New Photographic Collectible Coming Online

[Imago]

The reason for this post is the unveiling of a new baseball photographic collectible. These photographs and their transmitted copies were called “Laserphotos.” These Original Prototype photographs were not included in the catalog where the naming of Type 1 and Type 2, etc. became a standard. I have been saving examples of these Type 1 photos for some 30 years, without any way of presenting them or proving what they are. 



So what are they?

Do you remember the usually crappy wire photos which showed the printed caption next to the image - all on one sheet? They were produced mostly by the Associated Press as WIREPHOTOS and by United Press International as LASERPHOTOS. From each Prototype hundreds of copies were made and sent to newspaper subscribers around North America. (see attachment One) Yet there is only ONE source photo - the Prototype - from which came all the copies sent to newspaper subscribers. Laserphotos were in use from the mid-1940s through the 1990s.



The Prototype photo (usually 8x10) is the original print with the original typed label pasted on it. Most are blank-backed.

Though I knew these photos to be valuable, there was no way to convince others of their importance. I had to PROVE what they are, and this was impossible - until recently. 



After a number of attempts, I convinced PSA to slab these photos for me - and the encapsulations have proved what they are. The label reads Type 1, “ONE of a KIND.” (see attachments TWO and THREE)
Some are in B&W and some are in color.


If anyone is holding photos of this type, keep hold of them. They may soon become a healthy addition to the baseball photo market. 
I will present more on this subject sometime soon. Any information or discussion will be welcome. 


[doug.goodman]

Laughable on various levels.

Does your opinion seller of choice get a cut of the potential (alleged?) value?

Doug

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

Laughable on various levels.

Does your opinion seller of choice get a cut of the potential (alleged?) value?

Doug

LOL. Thanks Doug. Badly needed chuckle.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

LOL. Thanks Doug. Badly needed chuckle.

That's what I'm here for...

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

That's what I'm here for...

The baloney sanwich I had for lunch is also a confirmed 1 of 1.

Accepting offers for the half I didn't eat.

[D. Bergin]

I'm having a hard time digesting how PSA was convinced into adding the "One of a Kind" designation at the bottom of those flips.

[GoCubsGo32]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

LOL. Thanks Doug. Badly needed chuckle.

+1

[steve B]

I'm not seeing how the B+W one can be type 1.
Unless it's a pasteup that doesn't show in the scan, adding the caption would be done with a copy negative.

The color one, The caption looks added, but the registration bars don't. So either a copy negative, or a digital print.

[Lucas00]

Let's say this is true and not speculation. People still don't want a giant caption on their photo. It looks like crap to say the least. I would take a type 3 soundphoto with no caption on the front any day over these.
Also 80s and 90s photos are definitely not the best examples to use. I'd like to see type 1 clarity on these alleged type 1 "prototypes" on photos from the 40s or 50s.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

Let's say this is true and not speculation. People still don't want a giant caption on their photo. It looks like crap to say the least. I would take a type 3 soundphoto with no caption on the front any day over these.
Also 80s and 90s photos are definitely not the best examples to use. I'd like to see type 1 clarity on these alleged type 1 "prototypes" on photos from the 40s or 50s.

It's type 1
It's original
It's authentic
It's one of a kind

It's all right there on the pretty opinion seller's label.

What more do you need, just send him your wallet, he'll return it with your change.

Doug

[Imago]

This mockery sounds very familiar. It may be just what I want to hear.
This is what I have received at each stage of my collecting career.

In the 1980s when I began buying baseball memorabilia from antique dealers - they mocked. They laughed and told me what a fool I was. "No one wants this stuff." I said — keep laughing and bring the stuff to me.

Then in the 1990s I began buying baseball photos by the box load, as newspapers sold off their morgues. Again I heard how stupid I was. Even sports auction leaders claimed that no one would want old photographs - they are not cards. Mock on, I said, as I turned photographic prints, which I paid $2 or $3 dollars for into Thousands. It can be quite profitable to be a fool !

