[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.