Net54baseball.com Forums

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)
-   Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   1915 Ruth Red Sox Pitching Staff Photo (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=246006)

Snapolit1 10-10-2017 10:41 PM

1915 Ruth Red Sox Pitching Staff Photo
 
Am I the only one who thinks this 1915 Ruth photo in the last RMY auction auction was a good grab for the price? Asking for a friend...

https://rmyauctions.com/bids/bidplace?itemid=28605

http://insider.si.edu/2012/04/babe-r...pitchers-1915/

Rhys had it as Type 1 timing but not off the original negative.

Bicem 10-10-2017 10:57 PM

1920 stamp but a well known 1915 image. Because of PSA standards won't get a type one letter. Plus obviously significantly cut down.

That said, was still a pretty good deal in my opinion.

Shoeless Moe 10-11-2017 12:11 AM

I dissent, seems like an awfully strong price for size 3 x 7 (muy poquito) and not considered a Type 1.

prewarsports 10-11-2017 12:32 AM

The Underwood stamp on the back is known to have existed in 1918 and possibly earlier and is well known in 1919 so it is a 1915 photo with a back stamp from c. 1918. You are correct though, by the PSA standards this would not get a Type 1 designation as it is clearly off a duplicate negative. I think the biggest room for upward mobility in the photo industry is in images like this. People act like "Type 1" is synonymous with "original" and "Type 3" is similar to an autograph failing authentication, but that is just not the case. This is just as "original" as any other Ruth Red Sox image as far as the vintage goes. If E121 cards are going to go for 20k because he is pictured with the Red Sox on the card, its hard to argue this was not a good deal! I would take this over many of the other Ruth items I see selling at auction for bigger prices all day long.

drcy 10-11-2017 12:53 AM

I think collectors give too much of value premium on a photo merely because it's a 'rookie year' photo. Just my opinion.

Honestly, I think it's a pretty marginal photo, and people value it highly just because it's an early Ruth.

Bicem 10-11-2017 01:51 AM

I'd argue rookie photos are underpriced compared to rookie cards. Especially in Ruth's case where his rc is a 1916 issue.

drcy 10-11-2017 01:57 AM

I was expressing my personal sentiments. Clearly, many bidders disagree.

Bicem 10-11-2017 02:23 AM

Well stop being wrong David. ;)

drcy 10-11-2017 02:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bicem (Post 1709231)
Well stop being wrong David. ;)

Considering my favorite Stooge is Shemp, I've been an outlier before.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_eg5MBDlGIc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Snapolit1 10-11-2017 07:39 AM

Collecting can sometimes be all about enforcing your rules (and others) and making them the be all and end all. That’s cool. But sometimes the rules are a little nuts.

To use the example Rhys uses in his classification rules, if Conlon took a great Ruth and ran back to his darkroom to develop it it’s a Type 1. But if he prints that Type 1 and notices one of Ruth’s teammates in the background picking his nose, he then takes that dude out of the picture and takes a new picture off the print. Destroying the original. The copy is printed one hour after the original and he signs off on that. The photo is now somehow a $5000 photo and not a $75000 one. Seems pretty arbitrary to me.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:40 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.