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

[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.

[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

[prewarsports]

I bid on a bunch but only won a handful. Some of the ones I REALLY want are yet to finish though so we'll see what happens.

Rhys

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

I bid on a bunch but only won a handful. Some of the ones I REALLY want are yet to finish though so we'll see what happens.

Rhys

There are some incredible ones coming up;
a lot of historical shots outside of baseball I am really interested in seeing realized prices. It is fun to see the photo hobby grow and new guys get into it. These Yee auctions are fun to watch as it can go from zero to 60 in 1.0.

[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.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

Blown out of the water on several others:

Cool Jeff.. I have a soft spot in my heart for Maris. These color slides are beautiful. I bought some in Henry's last auction... love them.

[JoeyF1981]

Delete

[JoeyF1981]

delete

[Tigerden]

Love the photos keep 'em coming all. I am mostly a watcher of Henry's auctions and love looking at the many fantastic (and often iconic) images that I only wish I could afford. Collecting photos is not my main point of interest but I just had to have this portrait of a young Al Kaline. This is a color slide and I want to get a photo framed. I assume I can take this slide to a professional photographer who can print some images without damaging the slide? Any advice about how I should go about this would be much appreciated. I doubt dropping it off at the local CVS is the way to go. At any rate, I want a nice image but dont want to risk any damageto the slide. Please excuse my ignorance on the subject. Thanks. Adam

[HRBAKER]

Adam,

I have made many prints from color slides at Costco actually and never had a slide damaged.

Here are examples of a couple of prints that I have made there. These are 5x7s with a border and matte finish. I have never tried a real large print. I am not sure what kind of resolution you might lose.

[packs]

Joe D in 1937

[Tigerden]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

Adam,

I have made many prints from color slides at Costco actually and never had a slide damaged.

Here are examples of a couple of prints that I have made there. These are 5x7s with a border and matte finish. I have never tried a real large print. I am not sure what kind of resolution you might lose.

Jeff Thanks for the info. It really puts me at ease. I am glad you have never had any problems. I want to go with a 5 x 7 and also use the border matte finish. They look great. Adam

[Lordstan]

Finally.
So I was finally able to pull down one of Lou from Henry. I love the human shots.

Lou and his mom.

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

Adam,

I have made many prints from color slides at Costco actually and never had a slide damaged.

Here are examples of a couple of prints that I have made there. These are 5x7s with a border and matte finish. I have never tried a real large print. I am not sure what kind of resolution you might lose.

Jeff,
You shouldn't lose any detail enlarging from a slide transparency. Even though it's small, a transparency should be the same quality as a negative. If the picture itself is sharp, you be able to blown it up huge, like you would a film negative.
Great pic of Maris, BTW. I think he was under-appreciated.

Best,
Mark

[repsher]

I was only able to land a couple of cheap George Burke negatives of Mickey Cochrane and Early Wynn. If I had landed everything I bid on I'd probably be divorced by now.

Hey Lance - I'm just noticing now that I'm not seeing the usual Burke/Brace catalog markings on these negatives. What are your thoughts about that?

[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]

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by repsher

I was only able to land a couple of cheap George Burke negatives of Mickey Cochrane and Early Wynn. If I had landed everything I bid on I'd probably be divorced by now.

Hey Lance - I'm just noticing now that I'm not seeing the usual Burke/Brace catalog markings on these negatives. What are your thoughts about that?

Of the Burke negatives that I've handled, many had the file coding, but there were a good number that did not. The presence of the coding is a good indicator that the photo was shot by Burke or Brace, but the absence of it does not preclude it from being their work. My guess, and this is just a guess, would be that the negatives without coding weren't the ones he pulled for producing prints of those players when they were requested. If the negative got filed in that player's folder (or envelope, or whatever he used) and was never pulled out to make a print, no need to identify which folder it should be returned to. Again though, that's just conjecture.

[GKreindler]

Here's my one win thus far:



This is gonna make for one hell of a painting. Or MANY paintings, even.

Color me excited. These Newman negatives are absolutely incredible.

Graig

[horzverti]

That fantastic Phillies photo has your name written all over it. It was entrapment...you had to buy it!

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by GKreindler

Here's my one win thus far:



This is gonna make for one hell of a painting. Or MANY paintings, even.

Color me excited. These Newman negatives are absolutely incredible.

Graig

Graig,

Terrific photo! Who is on the mound for the Phillies?

[roarfrom34]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

Graig,

Terrific photo! Who is on the mound for the Phillies?

looks like Rick Wise; would be fun to do some investigative work to determine the actual date of the game

great photo!

[mr2686]

It could be Wise and that would make this photo from 1966 (the only year he wore number 28 before switching to 38).

[D. Bergin]

Love that scoreboard shot. Those Newman transparencies are pretty great.

Haven't scored any myself. Logged in a few snipes that didn't even register.

[nolemmings]

Beautiful game action Phillies negative, Graig.

The pitcher is Pedro Ramos, and this is from the first game of a doubleheader played May 10, 1967, won by the Braves 7-2. Ironically, Ramos had just come into the game in relief following Wise (who had pitched a perfect 7th in his only inning of work) and saw his first pitch taken deep by Joe Torre, Torre's second tater of the game (Hank hit one too). Strangely, three pitches had been thrown to Carty but the scoreboard still had not registered Torre's run.

Edited to change: the game was the nightcap (obviously) of the doubleheader

[billyb]

Scott and Graig,

Quick check out the scoreboard showed Braves were playing the Phillies(only NL team not mentioned) and roster of Braves lineup narrowed year to 1967. John Boozerand Pedro Ramos both wore #28 for Phillies in "67, and on May 10, 1967, White Sox beat the Orioles 13-1. So there is your date.