So - watch and wait. It’s another opportunity to be mocked - or another opportunity to take advantage of.

[Snapolit1]

Just curious. . . if you've been at the vanguard of baseball memorabilia collecting for more than 4 decades, what happened last week that caused you to finally join the world's largest and most influential Internet board dedicated to collecting vintage baseball cards and memorabilia?

Originally Posted by Imago

This mockery sounds very familiar. It may be just what I want to hear.
This is what I have received at each stage of my collecting career.

In the 1980s when I began buying baseball memorabilia from antique dealers - they mocked. They laughed and told me what a fool I was. "No one wants this stuff." I said — keep laughing and bring the stuff to me.

Then in the 1990s I began buying baseball photos by the box load, as newspapers sold off their morgues. Again I heard how stupid I was. Even sports auction leaders claimed that no one would want old photographs - they are not cards. Mock on, I said, as I turned photographic prints, which I paid $2 or $3 dollars for into Thousands. It can be quite profitable to be a fool !

So - watch and wait. It’s another opportunity to be mocked - or another opportunity to take advantage of.

[SAllen2556]

Ok, I mis-read the original post. The op is claiming he has the original photo that was sent over the wire that other newspapers received in crappy paper format.

Ok, why is that so worthless? They are type 1 photos. I have many of these original photos because my dad worked at the Detroit Free Press as a photographer. The photographer took the shot, it was developed and possibly used in the paper or possibly sent over the wire if was maybe a playoff game or something worthy of national attention.

The reporter wrote the blurb, and off it went over the wire to other papers. I have a couple Michael Jordan photos from this time period because the Bulls and Pistons played in the playoffs every year. I don't think the Jordan photos are worthless. They're from 1989-90 and color 8 x 10s. I even have a few with the reporter's original writing for the caption that was later attached.

The clarity of the photos was not always the greatest on these because newspaper photographers were using 35 mm film and blowing them up to 8 x 10. Old wire photos were from 4 x 5 negatives.

The photos he showed are one of a kind because they're the original photo that was created by a specific newspaper and then sent over the wire. I don't understand why they would be less valuable than other type 1 photos.

Edited to add: Color photography was just in the beginning stages for newspapers in the late 80's, and the process to put a color photo on page 1 of a newspaper was a pretty complicated process.

[Swadewade51]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

Ok, I mis-read the original post. The op is claiming he has the original photo that was sent over the wire that other newspapers received in crappy paper format.

Ok, why is that so worthless? They are type 1 photos. I have many of these original photos because my dad worked at the Detroit Free Press as a photographer. The photographer took the shot, it was developed and possibly used in the paper or possibly sent over the wire if was maybe a playoff game or something worthy of national attention.

The reporter wrote the blurb, and off it went over the wire to other papers. I have a couple Michael Jordan photos from this time period because the Bulls and Pistons played in the playoffs every year. I don't think the Jordan photos are worthless. They're from 1989-90 and color 8 x 10s. I even have a few with the reporter's original writing for the caption that was later attached.

The clarity of the photos was not always the greatest on these because newspaper photographers were using 35 mm film and blowing them up to 8 x 10. Old wire photos were from 4 x 5 negatives.

The photos he showed are one of a kind because they're the original photo that was created by a specific newspaper and then sent over the wire. I don't understand why they would be less valuable than other type 1 photos.

The caption blasted on the front is pretty unappealing but that's just my opinion. Same holds true for any wire photos with the caption attached to the front.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

Ok, I mis-read the original post. The op is claiming he has the original photo that was sent over the wire that other newspapers received in crappy paper format.

Ok, why is that so worthless? They are type 1 photos. I have many of these original photos because my dad worked at the Detroit Free Press as a photographer. The photographer took the shot, it was developed and possibly used in the paper or possibly sent over the wire if was maybe a playoff game or something worthy of national attention.

