostons is smaller. But, as I noted earlier, all other things equivalent (size, subject, image quality, condition, fame of photographer, etc), the larger will be more expensive. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Photographic Images: The Impact of Size on Desirability/Value
Posted By: Joe_G.
The 19th century collector might have stronger feelings on this topic than those who collect later issues. 19th century items are all over the map from small E223s to the numerous different cabinet sized cards to the imperial beauties. I personally place more value on the larger items. The 19th century collector is usually dealing in actual photos as opposed to printed cards and all else equal (content, clarity, subject material), bigger is better. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Photographic Images: The Impact of Size on Desirability/Value
Posted By: Corey R. Shanus
Thanks for the responses. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Photographic Images: The Impact of Size on Desirability/Value
Posted By: Joe D.
even for the unknown player/team shots.... |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Photographic Images: The Impact of Size on Desirability/Value
Posted By: Dan Bretta
In my opinion this Mike Kelly Imperial cabinet has to be the king of all 19th century photographs. Any opinions on the price? Too high, too low or just about right? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Photographic Images: The Impact of Size on Desirability/Value
Posted By: Trevor Hocking
What a great question. I personal collect display items as well. I think why most larger photographic items are less expensive than there "card" counterparts is size. Most people don't have the wall space or want to give up the wall space for display items. Also it is a lot tougher to secure items on your wall from theft or your child's sticky fingered "friends". Also most people do not have the knowledge when it comes to photographic items to buy with full confidence. And finally they are so rare and hard to find they never come up for auction and when they do most people pass because of all the above. By the way SHHHH this is the only area in vintage baseball I can still find great bargains. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Photographic Images: The Impact of Size on Desirability/Value
Posted By: Max Weder
Trevor |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Photographic Images: The Impact of Size on Desirability/Value
Posted By: barrysloate
Dan- that Mike Kelly photo is owned by a member of this board. Perhaps he will come forward and tell you his thoughts about it. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Photographic Images: The Impact of Size on Desirability/Value
Posted By: Trevor Hocking
I am sure the Heilman is nice and safe under a sofa cushion some where. Hopefully in your house! |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Photographic Images: The Impact of Size on Desirability/Value
Posted By: Jay
I think it depends how you collect. I collect sets of cards, not display pieces. For me the card is worth more than a comparable larger photo, assuming I need the card. I, and the market, value a Four Base Hit of Kelly substantially above that large photo of Kelly(virtually the same pose) because one is a card and one isn't. Possibly not rational but a common view nonetheless. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Photographic Images: The Impact of Size on Desirability/Value
Posted By: Joe D.
so if you have a Real Photo Postcard of a certain image, would you assume it to be less valuable or more valuable than a larger photo that may not have been used for any commercial purpose? |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Photographic Images: The Impact of Size on Desirability/Value
Posted By: Trevor Hocking
That is exactly what I was trying to say Jay thank you. I think the large photo or print of any card issue (unless it has the same product endorsement) will sell for far less and the market has proven that many times over. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Photographic Images: The Impact of Size on Desirability/Value
Posted By: barrysloate
I don't think there is a precise rule of thumb to evaluate whether a small or large example of the same photograph would be worth more. When a card is part of a collected set, the card is probably worth more than its larger counterpart. If in another example both a cabinet and a mammoth plate of the same image is unique, with no affiliation to a product or a set, then the larger one is likely to be worth more. But there could be exceptions. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Photographic Images: The Impact of Size on Desirability/Value
Posted By: Jay
Barry--I think you are exactly right |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Photographic Images: The Impact of Size on Desirability/Value
Posted By: barrysloate
Jay- one of the more interesting examples would be the Kalamazoo Bats team card of Boston, which is known in three sizes- card, cabinet, and imperial cabinet. In that case, I think the middle size would be most valuable (even though the large format is much more striking). However, the known cabinets have great product advertising on the mount, further complicating the situation. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Photographic Images: The Impact of Size on Desirability/Value
Posted By: Corey R. Shanus
While what Barry says certainly on its surface makes a lot of sense, I'm just not sure how true it is. Take CDVs, for example. To my knowledge the great majority of known baseball CDVs are not part of any set. Yet, because they are slabbed and thereby perceived by many as baseball cards, they very well might sell for (considerably) more than a larger-size version of the same image. Take even the mammoth plate of the 1874 Boston team that Hunt auctions recently sold. I am aware of two cabinets of the same image and if I was a betting man, I would predict that they would sell for more than the mammoth plate. Yet I don't regard that cabinet as being part of any set. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Photographic Images: The Impact of Size on Desirability/Value
Posted By: barrysloate
If they start slabbing mammoth plates, the slab will weigh forty pounds! You will have to stay in good shape just to move them around your house |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Photographic Images: The Impact of Size on Desirability/Value
Posted By: Joe D.
the slab-ability of the item will affect the number of people interested in it.... which in turn gives it a higher value. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Photographic Images: The Impact of Size on Desirability/Value
Posted By: Dan Bretta
I suppose it's all in "presentation" and keeping some conformity to your collecting habits. I collect 19th century baseball cabinets and I prefer the samller 6-7" x 4" size cabinets over the larger sizes. OTOH if I had the means to obtain an imperial cabinet of the quality of the King Kelly one I pointed to earlier I would much rather have that one over the smaller sized one. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Photographic Images: The Impact of Size on Desirability/Value
Posted By: Bob
Max- I have a panoramic Cubs that needs to be framed and hanging on the den wall. I am assuming that you had your panoramics framed by a specialty shop, just out of curiosity what do these odd sized frames generally run you? |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Photographic Images: The Impact of Size on Desirability/Value
Posted By: Max Weder
Bob |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Photographic Images: The Impact of Size on Desirability/Value
Posted By: barrysloate
Max- That sounds high. I've had panoramas done with nice custom made frames for less than half that. I suppose there are different qualities out there. |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Photographic Images: The Impact of Size on Desirability/Value
Posted By: Dan Bretta
Bob, if you want to go the cheap route you can always look in antique shops/malls for framed panoramic photos that will work for your Cubs photo. I have three panoramic baseball photos, but they all still have their original period frames. I've picked up 3 or 4 non-baseball panoramic pictures in the last few years at auctions and garage sales just to have the frames handy in case I run across a baseball panorama that needs framing. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Photographic Images: The Impact of Size on Desirability/Value
Posted By: barrysloate
Excellent idea Dan. You probably bought those for next to nothing. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Photographic Images: The Impact of Size on Desirability/Value
Posted By: Corey R. Shanus
Dan got it right. Old photos look terrific in period frames and happily that can often also be a very cost effective way of framing. It is not uncommon to find at flea markets and antique shows basically worthless old photos in gorgeous period frames that can be purchased for reasonable prices. If you have the time, this can be a very fun and satisfying way of finding a frame for your item. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Photographic Images: The Impact of Size on Desirability/Value
Posted By: Bob
Max- Thanks for the answer. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Photographic Images: The Impact of Size on Desirability/Value
Posted By: Max Weder
Bob: |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
1912 Boston Red Sox Photographic Display | Archive | Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T | 0 | 09-30-2008 09:40 AM |
Impact of the Card | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 45 | 07-17-2007 02:17 PM |
a Wisconsin ballgame in 1912? : The Process of a Photographic Investigation | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 1 | 05-01-2007 09:20 PM |
Does The Auctioneer Impact The Price? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 14 | 12-09-2006 10:07 AM |
Photographic Foxing | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 1 | 08-19-2005 04:50 PM |