Billyb

Todd,
I see you beat me to the punch by a few minutes.....lol good job

[Scott Garner]

Todd and Billy,

Thanks for identifying Pedro Ramos as the pitcher on the mound. Great detective work, BTW...
It's a beauty!

[GKreindler]

GREAT detective work, guys! Thanks for putting so much effort into it. To be honest, I didn't even give it much thought, as I was just in love with the image. I figured that finding a date for it would just be an added bonus.

And entrapment or no, I'm gonna paint the sh*t out of it!

Bravo!

Graig

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by GKreindler

And entrapment or no, I'm gonna paint the sh*t out of it!

Graig

Sounds messy!

[Runscott]

Given that the thread had taken a 'negative' turn, I was grateful for Graig's 'transparency', but the posts have now gone to [censored].

I picked up what is supposedly a gone negative/slide scanner yesterday - looking forward to seeing what it does with stuff like this. Watch out, you acetate and glass collectors!

[pawpawdiv9]

i tried to get that 1950 joplin pre-rookie Mantle photo with psa/dna letter.
Placed what i thought was a good bid, no way i thought it go over 500, indeed fetch around 710. Whomever got it, it was a nice a Mantle addition
http://www.ebay.com/itm/RARE-1950-Vi...vip=true&rt=nc

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Given that the thread had taken a 'negative' turn, I was grateful for Graig's 'transparency', but the posts have now gone to [censored].

I picked up what is supposedly a gone negative/slide scanner yesterday - looking forward to seeing what it does with stuff like this. Watch out, you acetate and glass collectors!

Oh Scotty.. you witty. Two pickups now?? Holy smokes!

God bless teh poor man who buys and hangs this Dame on his wall... ooofta.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/ABSTRACT-Vin...item3a86b39f09

[billyb]

Ben,
Now I know the meaning of the term "ain't nothing like a dame".....thank God.

[HBroll]

Ruth Underwear Premium Photo

[Frozen in Time]

I 'm still not exactly sure why, but I have been absolutely floored by the quality and content of the Newman color slides in Henry's last two auctions. The man is a genius (well, both men are!).

Although I have a number of 35 mm transparencies and negatives, as many of you know, my main focus has been primarily on vintage Mantle photos. Well, in Henry's current auction, I finally decided to briefly reset my priorities and focus for once on some of the many 50's Newman color transparencies of the Mick.

Don't really know what I'll do with them (have no interest in making prints, etc.) but as historical color documentation of Mickey posed and in action at the stadium in the 50's along with Newman's influence on this paradigm shift in sports photography I think I made the right choice.

Here are two action shots from 1956: The first batting RH and the second an unusual fielding image at third base. I'll post my favorites next.

Craig

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by HBroll

Ruth

Nice Ruth!!

Here are my two:

1) Babe Ruth by Burke as a Brave(To go along with my Yankee and Dodger portrait).




2) 1925 Babe Ruth with the "bellyache heard around the world" I love this as it shows how diff it was back then; Babe severely ill yet allowed the media in and found time for the kids. Neither would happen today and this encapsulates what Ruth was to me. He was stricken by a VD while playing hard yet had the biggest heart when it came to kids.

I mean.. look at Ruth's face..haha! that kid sure looks proud though.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Frozen in Time

I 'm still not exactly sure why, but I have been absolutely floored by the quality and content of the Newman color slides in Henry's last two auctions. The man is a genius (well, both men are!).

Although I have a number of 35 mm transparencies and negatives, as many of you know, my main focus has been primarily on vintage Mantle photos. Well, in Henry's current auction, I finally decided to briefly reset my priorities and focus for once on some of the many 50's Newman color transparencies of the Mick.

Don't really know what I'll do with them (have no interest in making prints, etc.) but as historical color documentation of Mickey posed and in action at the stadium in the 50's along with Newman's influence on this paradigm shift in sports photography I think I made the right choice.

Here are two action shots from 1956: The first batting RH and the second an unusual fielding image at third base. I'll post my favorites next.

Craig

Craig,

I bid on these too but my bids didn't even register! I am pretty sure I know what teh other two are if they are slides.. I wanted both of them and again ..my bids didn't register. Nice going! Beautiful.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Frozen in Time

I 'm still not exactly sure why, but I have been absolutely floored by the quality and content of the Newman color slides in Henry's last two auctions. The man is a genius (well, both men are!).

Although I have a number of 35 mm transparencies and negatives, as many of you know, my main focus has been primarily on vintage Mantle photos. Well, in Henry's current auction, I finally decided to briefly reset my priorities and focus for once on some of the many 50's Newman color transparencies of the Mick.

Don't really know what I'll do with them (have no interest in making prints, etc.) but as historical color documentation of Mickey posed and in action at the stadium in the 50's along with Newman's influence on this paradigm shift in sports photography I think I made the right choice.

Here are two action shots from 1956: The first batting RH and the second an unusual fielding image at third base. I'll post my favorites next.

Craig

Craig,

I bid on these too but my bids didn't even register! I am pretty sure I know what teh other two are if they are slides.. I wanted both of them and again ..my bids didn't register. Nice going! Beautiful.

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Craig,

I bid on these too but my bids didn't even register! I am pretty sure I know what teh other two are if they are slides.. I wanted both of them and again ..my bids didn't register. Nice going! Beautiful.

Ben,

Thanks. I'm sure you know the other two which I'll post here in a minute. Love both Ruths, but the "bellyache heard around the world" is absolutely fantastic! Just a wonderful moment "frozen in time" and , as you point out, says a lot about the Babe.

I just could not help myself on these. Stunning is the only word I can think of.
Both from 1956.

Craig