The reporter wrote the blurb, and off it went over the wire to other papers. I have a couple Michael Jordan photos from this time period because the Bulls and Pistons played in the playoffs every year. I don't think the Jordan photos are worthless. They're from 1989-90 and color 8 x 10s. I even have a few with the reporter's original writing for the caption that was later attached.

The clarity of the photos was not always the greatest on these because newspaper photographers were using 35 mm film and blowing them up to 8 x 10. Old wire photos were from 4 x 5 negatives.

The photos he showed are one of a kind because they're the original photo that was created by a specific newspaper and then sent over the wire. I don't understand why they would be less valuable than other type 1 photos.

Edited to add: Color photography was just in the beginning stages for newspapers in the late 80's, and the process to put a color photo on page 1 of a newspaper was a pretty complicated process.

Good post

[Republicaninmass]

I'm thinking of having my next sub labeled

"One of a kind collection"

[Bicem]

Agreed with Ben, don't understand at all why the animosity/mockery.

Great original photos.

[midmo]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Just curious. . . if you've been at the vanguard of baseball memorabilia collecting for more than 4 decades, what happened last week that caused you to finally join the world's largest and most influential Internet board dedicated to collecting vintage baseball cards and memorabilia?

To be fair I know people with very deep vintage collections that are not on here.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Imago

This mockery sounds very familiar. It may be just what I want to hear.

I enjoy mocking those who deserve it.

Turning a little money into a lot of money doesn't mean I won't mock, it just gives me more opportunities to mock. You can make a billion dollars selling these things with their fancy little labels and slabs, I will still think they are a cause for mockery, just as I mock every successive owner of the Wagner I posted earlier. Worth millions? Evidently. Mock-able? Abso-f**king-lutely.

Just because you got an opinion seller to give you an opinion does not make that opinion valid to me.

Just because the two of you are attempting to push :

It's type 1
It's original
It's authentic
It's one of a kind

Down our throats does not mean I believe it is all (or any) of those things.

I believe there is a chance that you made it, which would then make it three of those things.

Hitting pause on my mocking for a moment, I have four individual questions for you, each very similar so I will pose them as one question :

Regarding the Alomar item : how do you, or the opinion seller, know that it is each of those things? Type 1. Original. Authentic. One of a kind.

Answer those questions and I will potentially stop my mocking of you and anybody else who thinks these things are, as you say, a "New Photographic Collectible".

Doug "but probably not" Goodman



PS - look at all the weird stuff that I collect, I am as mock-able as anybody on this site

[EddieP]

Educational purposes only ( I AM NOT TAKING A SIDE ON THIS TOPIC): people who collect photos of the photojournalism type put a premium on the ones with the caption underneath because it means the photo was “ Newsworthy” and it was used in publication. So if you enter a shop that sells only photos and NOT involved in sports memorobilia and if he is pricing a non-captioned photo higher than a captioned one, then you know he is ripping you off and you should be able to negotiate a lesser price. The opposite is true in sports memorobilia.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by EddieP

Educational purposes only ( I AM NOT TAKING A SIDE ON THIS TOPIC)

So you won't tell us if you are for or against mocking?

Insert smiley face here.

[EddieP]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

So you won't tell us if you are for or against mocking?

Insert smiley face here.

First of all, it’s nice to know PSA is recognizing this type of photo genre. Which is a plus considering they ( PSA) do not recognize photo/rotogravures.

However( and I’m not mocking the OP), he’ll really have an uphill battle in selling this. People who collect photos will pay a 1/100 of what a sports memorabilia collector would. Because of the aesthetics and skepticism, a sports memorabilia collector will not pay top dollar. And those who are willing to buy it , will only buy at very steep discounts.

Again, not mocking, to the OP, I wish you luck.

[SAllen2556]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

I enjoy mocking those who deserve it.

Turning a little money into a lot of money doesn't mean I won't mock, it just gives me more opportunities to mock. You can make a billion dollars selling these things with their fancy little labels and slabs, I will still think they are a cause for mockery, just as I mock every successive owner of the Wagner I posted earlier. Worth millions? Evidently. Mock-able? Abso-f**king-lutely.

Just because you got an opinion seller to give you an opinion does not make that opinion valid to me.

Just because the two of you are attempting to push :

It's type 1
It's original
It's authentic
It's one of a kind

Down our throats does not mean I believe it is all (or any) of those things.

I believe there is a chance that you made it, which would then make it three of those things.

Hitting pause on my mocking for a moment, I have four individual questions for you, each very similar so I will pose them as one question :

Regarding the Alomar item : how do you, or the opinion seller, know that it is each of those things? Type 1. Original. Authentic. One of a kind.

Answer those questions and I will potentially stop my mocking of you and anybody else who thinks these things are, as you say, a "New Photographic Collectible".

Doug "but probably not" Goodman



PS - look at all the weird stuff that I collect, I am as mock-able as anybody on this site

I would agree that absolutely proving it's type 1, authentic, and one of a kind may be impossible. I suppose the best way would be to find the wire photo version of his original Alomar photo and match it up. I also think, like an autograph of, say, Buddy Bell, why forge it to begin with? It isn't worth $5, in my opinion, so what would be the point? And we all know practically any collectible can be faked.

If I understand correctly, what he's pushing is that he has the original wire photo before it was sent out. The one actually created by the specific newspaper that sent it out. I think, if it's a cool enough photo, there might be some added value there. Personally, I think the ones he showed are basically worthless. But if it's a Jordan photo? I think it might get more than the duplicated press photo would get, similar to having the original painting of one that was used to create a limited edition print run.

I have hundreds of press photos from the late 70's to the early 90's. I put them in 4 binders, displayed them at a garage sale and asked $1 apiece. I sold......two.

People collect barbed wire. To each his own.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Imago

........... I had to PROVE what they are, and this was impossible - until recently. 



After a number of attempts, I convinced PSA to slab these photos for me - and the encapsulations have proved what they are. The label reads Type 1, “ONE of a KIND.” (see attachments TWO and THREE)
Some are in B&W and some are in color.


...........Any information or discussion will be welcome. 


A PSA label on an encapsulated item proves NOTHING about what the item truly is.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

A PSA label on an encapsulated item proves NOTHING about what the item truly is.

Agreed.

He proved it to the people who graded this card, I am asking him to prove it to us.

Doug

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

A PSA label on an encapsulated item proves NOTHING about what the item truly is.

Agreed as well.

[Snapolit1]

I guess we will see what the market thinks. I can't see getting excited about these but maybe it will turn into the next NFT craze.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

I guess we will see what the market thinks. I can't see getting excited about these but maybe it will turn into the next NFT craze.

I think they are kind of cool and are a physical thing, much unlike NFTs.
.

[ooo-ribay]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

I guess we will see what the market thinks. I can't see getting excited about these but maybe it will turn into the next NFT craze.

Isn’t the NFT craze over with?

I think it ended while I was cataloguing my Beanie Babies.

[Swadewade51]

Aesthetically speaking (since this is a visual art medium), at worst it's a "type 1" with a second hand caption pasted on the front, PSA is duped and labels it whatever OP is trying say is one of a kind. At best its a "type 1" with a caption pasted on the front of it with bragging rights yours was the source photo.

Eh.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[D. Bergin]

I suppose every "Type 1" press photo with a caption on the back, is also a "One Of A Kind", "Proof", for whatever newspaper used it as a source photo for that days publication.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

I suppose every "Type 1" press photo with a caption on the back, is also a "One Of A Kind", "Proof", for whatever newspaper used it as a source photo for that days publication.

And everything that the opinion seller entombs in a slab is the only one entombed in THAT slab, so it's definitely "one of a kind" too!